Replies

“Creationism meanwhile is a dead end that leads nowhere and to nothing - to no further knowledge or discovery - it is useless.”

Which is to say that Christianity is a dead end, and useless (see the fallacy of The Smuggled Concept, or its close relation The Stolen Concept, otherwise known as the Hijacked Concept).

Since you seem to believe that you’re entitled to select what you chose to definitively call “Creationism” and what you chose to exclude, then you should have no objection if others do the same with any word of their choosing, like, oh say . . . “Evolution,” citing eminent scientists, obviously friendly to the Theory of Evolution and widely acclaimed throughout the world as unchallenged experts on science, to provide us with a definition by virtue of its “popular use”: scientists such as William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, who, in a 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life, declared that “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.” He then went on to enumerate them; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent; or Daniel Dennett, Tufts philosopher and professor of evolutionary biology and cognitive science, who has stated in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea that Darwinian evolution is “a universal acid” that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs.

Many prominent scientists have chosen to express similar sentiments and to declare value judgments, religious pronouncements, cultural conclusions and philosophical opinions grounded in Science generally, and Evolution specifically, among whom we can count, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan (now consigned to a self-imposed oblivion), Marc Hauser, Victor Stenger, and Steven Weinberg, and a whole host of other Atheist, Agnostic, or Science sycophants, who, only under the most severe of intellectual stressful urgency, will admit that Science doesn’t do religion.

From just this little we can begin to construct a definition of Evolution:
Evolution, noun, a scientific theory dealing with the origin of life, which serves as a universal acid that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs, and establishes that 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

Earlier, in #129, you claim Christians believe that; “Geology isn’t science,” “Astronomy isn’t science,” “Paleontology isn’t science,” “Physics isn’t science,” “Science isn’t science,” “But Creationism and Intelligent design IS science,” and you follow up with the smirky remark “Amusing!”

To which my reply:
Astronomy isn’t religion or philosophy;
Paleontology isn’t religion or philosophy;
Physics isn’t religion or philosophy;
Science isn’t religion or philosophy;
But Creationism IS!
Amusing.
What's amusing? That “Scientists” should believe Evolution, or Science generally, can lead Mankind to the knowledge most indispensable to the continuance of Human life

And, Intelligent Design, arising out of the Judeo-Christian Creationist belief, is a theory and must be defended scientifically only to the extent that it is put forth as a scientific theory.

Beep to others, who might have an interest in the topic . . . they’re at it again.