Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:48 am    Post subject: On Creationists... Reply with quote

From Skeptoid.com, a fairly interesting look at the different categories or types of Creationists. I think it has some value in understanding the larger ID / Science 'debate'.

First, there are Old World Creationists, those who accept Earth's age as 4.5 billion years old:

Brian Dunning wrote:
1) Theistic Evolution. This is the Catholic Pope's officially stated position, and it's embraced by many real scientists of faith. Theistic evolution accepts both the geologic and biologic records, including modern evolutionary synthesis, and posits that these are simply the tools God chose to create the natural world...

2) Evolutionary Creationism also accepts the geologic and biologic records, and makes its creationist distinction in that there were a literal Adam and Eve who were simply the first spiritually aware humans, though they came into being in the same way as all early humans.

3) Progressive Creationism goes one step farther. Progressive Creationism accepts the geologic record, and much of the prehistoric biologic record, including the true age of dinosaurs and other early lifeforms, but believes that the creation of humans and perhaps other modern animals was a special creationism event as literally depicted in Genesis. Thus, there can be no biological link between humans and early hominids from the fossil record.

4) Day-Age Creationism is the belief that the six days of creation were really six geological epochs. Usually some effort is made to reconcile specific days in Genesis to specific epochs in Earth history, but since things didn't really all happen separately and consecutively like in Genesis, such efforts are generally somewhat ham-handed. But at least they're trying. Day-Age Creationism is what Jehovah's Witnesses advocate in their Watchtower pamphlets.

5) Gap Creationism is about as far as the Old Earth model can be stretched. This model attempts to unify the true age of the Earth as measured by science with the literal Biblical account. Jimmy Swaggart advocates this model. Gap Creationism states that the first verse of the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth, was followed by a "gap" of 4.5 billion years, during which time not much happened. And then, the literal creation of Genesis took place in six days about six to ten thousand years ago. Necessarily, this model has to abandon evolution completely, although it adheres to proper geology.


Then there are the New World Creationists, falling in to two camps:

Brian Dunning wrote:
1) Adherents to Omphalism fully accept every scientific measurement of the age of the Earth and every discovery of modern biology, with the important exception that all such discoveries are wrong: God only wanted to make us think that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved from lower forms. A true scientist doing real research can be an Omphalist. He will arrive at the correct conclusions, though he will believe that his measurement is merely what God wants him to see.

2) Modern Young Earth Fundamentalism ... They honestly believe in alternate versions of virtually every science known, throwing away every shred of modern science that doesn't point to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the dinosaurs on Day 1, fossilization taking only a few hundred years, and all major geologic features having been created in a few days in Noah's Flood. They reject evolution, cosmology, geology, and every science that supports them; which, by extension, eventually includes every scientific discipline...


Dunning rightfully points out that the ID fight really isn't about Creationism vs Science, but about Young Earth Fundamentalists vs. Everyone else. The Young Earthers just happen to be the loudest and most extreme, thus garnering the most media attention and polarizing the debate. I suspect that Progressive Creationists probably throw their lot in with the Young Earthers more often than not.

Anecdotally speaking, I would guess that most religious Canadians are Old Earth creationists of the Theistic, Evolutionary, or Progressive Camps. Most Young Earthers seem to be from some the more fundamentalist pentacostal traditions, of which there are noticably fewer in Canada than the United States. Any thoughts?
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polls have that 40-45% of Americans fall in the Young Earth Creationist camp, or at least the Gap Creationist camp, though this is the first I've heard that this is a popular belief system.
I doubt that in Canada we have anything near those numbers, though perhaps many Baptists believe this stuff.
Personally, I respect anyone in the theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism camp. Neither of these two ideas dismiss any scientific fact. They just add God into the equation.
If the second camp were to say that Adam and Eve came about less than 10,000 years ago, then I would have a problem with them but if they say that there is a point around 175,000 years ago that the first two humans as we know us today evolved, then I have no problem with that. There had to be a time when the first modern humans came into existence, it is only logical that a beginning happened like that. Science may never be able to prove or disprove that all mankind trace back to one human couple though.
Also, if they believe in a world wide flood that wiped out everyone except those in a boat, I would also have a major problem with that one too.

There is a lot of overlap between one and two. Dr. Ken Miller, the key witness who clobbered ID in Dover a couple of years ago, is a Catholic. He is a theistic evolutionist but he also thinks that the first known humans to evolve were Adam and Eve. Stories like the Flood are allegorical to him though.

Of interest, the guy who runs Thank God For Evolution fall in category one. He has a ministry. And he was nice enough to put link my blog to his site, after I wrote a blog post commending him:

http://thankgodforevolution.com/

As far as ID goes though, anyone is camp one or two do not want their beliefs in science classes, as they for the most part respect the scientific method.

I may do my next blog post on the camps you discovered. It was an interesting find.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no problem with theistic evolution. Science is agnostic and doesn't know or care about god. If god is the driving force behind evolution, then so be it (although this is not my personal belief).

As far as those paradigms that deny evolution, well they may as well deny that ice melts or that fire or hot. Evolution is a naturally observed phenomenon. New species have been observed to evolve into this world, transitional fossil records have been found. There are valid criticisms of some evolutionary theory, but not of evolution itself.
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a young earth creationist. I believe God created the earth and everything in it in 6 literal days just over 6,000 years ago. For anyone interested in massive amounts of scientific proof to back up young earth creation, visit this site. All of the macro evolution theory's, ID, and other theory's are refuted or discussed as well.
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
Evolution is a naturally observed phenomenon.


Micro evolution is. Macro evolution has never been observed.

Bleatmop wrote:
New species have been observed to evolve into this world,


Name one species that has spontaneously formed or changed its genetic make up. Or better yet find me 4 prominent Darwinists that will agree on the definition of species let alone even give one.

Bleatmop wrote:
transitional fossil records have been found.


And every single one has been proved as false.

Bleatmop wrote:
There are valid criticisms of some evolutionary theory, but not of evolution itself.


Macro evolution is so lacking in scientific evidence it should be downgraded from a theory to a hypothesis and if it were not so entrenched, it would have been long ago.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if we are too busy looking into the where from we'll be ignoring the why for...
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

truth4freedom wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
Evolution is a naturally observed phenomenon.


Micro evolution is. Macro evolution has never been observed.

Bleatmop wrote:
New species have been observed to evolve into this world,


Name one species that has spontaneously formed or changed its genetic make up. Or better yet find me 4 prominent Darwinists that will agree on the definition of species let alone even give one.

Bleatmop wrote:
transitional fossil records have been found.


And every single one has been proved as false.

Bleatmop wrote:
There are valid criticisms of some evolutionary theory, but not of evolution itself.


Macro evolution is so lacking in scientific evidence it should be downgraded from a theory to a hypothesis and if it were not so entrenched, it would have been long ago.


Sounds like you already have all the answers figured out. I'll save my time and discussion for someone who is interested in science.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


On Creationists...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB