Well stated.
Posted on 04/01/2009 6:24:14 AM PDT by seanindenver
Some time ago, a highly charged argument was set in motion. It pitted evolution against creationism. One side of this debate relies on scientific inquiry and the other relies on ancient mythological texts.
That's my view. That's what I intend to teach my children.
Yet, I have no interest in foisting this curriculum on your kids. Nor am I particularly distressed that a creationist theory may one day collide with the tiny eardrums of my precocious offspring.
Which brings me to the Texas Board of Education's recent landmark compromise between evolutionary science and related religious concerns in public school textbooks.
The board cautiously crafted an arrangement that requires teachers to allow students to scrutinize "all sides" of the issue. This decision is widely seen as a win for pro-creationists — or are they called "anti-evolutionists"?
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
That may be this persons virw, but it is dead wrong. The creation argument does not rely on "Mythological texts" It has nothing to do with religion. It's all science, no more no less.
Good point, no reason to keep reading.
Science is about finding natural causes to explain and predict natural phenomena. Creationists prefer supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
Science is about going where the data leads. Creationism is about twisting any and all contradictory data into what the Creationist already thinks they know.
Creationism, as a movement, formed in opposition to a scientific theory. It is not based upon science, but based upon opposing science.
There, fixed it for you.
Not all Creationists and Christians agree on the Creation so your include all statements are false.
Obama is an evolutionist. Evolution destroys the mind.
Why is it that when creationists are trying to attack or insult science, they accuse it of being like a religion?
So? Obama probably also believes the earth orbits the sun. Does that mean Copernicus was wrong too?
Why is it that when creationists point out the philosophical nature of unobservable 'scientific' theories, the naturalists immediately fall into the fallacy of reverse ad hominem?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Most scientists are also right-handed. But did Christianity or right-handedness directly influence the scientific method? Probably not. Christianity, like all religions, is predicated on faith, whereas the scientific method is based on observation and empirical evidence. Faith and science are very different processes, even though they can co-exist in the same individual.
Well stated.
The 3rd side of this debate is that faith and science are compatible.
I am a Christian, but do not accept Bishop Ussher's time line. I don't think we can know the true age of the earth, though we can certainly speculate on methodology and speculations can be corrected, when disproved. BUT, they all begin with suppositions.
A person can believe in God, and believe in gravity. He can believe in physics. I hit a wall with my bicycle, when I was 10, and learned a lot about both.
We can study the heavens and predict how to aim a spaceship will reach the outer reaches of our known solar system, while passing all of the known planets.
As a believer in a Creator, I can't find anything which directs how things BEGAN within the alleged science of "Darwinian Evolution". It assumes a primordial swamp, but offers no source. It acknowledges similarities in creatures and assumes facts, not in evidence. Something bothers me about this.
What is different between a religion, and a philosophy? If Evolutionists don't have faith, what supports their thesis? The standard answer is "we don't concern ourselves with how it began...", and try to go on with their charades.
Science is a methodology that has its roots far into the ancient world. Archimedes of Syracuse detailed a methodology for measuring density, in order to determine experimentally the purity of gold.
Science owes an immeasurable debt to many Christian and Jewish scientists as well. But creationism is not a contribution to science, creationism as a movement is in opposition to science.
Creationism is not simply belief that God was responsible for creation, it is a belief in a literal account of Genesis with the separate and “special” creation of living things, usually presumed to have happened not very long ago.
This movement was formed in opposition to science, and they retain this anti science philosophy to this day.
There are a small number of as yet unobservable scientific theories. String theory is an obvious example. Evolution isn’t one of them.
99% of all socialists and communists believe in evolution.
99% of all Creationists believe in individual liberty.
A belief in evolution goes hand in hand with a belief that man has no individual importance and that the importance of the individual is measured by his importance to the advancement of the society.
Communism and Socialism are products of an evolutionary philosophy. The United States was founded upon the idea that men are (1) created and (2) that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights and (3) that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Socialism is founded upon the idea that the interests of the government and society as a whole trump individual liberty. There is a reason why socialists believe in evolution. If God created man, then men have to answer to God. If men are a product of random evolution, then they have no intrinsic worth and their value is then measured by their worth to society.
So, no I am not kidding.
This position wrt evolution would require that a couple of fallacies be accepted.
First would be the fallacy of equivocation. That is, equivocating what is currently observed (adaptation) into that which is not observed (macro-evolution). This is accomplished through the further fallacy of affirming the consequent, where P 'predicts' Q, Q is observed and P is then assumed.
Once again we see the multiplication of logical fallacies surrounding evolution. It is simply a consequence of and quite necessary to support that belief.
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.