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

To: Fester Chugabrew

* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), 47 (chronic_loser) and of course my friend

* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), 48 (Fester Chugabrew) and of course me.


49 posted on 06/11/2005 7:12:42 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: orionblamblam

I said I was only lurking, but I can't resist giving my opinion of the matter. To me, "creationism" is virtually synonymous with being anti-evolution -- and in many cases (but not all) being anti-science and anti-reason too. Those who find the theory of evolution to be persuasive, regardless of their theism or non-theism, aren't "creationists" as I would define the term. Most scientists are probably theistic evolutionists, and I don't consider them to be creationists. Similarly, many religious people, who truly believe that God created the universe, have no problem with evolution. I don't consider them "creationists" either. Creationist applies only to the whack-jobs like Gish, Morris, Ham, and of course -- the lovely Kathy Martin.


54 posted on 06/11/2005 8:05:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

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