Creationism - ID

[Welshcookie 17]

I think you can believe in God and believe in evolution. I don't think the one need exclude the other.

I just don't understand how proponents of ID Creationism are so threatened by the idea that the universe observes physical rules. If you deny logical science - all you're left with is illogical magic.

Love the new ID! Not a lot......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

God created evolving life forms - both sides win. ...nuff said.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Genesis story and in particular Adam and Eve don't make any sense not if you take it literally. Apparantly, god made Adam, then made Eve out of Adam, but then there are these random 'other people' who marry the offspring of this pair. Where did they come from? Who made them? Where these people self aware or where they naked? No explanations forthcoming.

Then of course there's a gamut of people who lived several hundred years. Is there one ancient skeleton of a man older than about 45? I've never heard it

And, so on ad infinitum.

If people want to believe in god so be it but don't push your values on the rest of us and suggest that they make sense. They don't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Genesis story and in particular Adam and Eve don't make any sense not if you take it literally. Apparantly, god made Adam, then made Eve out of Adam, but then there are these random 'other people' who marry the offspring of this pair. Where did they come from? Who made them? Where these people self aware or where they naked? No explanations forthcoming.

Then of course there's a gamut of people who lived several hundred years. Is there one ancient skeleton of a man older than about 45? I've never heard it

And, so on ad infinitum.

If people want to believe in god so be it but don't push your values on the rest of us and suggest that they make sense. They don't.

The Creationists who reject Evolution are Fundamentalists.

Biblical inerrancy is the conservative evangelical doctrinal position^[1] that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts."^[2] Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

......

Most non-Christians have probably never heard of the difference, but it does exist and it is quite significant.

[Peikko 1,575]

But, but, Gary told me creationism was 'maintstream'. Is it, or isn't it?

By the way, I don't really have a personal problem if you want to believe in god, or not, but I do have a problem with a country basing it's social programs on religious dogma.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But, but, Gary told me creationism was 'maintstream'. Is it, or isn't it?

By the way, I don't really have a personal problem if you want to believe in god, or not, but I do have a problem with a country basing it's social programs on religious dogma.

Religious Fundamentalism seems to have taken over most Protestant religions but I'm not really sure about the numbers. There are such religions like Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, some Baptists and Methodists who aren't biblical literalists. In other words, they have no religious qualms about accepting the Theory of Evolution since in their view, the Bible is not a science book.

.....

Here's the Episcopalians position on Evolution:

Episcopalians Affirm Evolution

Delegates to the 75th Convention of the Episcopal Church meeting in Columbus, Ohio have passed legislation affirming "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."

The Convention further resolved to "strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge."

The Church position, while affirming that "God is Creator," embraces what has been called theistic evolution in opposition to those who argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis rules out evolution. Likewise, the Episcopalian position differs from that taken by ID activists who also argue against common descent.

While Kansas State Board of Education Chair Steve Abrams may believe that people must choose between evolution and the bible, the Episcopalian Church resolution demonstrate that for many Christians they are completely compatible.

http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/06...-evolution.html

[Jeraly 4]

I don't consider myself religious but at the same time I believe that it would be naive to think that we are the only intelligent life force out there. As it is we are making huge progress with robotics and AI so what is to say there isn't something else out there that has the same if not better knowledge? I'm not stating that everything was created as in the creationist theory, but that it is possible it exists in one form or another.

As for the universe... well - I believe it has evolved - I mean, if "god" or whatever religious idol is being referred to exists in the truest form, then how the heck did they get there?!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who needs convincing of how whacked out this Creationist thing is should check out the Creationist Museum website. If I lived there - I'd probably go just for a laugh.

The Dinosaurs were apparently one of Adam and Eve's punishments for being thrown out of Eden.

I see they've got an exhibition to explain the various races of humanity - what's the betting that it'll be a sanitised retelling of the story of Shem, Japhet and Ham.

