Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Zach wrote:
I have always used the term creationist to refer to
one who rejects the theory or evolution in favor of
the idea that humanity was _created_ directly by God.
I believe this is similar to the definition used by
the people who call themselves creationists, and who
advocate the teaching of _creation science_ in public
schools. I am a strong deist, but in my home state of
Kansas I have seen the terrible damage that
creationists can wreak on science education.
Religious people of a more liberal persuasion who believe in divine
creation but also believe in evolution and a 10-billion-year-old
universe should probably call themselves something other than
"creationists", or at least use a lower-case c. And on this list,
I would suggest that they be clear about whether they feel that
*scientific* evidence supports their belief in divine creation.
Robert writes:
Since I mentioned "creation science" in one of my posts, I'll put forward
my definition of "creationist". Before I do, I should point out that
there are essentially three areas of debate when it comes to the evolution
issue.
1. How did life begin?
2. The age of the universe, earth, etc.
3. Whether species have involved (or can evolve) into different species
In my view, the word "creation" relates to #1. When I use "creation
science", however, I am using it to describe the approach in which the
Christian Bible is used as a basis to address #2 and #3, not just #1. I
apologize for not defining my terms. There are many people who agree with
"creation science" when it comes to #1 but differ when it comes to #2 and
#3. Here I assume the "creation science" argument is that the age of the
universe is relatively young (6,000-10,000 years or so) and that there
have been no interspecies evolution.
Chuck writes:
Scope's was CONVICTED of violating that ban and the legal restriction
was not removed until fairly recently. In the '60's it was still in
force. Our HS bio teacher had attended a North Carolina institution
to get his advanced degree in Bio and could only 'talk around' his
research on little lizards that grew up in separated environments. He
couldn't use the evil 'E' word.
Hugh writes:
Creationists are free to believe whatever they want, no matter what I
think of it. They are even free to publish whatever they want to
about the creation/evolution controversy, no matter what I think of
it. They are free to run for public office on a plank of promoting
creationism in the education system, and if they and enough of their
co-believers win, even change our constitution to make creationism
the law of the land, although I would fight that with every bone in
my body.
But, until they manage to convert our government from a
constitutional democracy to an autocratic theocracy, they do not have
the right to force our schools to teach creationism and call it
science. That has been made quite clear by the supreme court on a
number of occasions.
In my experience, "folks of faith," as you so quaintly characterize
them, do a lot more demeaning of agnostics and atheists than the
other way around, and if you don't believe that just count the number
of atheists who have been elected to public office in this country
where, according to the constitution there can be "no religious test
for holding public office."
BTW, I am all in favor of religious diversity in this country,
because as long as the diversely religious are at each other's
throats, arguing over who has the most direct line to god, they will
be way too busy to bother with the atheists and agnostics.
And before we get out the flame throwers, I agree that this topic is
not germain to this list, and I have said my last on it, and on
creationism.