Am I A Metaphysical Bigot?

International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ^ | February 15, 2005 | Clifford Sosis

[dan1123]

>> Who are the “non-biblical” creationists?

The narrow YEC line is a small subset of creationists that I believe metmom was referring to. There are other interpretations of Genesis 1 that don’t require solar days before there was a sun.

[dan1123]

The science of metaphysics was completely developed and resolved about 1780.

Is that some kind of joke? Wasn't metaphysics classified as "not science" since the Enlightenment?

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[metmom]

It’s the literalist part and you know it.

Evos would have a lot harder time ridiculing and mocking creationists who are old earth creationists or not *Bible literalists* in an attempt to disparage their views.

Besides, taking the creation account literally, which some do, does not equate with taking the whole Bible literally, which I don’t know of anybody who does. It’s intellectually dishonest to make that conjecture.

There are other religions who have creation accounts, but you knew that, too.

[Caesar Soze]

Evos would have a lot harder time ridiculing and mocking creationists who are old earth creationists or not *Bible literalists* in an attempt to disparage their views.

That's because OECs for the most part hold to the scientific consensus concerning the history of the Earth. They don't try to rewrite public school curricula to reflect a demonstrably false pseudo-history. (And Genesis 1-2 is a pseudo-history; it was adapted from Egyptian creation myths in order to disparage the Egyptian gods and elevate Yahweh.)

Most OECs believe in evolution, so there's no reason for "evos" to mock them. On the other hand, YECs can sometimes be quite vicious to the OECs. Friends like these, I guess.

[RightWhale]

Is that some kind of joke?

We're supposed to think so.

[metmom]

They don't try to rewrite public school curricula to reflect a demonstrably false pseudo-history.

OK, demonstrate it.

Never mind that the public school system did just fine for decades before the Scopes trial anyway, when the Bible and creation account were taught. We can't have someone breaking the stranglehold the secularists have on public education, now can we?

[tacticalogic]

OK, demonstrate it.

Never mind that the public school system did just fine for decades before the Scopes trial anyway, when the Bible and creation account were taught. We can't have someone breaking the stranglehold the secularists have on public education, now can we?

1920 the currently accepted (and taught) geological theories dated the Earth at around 200-250 million years. Old earth theories based on geological evidence that conflicted with YEC doctrines had been around and generally accepted for at least 100 years before that.

[dan1123]

(And Genesis 1-2 is a pseudo-history; it was adapted from Egyptian creation myths in order to disparage the Egyptian gods and elevate Yahweh.)

It is possible that the creation account in the Bible addresses the pagan Egyptian gods, just as the Exodus account addresses them. Just as Baal and other pagan gods are addressed later in the Bible. That does not mean that the primary purpose of Genesis was an adaptation of one-upmanship among myth creators. Your link doesn't even support this claim.

[dan1123]

1920 the currently accepted (and taught) geological theories dated the Earth at around 200-250 million years. Old earth theories based on geological evidence that conflicted with YEC doctrines had been around and generally accepted for at least 100 years before that.

Yes, and in the 1920s they also thought that the milky way galaxy was all there is to the universe, and more importantly Harlen Bretz's proposal about the Channeled Scablands was rejected on account of it being too much like a Biblical flood. Geology was married to the idea of uniformitarianism at the time.

[tacticalogic]

Yes, and in the 1920s they also thought that the milky way galaxy was all there is to the universe, and more importantly Harlen Bretz's proposal about the Channeled Scablands was rejected on account of it being too much like a Biblical flood. Geology was married to the idea of uniformitarianism at the time.

It seems, then that it was considerably removed from a literal Biblical interpretaion by then, based on theories that predate evolutionary theory by several decades.

[dan1123]

It seems, then that it was considerably removed from a literal Biblical interpretaion by then, based on theories that predate evolutionary theory by several decades.

Um, the 1920s were considerably after the publication of Origin of Species in 1859. Plus there is a naturalist philosophical push even before Darwin published, due to the changing political nature of the early 1800s.

[tacticalogic]

The point was in response to arguments that before Scopes, natural history based on the Biblical account of Creation was taught in public schools, as if Darwin and ToE was solely responsible for “secularizing” science in the classroom.