Skip to comments.Creationism and Truth (Creationists are a 'threat')
Posted on 10/05/2006 7:32:38 AM PDT by Imnotalib
I don't like the term 'evolutionist' - would you call a physicist a 'graviationist', or a "weak nuclear force-ist"? I'm a vertebrate palaeontologist, and evolution is an enormously robust theory without which it is virtually impossible to make sense of any of the observations I make in my field.
I am not averse to engaging in debate with creationists. I won't call them 'scientific creationists' - what they represent has little to do with science. It is as a simple matter of definition that if you start an investigation stating that anything you discover can only be explained in terms of a literal interpretation of the bible, it isn't science. I live and work in the UK, where creationism is not much of an issue. The situation is very different in the USA. Although it is easy as a European to laugh in a smugly superior way at the antics of the Americans, I think it is a mistake to do so. The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world. Their agenda includes the strict censorship of science as taught in American schools, and the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror.
(Excerpt) Read more at plesiosaur.com ...
Wonder if the guy would prefer "evo-loser"....
? The statement you just said is consistent with theistic evolutionism and perhaps with some forms of "intelligent designism", but not with young earth creationism, which is what the above scientist was objecting to. Young earth creationism requires massive divine intervention and circumvention of the laws of nature.
I avoid arguments on evolution and intelligent design.
It's a "no win" discussion either way since both are "faith based".
But I meet creationists who have never read the Bible, and Darwinists who have never read Origin of the Species.
'Can't change either of their minds.
But neither of them are as irrational as the pro-abortion person who is also against capital punishment.
>>>I don't like the term 'evolutionist' ->>>
Because that implies that I am not the allseeing, allknowing surpreme intellect that I think I am.
Oh yeah, a-hole, what about a scientifically illerate Muslim world dominated by religious fundamentalists? Does that fill you with horror, because that is more a reality than the America you described, you ignorant P.o.s.
Wonder if the guy would prefer "evo-loser"....
I tend to think he couldn't care less what you might call him, but he'd likely chuckle at the childishness of the epithet.
What I find interesting in all of this is the notion that the so-called young earth creationists are mostly a US phenomenon. That point is made in this article, and has been stated by a few of our freepers of British persuasion.
Is it true, and if so, why is that?
"The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?"
Sorry, but you don't fight bullshit with more bullshit.
But neither of them are as irrational as the pro-abortion person who is also against capital punishment. '
Or the pro-lifer against abortion "except in the case of...."
Americans are better consumers than the people of other nations, quicker and more certain to reject inferior products including inferior science theories such as evolution.
Another example is English "cars". How long do you think Americans would tolerate something like Lucas making the electronics for all their cars?
And of course to the prideful, arrogant 'scientist', science is all there is. But his statement is not quite true anyway; actually what we (Christians) represent has nothing to do with science. Our vision transcends what the eye sees, and our souls are anchored in the Absolute, Eternal God. "Evolutionists" are anchored only to themselves in this fleeting life, and are doomed to live without any meaning in their lives beyond their own puny brain power. Their vision is limited to what their retina processes and their 'empirical' brain can comprehend. Beyond this they see nothing. Just as an animal will invalidate something he can't smell, the evolutionist will invalidate something he cannot 'prove' with his brain. Both live in a base, soul-less world of the senses.
How empty and vacuuous the evolutionists' lives must be as they age and their brains deteriorate, and all they have left to 'anchor' themselves to is a scrapbook with pictures of dinosaur bones and dashed hopes of discovering the 'missing link'.
Scientific method was invented by Christians in the middle ages so to argue that creation in nonscientific is false.
Your logic is faulty. It does not follow that because Christians created the scientific method that one of their religious beliefs (creationism) automatically becomes scientific.
As opposed to living in an imaginary world filled with strange visions, unnatural practices, and undemonstratable invisible entities?
Your post is very poetic. Not necessarily true, but very poetic. You have a gift for stringing words together.
I understand that Benedict may be rolling it back a bit, but his predecessor had no real issues with the theory of evolution, and one could hardly truthfully suggest that John Paul was living "in a base, soul-less world of the senses."
To rebut this guy, read Ann Coulter's latest book "Godless". Her last 4 chapters completely eviscerate Darwinian evolution theory.
LOL! Nothing like a little hysteria to perk up an otherwise stupid article.
The only thing Ann's writings on evolution eviscerated was her credibility as a writer on topics outside her area of expertise (politics).
No he wasn't, but for a Pope he came pretty close. Pope JPII was one of the most sensual of all the popes in history, embracing evolution in a new way that attempted to combine this secularist error with Christian doctrine. He began his career as a playwright and actor, very much attracted to the senses. His "Catholic" theology was so diluted, shallow and liberal, that Catholics saw more new-age novelties introduced into the Church under this man than with ALL the other popes combined.
Pope JPII lived for change, and for "updating" the Church into "modern times". JPII was to the Catholic Church what Bill Clinton was to America; both liberal, sensual men who let things go too far. Clinton forgot his family and his Constitutional duties and was obsessed with sex; JPII forgot his Catholic traditions and his Canonical duties and was obsessed with Vatican II and the "spirit of change".
JPII loved to invite folks like Bob Dylan, the heroin addicted, washed up hippy, to entertain him. His famous "World Youth Days" turned Catholicism into some strange combination of hippy-fest, concert, mixed in with some convoluted Christian faith. He allowed a "Hula Mass" in Hawaii, where attractive young ladies in hoola skirts dance on the altar, because "that's their culture". He seemed to love the world that Jesus Christ rejected, as he embraced anti-Christs of all stripes, especially the muslims, whose koran he kissed for them in a PC ceremony. He worked hard to "unite" all faiths, but not in Christ, but rather in a loose, multi-cultural, multi-religious confederation of "people who worship the one God", (whatever that is). He wanted to please man so much that it interfered with his ability to please God first. And that is sensualism.
Living in an 'imaginary world', you mean like sitting in front of a TV or video game all day?
"Strange visions"; you must be referring to the things you see after smoking that bong, or do you refer to the special effects that dazzle your brain at on the silver screen?
"Unnatural practices", hmmm, perhaps you refer to what millions of Americans indulge themselves in these days, homosexuality, 'virtual' pornography and using abortions as a means of birth control?
"Invisible entities", yep, here you must be referring to the "proof" of evolution, or the proof of human-caused 'global warming', or the 'proof' of the so-called Big Bang; those 'proofs' are about as invisible as entities can get.
"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
"Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."
Not exactly an unbiased website. You can believe who and what you want. But the most cogent arguments Coulter makes are the ones that show that, despite all the "scientific" experiments and studies, there is no proof of evolution. Her example of fruit fly experiments resulting in nothing but more fruit flies, and the lack of fossil links are hard to refute. The arguments you have referenced do not contain facts or science, merely opinions supported by wishful thinking.
I accept your apology for your "vitriol". Try to control yourself in the future.