Posted on 07/23/2004 1:48:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Most agree that the modern creation movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood, the classic work on flood geology. God has marvelously blessed in succeeding decades, and now there are scores of creationist organizations worldwide, with books and videos and seminars and websites multiplying rapidly. Not only has creation information become widely available, but the face of science has swung dramatically toward creation positions (i.e., recognition of the lack of transitional fossils, the acceptance of catastrophism in geology, etc.).
[Snip]
ICR remains distinct from other creation groups in its graduate-degree programs and staff of research scientists researching and gathering information made available to all the groups. Sometimes I wonder what could be accomplished if we had access to the huge government grants available to our evolutionary colleagues at universities, but we're winning without these grants.
The rather new Intelligent Design (ID) movement has also emerged, and has been quite effective in demonstrating the exquisite design in living things, quite beyond the ability of natural processes to produce, and the religious, naturalist underpinnings of evolution. Their membership spans a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from evolutionists, to New Agers, to Bible-believing Christians. As a tactical strategy, ID has chosen to be scrupulously secular in their presentation.
While ICR applauds the work of ID, sells their materials, and supports their efforts, we cannot join them. As a Christian, Bible-based organization, our goals are different. [Snip]
[Note: the article is copyrighted, so I've excerpted some portions.]
Some Creationists love science because it makes naturalism so foolish. Naturalists have to invent stories to explain the unexplainable. Dust from space just jells together and forms life. Hmmm. They can't explain it but they have faith that one day they will.
Wow! This makes everyone who believes in God a creationist - even the theistic evolutionist….
creationism
n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Hitler denied evolution and embraced ‘the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis’? I thought only liberals tried to rewrite history Pat?
Wow. You can't argue against his point, so you rail on a non-sequitur tangent.
Hey, try this one in the old Irony Meter – “I don’t know” about many things but I do know and am conscious of the fact that life, the universe, and everything – is due to mindlessness.
Hi Dimensio,
I can argue his points but I was focusing on the larger topic of the irrationality of Naturalism. Specifically, related to this site is the political dimension. I don't believe there is a basis for a conservative philosophy and a belief in Naturalism. Well, I would go even further and say that Naturalism is irrational. The constitution can only be a dynamic document based on the majority during a specific time in history. The notion of honesty and truth is of no relevance other than to keep order. Also, morality can only be transient and rights are only defined by the majority. Who can say that abortion of the aged or those under 18 is wrong? It just depends on what society says at a given time. How can we be critical of any "terrorist"? How can you say that the terrorists that crashed into the towers are evil? It is just their perspective against yours with no weight given more to another. In essence you are only left with a sappy liberalism. So why are you a Naturalist?
Hey, I can start a new thread and call it “The Liberal Among Us – Freeper 'PatrickHenry' Rewrites History – Hitler is a Creationist!
Troll?
(crickets chirping…)
Well done.
I would say there is a philosophical disconnect for those who hold to Naturalism and are conservative (see previous post). So if the conservative philosophy is correct then perhaps a Naturalistic view of Science is incorrect!
Perhaps we should not bind science to a strict naturalistic view that does not even allow the possibility that God may exist. Perhaps we should require science to be more agnostic. We should hold the view that we don't know if God exists and allow science to investigate cases where we assume God does exist. What would it hurt if we assumed the initial conditions and boundary conditions of the universe were constrained by God in a specific fashion. Maybe these results will give better explanations for what we see today.
I'm sure there's room for a "Christian Luddite Party" in the political spectrum. If you don't like folks that may not share your religious views, but still want limited government, why don't you go and found said party.
"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."
-George W. Bush
G.W. Bush is an awesome leader and the finest president we have had in 16 years. However, he is not an authority on science. We might call your post an appeal to improper authority which, if I remember correctly, is a logical fallacy.
What do you call this logical fallacy?
I'm sure there's room for a "Christian Luddite Party" in the political spectrum. If you don't like folks that may not share your religious views, but still want limited government, why don't you go and found said party.
I wasn't using that sentence to support an argument. I was merely stating an opinion viz the fellow who thought including people wanting a smaller government in the Republican Party was a recipe for the destruction of America. One of these days you will understand the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.