Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Creationism is Non-Scientific	Pericles	03/21/07
"Scientific" Creationism Examined ! An uninformed person might think that the recent surge in creationism is based on some new findings that support the theory or that point out some basic flaw in the theory of evolution. That, however, is not the case, as the renowned palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "According to idealized principles of scientific discourse. the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that the creationists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument ... The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right". We will be looking here at the standard creationist arguments: Creationism is not science for it base its fundamental beliefs not on empirical research but on a belief in biblical inerrancy. The creationist arguments for a young earth, one that is only a few thousand years old, fail upon closer examination. The creationist argument for that the rock strata were all laid at the same time, during the Noahchian flood, fails. The creationist have two pseudo-methods of trying to impress their readers:   o They use credential mongering, trying to impress their readers with PhD's that have no relevance.   o They often quote opponents out of context creating an opposite impression of what was intended. Obviously, these pious fundamentalists have no qualms against dishonest methods like these to prove the truth of their Bible. In summary, "Scientific Creationism" is not science, but a modern manifestation of Christian fundamentalist irrationalism. Recently a new species of creationism has evolved. This new creature, called old earth creationism, believes, unlike the young earth creationism we looked at above, that the world is as old as scientists say it is but that it still carries within it signs of being intelligently designed. Creationism in any format is Non-Scientific !!! Link to very extended supporting article Any comments ?
Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 1:19 pm: TS That's true. But than she neither accepted your invitation to visit the all-glass "Skywalk" over the edge of the Grand Canyon. If it ain't at "AnswersinG" peddler is not interested !!! :) Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 1:31 pm: TS What "boxes" are you talking about? I have no idea! :) Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 2:03 pm: TS OK, OK !!! Yes I recalled that : I thought you had moved forwards in the meantime ... :) Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 3:06 pm: peddler Nowbody claimed that you did not know about that. The point is that you dump data on reality in favour of your beliefs in your unsupported religious preferences. Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 3:45 pm: peddler Incorrect : There are mountains of supporting proof for Evolution. There is no supporting evidence for Creation and/or Intelligent Design !!! Why don't you address THAT ? Nothing at "AnswersinG" ??? :) Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 5:42 pm: TS Don't let peddler "get" to you !!! Show her with every reaction that it is SHE who should prove HER point! :)
Answered By		Answered On
arcura		03/21/07
I BELIEVE that the world is as old as scientists say it is but that it still carries within it signs of being intelligently designed.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!