Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Thats an interesting way of putting things Mauer
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
btw, a few must-reads:
Berra, Tim M. 1990: Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Eldrege, Niles. 2000 The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. New York: W.H. Freeman
Futuyma, Douglas 1983: Science on Tiral: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books
Kitcher, Philip 1982: Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Montagu, Ashley (ed.) 1983: Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford University Press
Newell, Norman D. 1982: Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality?. New York: Columbia University Press
Peacocke, A.R. 1979: Creatin and the World of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Ruse, Michael 1982: Darwinism Defended. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Young, Willard 1985: Fallacies of Creationsim. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detrelig Enterprises
have fun
Berra, Tim M. 1990: Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Eldrege, Niles. 2000 The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. New York: W.H. Freeman
Futuyma, Douglas 1983: Science on Tiral: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books
Kitcher, Philip 1982: Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Montagu, Ashley (ed.) 1983: Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford University Press
Newell, Norman D. 1982: Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality?. New York: Columbia University Press
Peacocke, A.R. 1979: Creatin and the World of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Ruse, Michael 1982: Darwinism Defended. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Young, Willard 1985: Fallacies of Creationsim. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detrelig Enterprises
have fun
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
Elrohir said:
Since folks thought the world was flat first and since I believe the world is 'round', am I actually an anti-flat world person? I actually had that exact discussion with a group in Arizona who still believe the world is flat.
[carlos] Good to see Arthur Peacocke on your reading list. He's an interesting philosopher of religion and theologian who generally offers a pretty sensible rational religious viewpoint. I have a vague memory of going to a lecture by him once and cannot remember a thing about it. That says more about me than it does about him, though, I suspect!
Scuffer said:
No way am I embroiling myself in this debate, but I will say the following: today, virtually no theologians are creationists (in the sense of denying the theory of evolution) and I should certainly say that the vast majority of Christians are not creationists either (unless you happen to be living in the American Midwest, in which case you're going to get a pretty skewiff view of Christianity). At its very simplest, most Christians understand and agree with the statement: "If God chooses to create a universe that develops over time, he can do so." That is, there is no reason why God shouldn't have created the universe at the start in the form that scientists think it was right at the start, and allowed it to develop in the way that scientists think it did subsequently. It's also possible to adopt a stronger version of this position and suggest that God actually takes a role himself in that development process and inclines things along the route he wants them to take. I've heard Keith Ward, the well-known theologian and philosopher, argue for that view in a lecture once.
There is certainly no theological reason to suppose that God's creation can't change. Human beings develop from babies to adults, yet Christians believe God created human beings. The idea that all change is necessarily for the better or the worse is clearly flawed (although it has played a role in Christian thought: some have argued for divine impassibility on the grounds that if God changed he would be changing for the better or the worse, which are equally impossible). If I get up off this chair and move to another one, I have changed, but it's not for the better or the worse, it's just different. Similarly, if God created the universe as a soup of lumpy atoms billions of years ago and it's since turned into what it is now, that's not a change for the better or the worse: it's just a change. Indeed, if you believe in God you probably also believe he wants intelligent creatures to exist with whom he can communicate, and so you might think the universe now is better than it was in the beginning.
So I would say that, barring any intrinsically theological reason, the only reasons that a Christian might have to deny the theory of evolution and other historical theories is if they conflict with an authority that they hold infallible, such as the Pope or the Bible. The Pope stated a while ago that the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable, although he did not go so far as to state that it is true (he left the question open, and quite right too, as it's hardly his place to make scientific pronouncements, a fact the Catholic Church knows very well these days). As for the Bible, most Christians do not believe that everything in it is both literally and infallibly true; that is a belief that developed in the Reformation, the early modern period, and most of all, in the nineteenth century, and it is certainly not one that Christians are required to hold. So while there may be Christians who do not believe in evolution (I met a couple once, and they were regarded as incredible, bizarre relics even within the Christian community), they are very much in a minority, since their belief stems from more fundamental beliefs that are largely at odds with those of most mainstream Christians (and completely at odds with pretty much all theologians).
Plotinus: sadly, there is a huge misassumption in your first paragraph:
if you use the following definition of 'creationist'
Creationist: someone who believes that God had a direct hand in some way in the 'coming into existence' of mankind
then sadly, even in Germany (!) 54% of all people fall into that category. The vast majority of them certainly limits God's involvement to either mankind or a 'guiing influence' on evolution, but they have taken the first step on the slippery slide down to outright 7day creationism: they have refused to accept the basic principles of science.
On an even more shocking note: the woman responsible for Geology at the Deutsche Bibliothek (central German Library), recently given that job, is an ardent promotor of intelligent design
if you use the following definition of 'creationist'
Creationist: someone who believes that God had a direct hand in some way in the 'coming into existence' of mankind
then sadly, even in Germany (!) 54% of all people fall into that category. The vast majority of them certainly limits God's involvement to either mankind or a 'guiing influence' on evolution, but they have taken the first step on the slippery slide down to outright 7day creationism: they have refused to accept the basic principles of science.
On an even more shocking note: the woman responsible for Geology at the Deutsche Bibliothek (central German Library), recently given that job, is an ardent promotor of intelligent design
[carlosMM] Yes, but that's clearly not the sense of "creationist" being used in this thread and not the one I meant either. Most Christians believe that God brought the universe into existence and is ultimately responsible for the existence of everything, including human beings: indeed it could be said that that is one of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity. But that's not what is being argued about here, is it? I'd also disagree that taking such a belief is a step on the "slippery road" to six-day creationism, since I'd hardly put people such as Keith Ward, Arthur Peacocke and Richard Swinburne in the same bracket as those who think Gen 1-2 is an accurate scientific description of the first seven days of the universe. As a rule, most "slippery slope" arguments are just that: slippery. Even if it were true that those who believe X tend to go on to believe Y later, that in itself is no reason for castigating those who believe X, or for supposing that X is not true, whatever Y may be.
hm, I was more referring to the implication that God directly interferred with genes or animals, or did create man (as the sole species, all others evolved 'somehow').Plotinus said:
True, if I had meant what they describe I'd be wrong.
the problem with the view i *meant* is that the simple principles they need to break for their view to work are those making literal Genesis inpossible. If you deny science once, you deny it fully.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but this thread isn't about religious faith it's about scientific evidence. Science is a method of gaining knowledge that doesn't involve faith. In this thread faith is irrelevant to the discussionMauer said:
Mauer
Pompous Noble
Thank you for explaining what science is to mePerfection said:
. Was just pointing out, regardless of what the thread is for, that the faithful cannot be swayed by you. Not an attack on you of any kind 
Mauer said:Thank you for explaining what science is to me
the faithful can't use common sense to change their position? Can't use logic and reason? Can't EVER modify their beliefs?
poor guys!
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Its just that Perfection seems to take enthusiatic glee, and hes not the only one, mind you, at attacking the beliefs of people of faith. Now I must be very clear Perfection, I like you, and I respect you. You do have integrity, this isn't an attack on you. If some of you want to call me a zealot, perhaps you should look in the mirror. We are all zealots when it comes to our personal opinions and beliefs we hold in the highest regard.
-1. Creationism is clearly the Biblical position, 7 Days of creation, Global Flood Etc.(I hear more evidence for the latter every day).
-2. To infuse the Theory of Evolution(Which has been embraced by Secular Humanists as their creation myth without a second thought), into creationism is blasphemy in my humble opinion....why? Because the Bible speaks of a perfect world BEFORE Adam and Eve sined. If Evolution is true, then there were Millions of years of death and suffering BEFORE Adam and Eve...that doesn't sound like a perfect world to me. Compromise is the doom of the Christian faith.
-1. Creationism is clearly the Biblical position, 7 Days of creation, Global Flood Etc.(I hear more evidence for the latter every day).
-2. To infuse the Theory of Evolution(Which has been embraced by Secular Humanists as their creation myth without a second thought), into creationism is blasphemy in my humble opinion....why? Because the Bible speaks of a perfect world BEFORE Adam and Eve sined. If Evolution is true, then there were Millions of years of death and suffering BEFORE Adam and Eve...that doesn't sound like a perfect world to me. Compromise is the doom of the Christian faith.
eh, attacking their faiths? hello?Sword_Of_Geddon said:
if you idiotically believe the sun is blue-green and made from cheese gone bad, and someone pulls you out onto the street and makes you look up - is that attacking your faith?
it seems to me that you have a slight flaw in your sytem of values, holding hard cold truth to be worth less than fairy tales.
BS, double BS, and triple BS.
The bible was NOT meant (ever) as eternal truth, only as 'what we think it was link'
NO new evidence whatsoever has been brought forth anytime that has stood up to scruntiy (check this forum for a few nice discussion, and the book list I gave)
get your history straight; this is utter nonsense
eh, when did that mythical and utterly symbolic couple live? Don't make me laugh at you - you do not really want to promote a literal reading of a bible, do you?
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
The Bible is to be taken literally or not at all. If it isn't taken literally, than the entire Gospol message is null and void. If you can't believe Genisis 1, how can you believe John 3:16?
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Interestingly, if you take it literally, then the only authority on earth on it is the pope - so why dare you doubt the pope who says it is NOT to be taken literally?
just another case of Christians not keeping up to the standards of logic and reason
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Because they are completely different books, in different genres, written at different times and places in history by completely different people. Considerations applying to one have nothing to do with another. We don't believe the stories of the gods in the Iliad, but that doesn't mean we don't believe the histories of Eusebius.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
carlosMM said:
what? where does the bible say anything about giving all authority to the pope? i seem to recall something about 'give to cewaser what is ceaser's, and give to God what is God's, and some other thing about God putting our leaders in place for us
- Status
