Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Thanks for the ping, bb. I would have missed that post otherwise.
Well done, shibumi!
“Evos cannot claim the right to define the term *creationist*. 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. Well, fine. Then by the same token creationists then by default, get to define creationist terms as creationists use them and everyone else is should be expected to be obligated to use them.”
—About 99.9% of the time I’ve seen the word “Creationist” used - by both evolutionists and Creationists alike - it has been used to refer to those that believe both that God created life and reject evolution.
This is certainly how every major creationist and ID organization uses the term (icr.org, answersingenesis.org, creationism.org, discovery.org, etc).
I’ve also never seen scientists such as Francis Collins, Keith Miller, or Kenneth Miller, etc referred to as “Creationists”, even though they are Christians. And in fact those scientists often rail against both Creationism and ID.
The founding fathers were not engaged in Creationism when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.
They were engaged in an act of rebellion, and forming a revolution.
Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is dependent upon or derived from the notion that all species arrived in their present form simultaneously some few thousand years ago.
If that is the best example you guys can come up with as “something of use” derived from Creationism you are really grasping at straws.
Anything of use derived from creationism by actual creationists who actually rejected the theory of evolution, you know something sometime AFTER the 1860’s?
No? Nothing?
Creationism produces nothing of any value.
PWNED! ;)
Creationists support Lamarckian inheritance now?
Where/how do you draw the line between the natural and the supernatural?
Indeed, how do you even define these terms?
I think some clarity is required here, before you accuse me of fraudulently "peddling 'intelligent design' as 'science.'"
BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays. So I have nothing to peddle here.
In current usage, these terms are just so many sticks with which to beat an opponent. Ad hominum attack is a most useful way to avoid substantive discussions on the merits: It's often easier to impugn and "disqualify" an opponent than it is to answer his arguments.
Of course, such tactics are intellectually dishonest, revolting, thuggish, and cheap.
I believe God created the world. I am not a creationist.
The Pope believes that God created the world. The Pope is not a creationist.
The majority of scientists in the USA believe that God created the world. The majority of scientists in the USA are not creationists.
Your answer rests upon two delusions. One, that belief in a creator means that one is a “creationist” under the standard definition of the word, and secondly, that anything someone who believes in a creator produces is therefore a product of “creationism”.
A creationist, while engaged in creationism, have never produced anything of value.
A scientist, while engaged in science, have produced many things of inestimable value.
Is THAT your definition of "creationism?" The Framers never heard of it, I assure you.
They were speaking of the Creator God. They asserted the inalienability of the human rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (property) on grounds that these rights were endued in us directly by God. That is what makes them "inalienable" — they are part of our own human nature as creatures of God.
As I pointed out, your term is practically meaningless as according to it; I would be a creationist.
Is “Nature's God” as seen by Franklin and Jefferson the same as the God of the Bible in your mind? If so, then why did Jefferson rewrite the Bible, and why did both deny the divinity of Christ?
So very true, shibumi!
Of course, they want "opponents to evolutionary fraud" to wear that swastika. It would "prove" their opponents are evil, and thus not folks to whom "respectable" scientists (who oddly enough always try to monopolize the "moral high ground") ought to give the time of day.... So just give 'em the hook!
Needless to say, such tactics reinforce the phenomenon of "groupthink."
Perhaps in the case of brute animals,but IMHO this is questionable in the case of modern man because it's likely that anyone who has traits or ideas too far outside the norm will be destroyed by the masses or the political elite and not prevail and procreate.
As my friend Jo Kus once told me...
"IF man is the pinnacle of knowledge - why is it that man still continues to war, that man still is subject to the elements, that man is still having the same problems that "Moses" wrote about in the Torah."
Oh. And who would those people be? Hmmmm?
As to why Franklin and Jefferson allegedly denied the divinity of Christ, perhaps they — as highly educated and cultivated men — had read Newton, who also denied the divinity of Christ. Since we can't interview these people to find out, we can only speculate about such matters.
What we don't have to speculate about is what Jefferson (with a background assist from Franklin) actually wrote in the DoI, in plain language with clear meanings.
So, now you don't know the difference? Reaching for straws, I see. Is God natural? Is God subject to natural laws? Is God part of the existing world? Are you still not sure?
I think some clarity is required here, before you accuse me of fraudulently "peddling 'intelligent design' as 'science.'"
This is out of context with my response in #217. There was nothing personal in it. Good try bb. More straws to grab.
BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays
Fine, please tell us what do you identify with?
It's often easier to impugn and "disqualify" an opponent than it is to answer his arguments
That was exactly what I walked away from in our last thread.
Ad hominum attack is a most useful way to avoid substantive discussions on the merits:
I am glad you realize that, bb, except that it is pointless to discuss "substantive merits" with supernatural things being presented as "facts."
In the competitive survival game, the unfit disappear. That is true of human and animal species alike. Adaptive behavior is survival.
As my friend Jo Kus once told me..."IF man is the pinnacle of knowledge - why is it that man still continues to war"
As if reason is what makes the world go round...
Rather, you persist in tarring me as a strawman builder, and then start asking me a bunch of questions that I can't answer until or unless you tell me what YOU mean by "natural" and "supernatural." After all, to answer you, I am tasked with finding the language that you would understand. So I need to understand your understanding. Sigh....
I mean, if we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then what's the point of having this discussion? We just keep going 'round and 'round pointlessly, and I'm getting pretty tired of it.
It's a theory in human terms and not a fact ,dear brother.
And this was kosta's tendentious and nonresponsive reply:
In the competitive survival game, the unfit disappear. That is true of human and animal species alike. Adaptive behavior is survival.This is a mantra of groupthink. It is completely blind to the problem that stfassisi was pointing to.
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.