Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Am I A Metaphysical Bigot?
International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ^ | February 15, 2005 | Clifford Sosis

Posted on 07/16/2007 12:59:52 PM PDT by dan1123

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: blowfish

>> 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.


21 posted on 07/16/2007 3:04:25 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
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?
22 posted on 07/16/2007 3:16:59 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

read later


23 posted on 07/16/2007 3:17:23 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blowfish; dan1123

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.


24 posted on 07/16/2007 3:35:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

25 posted on 07/16/2007 3:55:14 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Is that some kind of joke?

We're supposed to think so.

26 posted on 07/16/2007 4:03:40 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
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?

27 posted on 07/16/2007 4:13:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

28 posted on 07/16/2007 4:38:57 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
(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.
29 posted on 07/16/2007 4:52:24 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.
30 posted on 07/16/2007 5:06:32 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
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.

31 posted on 07/16/2007 5:18:15 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.
32 posted on 07/16/2007 5:37:50 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

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.


33 posted on 07/16/2007 5:53:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson