Well, by current creationism logic, that means that creationism=islam.
You and I know that is not the case, but we need to rigidly apply the same logic across the board, right?
I will await the response of the YECers, but I won’t hold my breath.
And I, too, have a database of quotes, folks.
Ping
Ping......
Once again, a Times headline contradicts its own news story. The article reports that the Islamic world is moving away from a traditional understanding of creation, and by and large moving to a partial acceptance of evolution - yet the title oddly reverses that story.
And, of course, many of the current rationales for young earth creationism were first devised by a Seventh Day Adventist, George McCready Price (and later cribbed, with scant attribution, by Southern Baptist Henry Morris), not directly based on the text of the Bible, but rather to support supposedly infallible visions by Adventist founding prophetiss Ellen G. White.
In short, the history of modern antievolutionism laced with marginal cultism.
This Chang guy is clearly ignorant of Christianity. The Christian Bible says the same thing (Koran probably copied it), in 2nd Peter 3:8. Correspondingly, there are also old-earth creationists in Christianity, like me.
The NYT shouldn't even write about Christianity, since they are so ignorant of it.
Even some Muslim theologians joined the Darwin bandwagon: “Muslim writings from the tenth and eleventh centuries referred to a hierarchy of beings, from minerals to flora and fauna, and even argued that apes were lower forms of humans – more evidence for nineteenth-century Muslims that Darwin’s theory was ‘nothing new’.”
How could such diverse religious traditions find common ground in Darwin? The reasons are complex and somewhat counter-intuitive. Elshakry argued that “One of the driving forces behind many of these scholars’ work was a desire to push back against the forces of Western imperialism.” But wasn’t Darwin a European, you ask? Actually, envy may have been more weighty a cause than a desire for enlightenment:
In response, defenders of non-Western faiths drew attention to the greater rationality of their creeds to defend themselves against Western charges of backwardness and superstition. Many were keen to show that their traditions, unlike those of Western Europe, accepted, reinforced or had even anticipated the findings of modern science. By embracing Darwin’s ideas, they emphasized that Christianity alone was in conflict with science.She gives an example:
Muhammad Abduh, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, for instance, was worried about the inroads that missionaries had made into the educational system of the Muslim Ottoman lands. He was also tired of critics pointing to Islam’s supposed inability to accommodate modern pedagogy and science. In Science and Civilization in Christianity and Islam (1902), Abduh argued that, in contrast to Christianity, Islam was free of the conflict with science that had so violently plagued Christian civilization in Europe. To stress this difference, he repeatedly wove references to Darwin and evolution into lectures on the exegesis of the Koran.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091029a
Perhaps the above has something to do with why the presigious Temple of Darwin journal Nature praises the state of science in Iran while criticizing the Christian West!
That being the case I would doubt that “international academics” invited to the Carnegie sponsored conference would include noisy atheist/Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, whose books aren't exactly best sellers in Muslim countries.
Like an African bushman who wonders why he must wear a three piece suit and wing-tips to be considered “civilized”
Muslims might well wonder why they must accept evolution to be considered “modern and educated”.
Islamic countries have schools that study biology?