Silly Season in WA State Legislature (my title)

Washington State Legislature ^ | 1/18/2002 | jennyp

[AndrewC]

Hey, if I were a God who had already lived an infinite length of time,

I take it you have difficulty with the concept of space-time.

[AndrewC]

The problem with these fantasists like this politician, they assume the word "creator" in the Declaration of Independence means what they think is the "creator." Blind projection.

Yeah, kinda like trying to make "is" mean "is".

[Chad Fairbanks]

You raise a good point... so, theoretically (tee hee) could we then call Creationism a Theory, since it can't be proven, and it hasn't really been disproven? Thus, it is, in a way, just as valid as the theory of evolution??? ;0)

My own opinion is, some higher power used evolution as the vehicle for creation, but that's just me ;0)

[cascademountaineer]

You raise a good point... so, theoretically could we then call Creationism a Theory, since it can't be proven, and it hasn't really been disproven?

On this issue, I can only speak as someone who actually had creationism taught to him in high school. For about 2 years I attended a private school out here that taught creationism.

There are at least 5-10 different creationism theories floating around at any given time, each with a different stance on different scientific principles.

Each one claims to use scripture but has a completely different take on pre-history regarding everything from fossils, to dinosaurs, to the wavelength of light. The reason there are so many is because there have been so many breakthroughs in the scientific community the creationists have had to race keep up with all the discoveries. Literally a new theory every other week to try and fit extremely literal interpretations of scripture into scientific contexts.

Arguing the case for creationism? Okay, but which theory? But I tend to feel that whoever our creator is, he didnt necessarily need to fit it into our time schedule.

My own opinion is, some higher power used evolution as the vehicle for creation, but that's just me

The conclusion Ive come to as well.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I have no problems with schools teaching both the theory of evolution and any of the many theories of creation.

The exclusion of one over the others is concerning, however.

[Physicist]

You raise a good point... so, theoretically (tee hee) could we then call Creationism a Theory, since it can't be proven, and it hasn't really been disproven? Thus, it is, in a way, just as valid as the theory of evolution??? ;0)

Creationism cannot be called a theory, because its core cannot be disproven. It is therefore not just as valid as the theory of evolution. (Particular claims of creation myths can be disproven, such as the assertion that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago.)