Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Christian, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas
I use the word Creationist because that is the word that its adherents use to describe themselves. They have, in effect “co opted” the word for their own; just as liberals have.
My philosophy is quite liberal (liberty loving) but when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.
The purpose of words is to convey meaning. You were apparently unclear for whatever reason what meaning I was ascribing to “creationists” and I clarified that I (and nearly everyone else who uses the word) mean and will continue to mean a “special” creationist.
As are these:
"Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered."
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Your faith is quite weak, isn’t it?
And the Institute for Creation Research is filled with articles about evidence for a young earth, special creation, and Biblical literalism, and specifically rejecting any more general idea of a Creator God.
No you don’t. Out of a political objective, you use the term to distort meaning and description.
”. . . when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.”
And, I contest your ‘special’ use of the word “Creationist” for the same reason. I know it is meant as an epithet. You can try, if you wish, to trivialize the contest by characterizing it as a “quibble.” Nevertheless, this struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Science. It is quite simply a fight over public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. That is as quintessential a definition of ‘Liberal’ as can be gotten. I really don’t know why you continue the fight with Creationists. You’ve already lost control of the public treasury to the Marxist/Socialist louts who have taken over government. Now go ‘quibble’ about that.
”The purpose of words is to convey meaning.”
So it is rumored. And to turn a word into an epithet, it is first necessary to destroy the norms and conventions of meaning (the Saul Alinsky method of political debate). That is what you’ve confessed to doing in acknowledging a “special” use of the word ‘Creationist.’ There are any number of different meanings of the word ‘Creationist.’ Each meaning is specified by the addition of another, modifying word. You refuse to follow that norm. I’ve asked of you an explanation, but, by now, the ‘why is obvious. You don’t intend to convey meaning – only epithets. I don’t expect to reform your behavior. Only to name what it is that you are doing. You are behaving like a Liberal. And that has nothing to do with your “confidence” in the Scientific Method.
Yeah, they logically follow the quote I gave. We cannot assume that we have achieved the end point of either the truth of our faith or scientific scrutiny, as Wilhelmus a’Brakel and so many others did assume (including many a scientist).
Creationist isn't an epithet. The Institute for Creationist Research and the Creationist Museum do not use the word as an epithet when they use the word to describe themselves.
I use the word in its most conventional English usage meaning, and I intend to continue doing so.
Quibble or cry as you wish over it.
Complain or cry as you wish. I intend to continue to name what it is that you are doing. It's too late to deny that your use of Creationist isn't an epithet. You've already let the cat out of the bag.
Creationists! There is simply no reasoning with them. ;)
Oh, you can reason with me. You can't tell me one thing and then expect me to believe you told me something else.
{ 8^D
quibble: To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
I think I chose the right word.
He concedes the prevalence of the ordinary understanding of the word when he admits his use to be a shorthand for another and special meaning of the word.
I think you misread him. Saying that the most popular use of a term is shorthand for a longer term by no means implies the prevalence of another understanding of the term. You would need to find evidence of the use of "creationist" or "creationism" to refer to simply a belief in "the act of bringing this world into existence," without specifying when or how, to support a contention that the terms were ever in prevalent use that way. I don't think you will, because as you said, belief in the Biblical God implies a belief in the act of creation, so there'd be no need for a special term for it.
No, everyone doesn’t know that’s what ‘creationist’ means in these discussions.
Yes they do. Some are just pretending they don't, for their own reasons.
Your intervention in this discussion is an attempt to restore a political domination that you perceive to be slipping.
I have no interest in political domination. I just get annoyed when people disingenuously pretend that they don't know the common definition of a term.
I don’t recall using the term ‘evo-atheist’ at all, but if you can cite an example where I used it on someone who was not openly and avowedly both an Evolutionist and an Atheist, then they have my apologies in advance.
I will take your word that you haven't used that term, and I apologize for implying you did. That particular part of my post was more about the other person it was addressed to.
Perhaps you are new to these discussions, or new to this country altogether. I already provided you with some dictionary sources; here are some otherw:
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will...Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense...The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992). [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]Just letting you know what most people mean when they use the term in the U.S. today, and what most people will think you mean when you use it.Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants was created by God or some other supreme being...Within creationism in the Abrahamic religions, there are various ideas. In regards to those religions, one form of creationism holds that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is referred to as Young Earth Creationism. The other form of creationism is called Old Earth Creationism and holds that the earth and universe are billions of years old...Dr. Norman Geisler stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. [Conservapedia]
The term “creationist” often refers to a subset of Christians who reject Darwinian evolution and hold that chapters 1 and 2 of the Bible’s book of Genesis provide a credible, scientific account of the origin of the world. [Beliefnet]
Oh so beautifully, sublimely said, dearest brother in Christ!
I recognize the tactic. It doesn’t work here so save yourself the trouble.
Faith in Darwinism is not the same as faith in God. But if you can show that Darwinism is compatible with the Bible’s account of creation please do so.
“However, when man sinned against God (Genesis 3), God cursed the ground and the animals, and He sentenced man to die (Genesis 2:17; 3:19). In essence, God withdrew some of His sustaining power and no longer completely upheld everything by His awesome power.”
In other words, the ‘fact’ that DNA decays with ongoing generations is NOT in the Bible but just made up to support a position.
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.