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.
I have told you many times before that you can feel free to add “special” to any instance where I type “creationism”. Special creationism is not synonymous with Christianity. Rejection of it is not synonymous with rejecting God. Piety is not measured on a sliding scale of just how whacked out your cosmology is, otherwise our resident geocentric creationists have you all beat!!! Lol!!!
“Creationism meanwhile is a dead end that leads nowhere and to nothing - to no further knowledge or discovery - it is useless.”
Spirited: Creation ex nihilo dead? No, it’s the other way around. It’s materialistic Universal Evolutionism that is the dead end since it is unable to account for the origin of life:
“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)
Abiogenesis is a dead end and so desperate are evolutionists on this score that Richard Dawkins recently moved ever so quietly in the direction of panspermia——which merely moves the problem out into deep space.
No, evolution has nothing to do with true empirical science as the respected traditionalist metaphysician Rene Guenon (1886-1951) reveals in his brilliant critical analysis of Theosophy and Spiritism entitled, “The Spiritist Fallacy.”
Guenon writes that in early Theosophist and spiritist (mediums/channelers) circles use of the word ‘progress’ or ‘progressivist’ preceded the use of the word ‘evolution.’ The roots of Theosophy, hence of evolution, stretch back to the ancient Upanishads of India and to ancient Greece, and in its modern version, progress and/or evolution-—depending on whether it is Darwinian or Teilhardian-— describes either the progress (transmigration) of life or spirit as it inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings over the course of thousands or even millions and billions of years.
Eventually the word evolution became preferred, especially by empirical realists and dialectical materialists like Karl Marx because it had a more ‘scientific’ allure:
“This kind of ‘verbalism’...provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking...” wrote Guenon. (ibid, p. 231)
Speaking of verbalism, the embrace of Darwinism by dialectical materialists was a sham:
“Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145)
As if all of this isn’t bad enough, in July 2008, sixteen evolutionary scientists came together at an invitation-only symposium in Altenburg, Austria to discuss their concerns with the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today and widely accepted by progressive liberals, secular humanists, Marxists, transhumanists, secular politicians, academicians, seminarians, and evolutionary theologians.
The Altenburg symposium is the centerpiece of evolutionist Suzan Mazur’s book, “The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.” Mazur’s book also looks at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover “the elusive process of evolution.” (Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution,’ reviewed by Walter J. ReMine, Creation Ministries International)
Mazur’s book openly acknowledges the problems surrounding evolution and natural selection (determinism) and documents these concerns with statements from leading evolutionary scientists:
“A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20).
“Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ … ”
“In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.”
“Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species—the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, a brand foisted on us 150 years ago.”
“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations.” (p. v)
“Basically I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.” (Jerry Fodor, p. 34).
Mazur not only calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas but tells us why it happens:
“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers” (Mazur, p. ix).
“The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. … this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs” (Mazur, p. 104).
I thought the complaint was that it doesn't deal with the origin of life.