Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: balrog666
Is cow dung different than bull dung?

Both creationism and ID (creationism's little sister) claim that evolution didn't happen. They differ only in the alleged identity of the creator. They are both totally dedicated to an irrational dismissal of the accumulated evidence. Both are anti-science and anti-rational. ID is creationism wearing a fig-leaf.

19 posted on 01/13/2003 12:00:52 PM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy! Really! It's so obvious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
ID is creationism wearing a fig leaf. Ping.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

20 posted on 01/13/2003 12:03:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy! It's so obvious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
Both are anti-science and anti-rational.

So I suppose you reject the scientific achievements of those from Galileo to Newton to Faraday, not to mention the many, many thousands of scientists today who believe in God? You are very, very narrowminded.

23 posted on 01/13/2003 12:13:14 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
Both creationism and ID (creationism's little sister) claim that evolution didn't happen.

Not really. ID includes either no evolution at all, or as much evolution as you like. It is as nebulous on this point as on every other. Again it must accomodate every variant of creationism (even mutually contradictory ones) and these vary greatly in the amount of evolution they include, most of them actually including quite a bit of evolution (although this is seldom willingly acknowledged).

Sometimes strict creationists will claim to exclude all evolution except "microevolution," but that isn't really true. In fact if you take them seriously on that account, and compare them to 17th-19th Century creationists who believed in "fixed species," they will take offense. Their main problem derives from the account of Noah's flood and the ark, which they take quite literally (the ICR and other orgs having even sent expeditions to look for the ark). They've done the calculations and know that they can only cram a few ten thousand seperate "kinds" on the ark at most, yet there are millions on the earth today (not even counting extinct forms). Since the flood, according to the young earth creationists, only occured a few thousand years ago, they actually have to believe in a kind of "hyper-evolution" (much more rapid than anything a conventional evolutionist would consider remotely plausible) to derive the present variety from the small number of "created kinds" preserved on the ark.

(Preceeding for the lurkers. I know you are aware of all this.)

61 posted on 01/13/2003 3:34:06 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson