The monkeys aren't too thrilled about you either

[scott_harpell]

3) There is no inherent lack of compatibility between Christianity and Evolution. You are entirely misinformed if you feel this is the case. Since you are a scinetist, I would figure you would research befoer making statments about which you know nothing.

If you interpret the bible literally there is a substantial compatibility issue; many of the groups objecting to evolution hold just such a view.

 

If you take the Bible litteraly, you are to poke out your eye and cut off your hand when they cause you to sin.

 

Obviously there are cultural context to take into consideration; as well as certain metaphors to decipher.

[Dru]

Please provide links to Jewish, Islamic,

Both hold old testament beliefs.

 

but can you find any organizations devoted to advocating the teaching of creation science or intelligent design that are composed of and funded by islamic, jewish, buddhist, etc groups as opposed to the myriad of creationist groups funded by Christians?

[scott_harpell]

I don't get where you are going with this. There are perversions to every belief system.

[catbirdseat]

The supposed "war" between religion and science is overstated. Those on the side of atheism find comfort in pointing out the ignorance of "creationists" and painting all people of faith with this broad brush-stroke. In reality, there are many people of faith who find that science and religion can coexist and are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. Scientists who think that science somehow answers all the questions about life and its purpose are just as ignorant as the most instranigent creationist.

Science isn't about the meaning of life. A scientist simply doesn't use words like "purpose". What scientists resent is not religion itself, but representing religious belief as though it (creationism) is in some way scientifically derived, or equivalent to science. Science should be taught in Science Class and religion should be taught in Church.

[scott_harpell]

3) There is no inherent lack of compatibility between Christianity and Evolution. You are entirely misinformed if you feel this is the case. Since you are a scinetist, I would figure you would research befoer making statments about which you know nothing.

If you interpret the bible literally there is a substantial compatibility issue; many of the groups objecting to evolution hold just such a view.

 

Such groups are a minority. If you are arguing against these groups, I will join you. You are trying to apply this to the entire belief system.

[Dru]

You said that creationists not = Christians. I am looking for some examples of groups actively advocating creationism that are not Christians.

[scott_harpell]

The supposed "war" between religion and science is overstated. Those on the side of atheism find comfort in pointing out the ignorance of "creationists" and painting all people of faith with this broad brush-stroke. In reality, there are many people of faith who find that science and religion can coexist and are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. Scientists who think that science somehow answers all the questions about life and its purpose are just as ignorant as the most instranigent creationist.

Science isn't about the meaning of life. A scientist simply doesn't use words like "purpose". What scientists resent is not religion itself, but representing religious belief as though it (creationism) is in some way scientifically derived, or equivalent to science. Science should be taught in Science Class and religion should be taught in Church.

 

false dichotomy.

[scott_harpell]

You said that creationists not = Christians. I am looking for some examples of groups actively advocating creationism that are not Christians.

 

How about the converse?

 

Here

 

I think you are missing something Dru. Some liberals feel that we should only live in cities. Just because you cannot find the same trend in conservative circles dose not mean that Liberal="we must live in cities"

[Dru]

You said that creationists not = Christians. I am looking for some examples of groups actively advocating creationism that are not Christians.

 

How about the converse?

 

Here

 

I think you are missing something Dru. Some liberals feel that we should only live in cities. Just because you cannot find the same trend in conservative circles dose not mean that Liberal="we must live in cities"

 

The converse does not apply. "All creationists are Christians" does not mean that "All Christians are creationists". The second is demonstrably false but we are discussing the first.

[cj001f]

false dichotomy.

Not at all. Science is absent of the big "Why". Religion supplies the "why".

 

And show me a creationist group that doesn't use a literalist, or at least a more literal interpretation of the bible. They certainly don't use the Jefferson bible

[scott_harpell]

Oooooh but Dru watch it. I said Christianity does not = Creationism.

 

I can tell you that there are Creationist that are not Christians. Look at the ancient mythologies. Ilmatar of the Finish mythologies is given the same credit as contemporary creationists give Jehova.

 

Carefull bud.

[Dru]

Oooooh but Dru watch it. I said Christianity does not = Creationism.

 

I can tell you that there are Creationist that are not Christians. Look at the ancient mythologies. Ilmatar of the Finish mythologies is given the same credit as contemporary creationists give Jehova.

 

Carefull bud.

 

There are "creation myths" in every world religion but how many of them are advocating that their creation myth be taught in American high school science class? Which is the "creationism" we are talking about here.

[iain]

Didn't you catch the patronizing tone indicating intellectual superiority Dru? You're clearly out of your logic-leaping league, Aristotle.

[bunglehead]

[foraker]

It's funny, as a scientist, I'm always reading articles where someone within the field is taking a hammer to the dominant paradigm to see if it is valid. Why do I get the feeling no one from the ID camp is doing the same thing? Actually, I look at ID as an odd mixture of christian conservatism and new-age spongethink. You have your literal interpretationists consorting with those who don't care what the answer is as long as you feel good about it.

[scott_harpell]

false dichotomy.

Not at all. Science is absent of the big "Why". Religion supplies the "why".

 

And show me a creationist group that doesn't use a literalist, or at least a more literal interpretation of the bible. They certainly don't use the Jefferson bible

 

Creationists do not equal Christians. I am trying to understand the reason you are grappling with this concept. It eludes me.

[Dru]

Didn't you catch the patronizing tone indicating intellectual superiority Dru? You're clearly out of your logic-leaping league, Aristotle.

 

well at least I know enough to know that LARPing leads to furrydom.

[scott_harpell]

Didn't you catch the patronizing tone indicating intellectual superiority Dru? You're clearly out of your logic-leaping league, Aristotle.

 

well at least I know enough to know that LARPing leads to furrydom.

 

reeeeeely?

[scott_harpell]

Oooooh but Dru watch it. I said Christianity does not = Creationism.

 

I can tell you that there are Creationist that are not Christians. Look at the ancient mythologies. Ilmatar of the Finish mythologies is given the same credit as contemporary creationists give Jehova.

 

Carefull bud.

 

There are "creation myths" in every world religion but how many of them are advocating that their creation myth be taught in American high school science class? Which is the "creationism" we are talking about here.

 

I take it that you retract your previous statment then.

[bDubyaH]

The converse does not apply. "All creationists are Christians" does not mean that "All Christians are creationists". The second is demonstrably false but we are discussing the first.

 

have to agree with dru here. i know plenty of christians who are not creationists, but have yet to meet a single creationist who does not see themselves as a good christian.

creationism has not stood up against the rigors of science well, that is why evolution is the dominant theory. the problem with ID and whatnot is not that it exists and is a competing theory, every scientist worth his/her salt welcomes competing theories. the problem is that the people driving the current round of creationism are circumventing the scientific process, by using big words at public school meetings and convincing the general non-scientific public that evolution doesn't explain it all. there is an agreed upon scientific process that works pretty darn well. if the ID foks can validate their theory via this process, i will accept it, but they haven't therefore they need to step back and let the dominant theory remain.

[scott_harpell]

have to agree with dru here. i know plenty of christians who are not creationists, but have yet to meet a single creationist who does not see themselves as a good christian.

 

No-one was arguing this. What would this prove anyways?

[Dru]

Read all about it. Atoms are held together by GOD'S LOVE!!!

[Dru]

Oooooh but Dru watch it. I said Christianity does not = Creationism.

 

I can tell you that there are Creationist that are not Christians. Look at the ancient mythologies. Ilmatar of the Finish mythologies is given the same credit as contemporary creationists give Jehova.

 

Carefull bud.

 

There are "creation myths" in every world religion but how many of them are advocating that their creation myth be taught in American high school science class? Which is the "creationism" we are talking about here.

 

I take it that you retract your previous statment then.

 

I retract nothing. You can take what you like. Maybe a class in remedial English emphasizing reading comprehension skills?

[scott_harpell]

have to agree with dru here. i know plenty of christians who are not creationists, but have yet to meet a single creationist who does not see themselves as a good christian.

 

No-one was arguing this. What would this prove anyways?

 

Answer this then. Why were you jumping on this when no-one claimed it.

 

Also, what would this prove?

[bDubyaH]

back to the original post

Personally, I think the Keebler eleves are the result of an unholy union between wood elves and the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Current Darwinian 'theory' provides no evidence to the contrary. I demand my views be taught in a 'fair and balanced' manner.....

foraker, i agree. i believe this should be taught in schools as well, if we get enough people to think the same thing we will have the dominant paradigm. we got work to do...let's rally