I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.
Moreover I am not interested in putting creationism into science class, for it clearly belongs in philosophy class. Still, I am forbidden by the (doctrinaire) "powers that be" from doing even this in the public schools. Why???
Creationism is ontological in its focus (ontology = the study of being and existence and their relations), science is empirical (having to do with measurement of events taking place in the observable, physical world). There are very clear distinctions between these two branches of intellectual inquiry. It is only when science becomes "ontological" and metaphysical in its utterances that we need to worry. For such statements are beyond the scope and purview of the scientific method.
And yet Darwinist evolution theory clearly gives us a metaphysical account of the rise and progress of man. It actually gives us a human ontology that has a profound bearing on the human moral order, and thus social organization; and which poses a direct challenge to the traditional idea of the Good, not to mention it puts the justification of human free will in dire jeopardy.
As such, it actually does have the form of an ersatz religious doctrine — one that kinda reminds me of Wahabbist Islamic doctrine. Especially the part about human free will.
So-called scientists when they infer human bodies came from monkeys which came from something else, which came from something else.. eventually from some kind of organic soup of chemicals(inferred of course).. Get all pissy faced when accused of offering a metaphysical and/or ontological offering..
Could be because academia has been "Bogarded" (about 95%) by left wing political extremists.. and mostly democrats.. Democrats can never get anything correctly.. anything.. They could screw up a wet dream..
Little wonder speaking of the spirit/Spirit that drives mans flesh is beyond them.. Biological Science to leftists is like the animated movie "CARS".. Cars that speak with feelings and personalitys.. yet are still mechanisms.. basically a cartoon..
To leftists and other socialists the human flesh is all humans are.. just like the animated cartoon.. Ideas/intelligence comes from the "brain" and NOT from the spirit.. like the cartoon.. Politically in AMerica today democrat politics is exactly like a cartoon.. Fleshly governance.. as academia is fleshly facts.. Could be thats the difference between the voters too.. they elect the flesh and not the spirit..
It’s this kind of observation that drives Darwinists right off the edge. Their outrage stems not from its supposed error, but rather, I think, from how devastatingly dead-on accurate it is (they will never admit that). I’ve not seen, nor heard of, any valid surveys reporting numbers on how many scientists actually do deny the existence of free will (nevertheless a goodly number, I think). But any who do, have instantly eviscerated any claim they have to ontological validity in any judgments they make, even purely scientific ones. However multiple reasons they have to offer for conclusions they make, having eschewed free will, they must face the ultimate fact that they have no rational reason for their conclusions and beliefs other than that they are helpless to conclude or believe anything other than what they do, in fact, think. Now, that goes right by blind faith to . . . what? I don’t know. I imagine philosophy has a name for it (surely something better than Nihilism) and I suspect, dear betty, that you know what that is. {8^)
”I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.
Of course not. Creationism is so much more than that. Science is simply one way we keep in touch with the Lord. And the fact that Science also betters our condition in so many ways is, I think, no mere coincidence. Creationists make a fundamental error when they seek to argue science with Scientists in MHO (you Creationists who want to continue banging your heads against a brick wall – go ahead, don’t let me stop you). Scientists are so much more interesting (and entertaining) when they attempt to translate their science theories and science facts into cultural or political values. Ask the right question and all one usually gets in return is the forum equivalent of a blank stare, or the sudden need to be somewhere else.
Thanks so much for the HiHo, boop. I really appreciate your kindness and consideration.
Perhaps because creationism is often taught as religious belief by zealous preacher/teachers, rather than being taught as one element commonly found in worldwide religions, and as such as something to be studied in a comparative religion class?
(That's what got the school board in trouble in Dover, isn't it?)
But then the whole point of this effort is to teach religion in the schools. None of the folks pushing creationism/creation "science"/ID in the schools is interested in scientific analyses of religion. They only want students exposed to their particular religious belief. That is what this whole sordid affair is all about, isn't it?
As you know, my scientific bent leads me to seek "root causes". And that includes seeking the root cause of why otherwise intelligent believers insist that the creative work and persona of our eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator must be constrained (almost said, "belittled", but, that wouldn't be prudent) to fit within their human measures of time, space, and process.
As such, I am dealing with the motives of believers -- and I perceive such to be "off limits" in this "ecumenical" format. So, I will try to observe -- silently. (Can you imagine how very difficult that is for me?) <LOL!>
And yet Darwinist evolution theory clearly gives us a metaphysical account of the rise and progress of man. It actually gives us a human ontology that has a profound bearing on the human moral order, and thus social organization; and which poses a direct challenge to the traditional idea of the Good, not to mention it puts the justification of human free will in dire jeopardy.
***Your posts are amazing. I think I said the same thing when I suggested that the implications of evolution were evil. But you break it down much further, like a scientist. Thanks for posting on this thread; I hope you like the ecumenical tag system.