Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
“They claim that they have that right as scientists to *properly* define scientific terms *as scientists use them* and expect others to be obligated to adhere to them.” [excerpt]That would make them 'philosophers', no?
And to say that Jefferson was a creationist and that his Declaration of Independence is the product of creationism is to deny reality.
Would you characterize Jefferson writing miracles OUT of the Bible as a Creationist or anti-Creationist endeavor?
If Jefferson wouldn't accept miracles in the New Testament, what makes you presume that he would be any more accepting of miraculous explanation instead of science in the book of Genesis?
That this is the only example of something of use that creationism has derived that FR creationists can come up with does more to support my point than anything else I could say on the subject.
I guess there are few flights of fancy so unreasonable and so contrary to facts that creationists wont engage in it. But to try to claim as their own a man who obviously rejected the notion of miraculous intervention!
What a farce. What ignorant and unsupportable twaddle. About the level of ‘scholarship’ one can expect from creationists however.
Careful, you’ll make certain people seasick posting simple straightforward facts like that...
:)
Doesn’t count. It was preDarwin
PreDarwinian references are not germane.
I am not allmendream. And I take no argument as substantial without evidence.
Jefferson believed sufficiently in the "notion of miraculous intervention" to have believed in the Creator God. Ex nihilo creation per se is frankly and indisputably a miracle. (We humans can't do anything like that. Not even a Jefferson or a Franklin.)
To try to define the intellectual output of the guy who wrote miracles OUT of the New Testament as the one example of something of use derived from the idea of creationism is ludicrous. Was the “Jeffersonian Bible” similarly something of use derived through creationism?
I stand corrected.
What sort of evidence to you admit?
Evidence that would provide an objective basis for establishing a person's religious beliefs as a causation for their scientific discoveries.
This would be much more in line with his Deist tendencies and his absolute rejection of miracles, either in the Bible, or in Roman accounts, or anywhere else he encountered accounts of such.
But to characterize him as a “creationist” and his Declaration of Independence as the one example you guys can come up with as ‘something of use derived from the idea of creationism’ is ludicrous.
But I guess when you have no actual examples of anything of use produced from creationism, you have to do SOMETHING such as glomming onto a man who rejected miracles and trying to paint him as one who would reject scientific evidence in favor of miracles (i.e. a creationist).
Where did I say that Jefferson was an example of a “creationist”?
I merely used one of his more well known writings as an example of something useful that came from a belief in and referenced a Creator God.
When it was written is of no relevance.
Whatever else Jefferson did or did not believe is likewise irrelevant.
It fulfills the prescription of you initial question. It is something useful - I suspect more useful today than it has been in a long time.
The product of a creationist engaged in creationism? Not even close.
If you were providing the works from the pen of Thomas Jefferson as “something of use derived from creationism” one must therefore assume that you think the beliefs of Jefferson were either creationist or inspired by creationism. As such your statement that Jefferson's beliefs are irrelevant is preposterous.
Thomas Jefferson was not a creationist, neither was the Declaration of Independence inspired by creationist thought. The idea that all species were created nearly simultaneously in their present form recently is completely irrelevant to the Declaration of independence.
A creationist engaged in creationism has never produced anything of practical use.
A scientist engaged in science has produced many things of inestimable value and use.
Well then, do your own work: Read Newton.
Or if you prefer, you can read Einstein.
Would you accept Newton's or Einstein's views on the matter to be admissible evidence of anything?
Then again, what do you mean by "causation?" Both Newton and Einstein beheld the natural world and realized it had to be "more" than "natural." Did this insight "cause" their science? Or did it stand only as the prime motivator of it?
One infers they realized the universe had to be "more" than natural because it could be expressed in the language of mathematics — which, although a universal natural language, is not "natural" in the sense you mean; i.e., directly observable phenomena. No language is "natural" in this sense.
In this sense, mathematics, geometry, are themselves "supernatural."
I do not accept an argument as substantial without evidence, and I do not accept that it is my responsibility to provide the evidence to support your argument.
Where did the "mechanism" come from? That God used a "mechanism" to create ex nihilo still would count as a miracle in my book. It seems first of all He would have had to create the mechanism — ex nihilo.
You raise a distinction without much of a difference.
It is quite a stretch and predicated upon two delusions.
One, that Thomas Jefferson was a creationist. He was not.
Two, that the Declaration of Independence is an example of the useful output of creationist thought. Creationism is completely irrelevant to the Declaration of Independence.
Moreover, the creation of natural law cannot be considered an abridgment of natural law. Miracles are described as an abridgment of natural law.
You have provided zero evidence that the guy who wrote miracles OUT of the New Testament was a creationist, or that his writing of the DoI was in any way inspired by creationism.
Other than that, we seem to be in complete agreement that no creationist engaged in creationism has ever produced anything of any practical use.
And I do not care whether or not you do so.
The fact is I'm not asking you to "support" my argument. I'd be well-enough satisfied if I thought you actually understood it.
Which means nothing. Evos call themselves Christians and rail against a creationism without specifying the variety they are referring to.
Scientists don't have a monopoly on defining terms like creationist and creationism.
They don't have a corner on the definition market for every aspect of life simply because they are scientists. That falls outside the realm of scientific endeavor and cannot be addressed in a scientific manner.
pwnd nothing.
Scientists and evos constantly infringe on the supernatural when they make definitive statements about it, like mocking belief in God, saying that He didn’t create life on earth but it evolved, etc. They talk out of both sides of their mouths.
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.