If anyone needs a better example of explicit racism in the Bible - check out the Curse of Ham. Essentially it suggests that the black races are degenerates, cursed by God. This was in fact one of the ideological justifications for slavery - it was very convenient that blacks came "Pre-dehumanized" in the Old Testament.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Amazing, and not cheap either. I'll give them this, christians are amazingly adaptable. After all, they have incorperated paganism so why not have a few dinasaurs in Eden?

[PlatyPius 5]

If you'll believe literal Creationism (ie: the Bible story as true, unadulterated fact), then you'll believe ANYthing.

But you can't, if you're a Christian. Because the coming of Yeshua negated the Torah/OT. You can't believe any of that stuff. Sorry. No more stoning your children to death if they disobey, no more turning your daughters into whores, no more wrathful god, no more 10 Commandments, and no more creation myth.

[jundp 191]

Can you be a "true Christian" and believe in evolution?

Yes

Does one have to accept the story of Adam and Eve?

No

There are actually two Creation stories in the Bible. And I believe (only speaking for my religion and the ones similar to mine) that most non-Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is to be taken as allegory and not literal.

That being said, in no way is Creationism a credible alternative to evolution. Religion should never take the place of science, IMO.

As an elective course for those who wanted it, sure. Why not? In place of science? No way.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Which view of Creation are we talking about? Is it the idea that the Earth was created within a few thousand years ago in 144 hours?

FYI, not all Christians who take the Bible seriously (and not just in matters of "faith") hold to that understanding of the Genesis account of Creation. Personally, I don't think view does justice to the text. I don't think that the only options are either that interpretation of Genesis, or that Genesis is simply an allegory or myth.

I'm not religious and I don't think creationism is credible. Evolution just makes sense to me and I think the universe is such a huge place, which is still expanding, that if there was something out there creating things we'd be able to see it now. Instead, we just see galaxies doing what galaxies do...

That presupposes two things: One, that creation is still going on, and B, that God is a "something" in the universe that can be directly observed.

The Genesis story and in particular Adam and Eve don't make any sense not if you take it literally. Apparantly, god made Adam, then made Eve out of Adam, but then there are these random 'other people' who marry the offspring of this pair. Where did they come from? Who made them? Where these people self aware or where they naked? No explanations forthcoming.

Then of course there's a gamut of people who lived several hundred years. Is there one ancient skeleton of a man older than about 45? I've never heard it

And, so on ad infinitum.

If people want to believe in god so be it but don't push your values on the rest of us and suggest that they make sense. They don't.

They married their siblings.

Anyone who needs convincing of how whacked out this Creationist thing is should check out the Creationist Museum website. If I lived there - I'd probably go just for a laugh.

The Dinosaurs were apparently one of Adam and Eve's punishments for being thrown out of Eden.

I see they've got an exhibition to explain the various races of humanity - what's the betting that it'll be a sanitised retelling of the story of Shem, Japhet and Ham.

If anyone needs a better example of explicit racism in the Bible - check out the Curse of Ham. Essentially it suggests that the black races are degenerates, cursed by God. This was in fact one of the ideological justifications for slavery - it was very convenient that blacks came "Pre-dehumanized" in the Old Testament.

There is nothing in Genesis or any where else in the Bible to support the idea that the "Curse of Ham" had anything to do with being black.

If you'll believe literal Creationism (ie: the Bible story as true, unadulterated fact), then you'll believe ANYthing.

But you can't, if you're a Christian. Because the coming of Yeshua negated the Torah/OT. You can't believe any of that stuff. Sorry. No more stoning your children to death if they disobey, no more turning your daughters into whores, no more wrathful god, no more 10 Commandments, and no more creation myth.

[Jenn! 918]

There are actually two Creation stories in the Bible. And I believe (only speaking for my religion and the ones similar to mine) that most non-Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is to be taken as allegory and not literal.

So is everything in the Bible allegorical? Was the resurrection allegorical? Did Jesus really perform miracles? Was the immaculate conception real? And if all of these things are just metaphors, then what is the basis for the faith?

[jundp 191]

There are actually two Creation stories in the Bible. And I believe (only speaking for my religion and the ones similar to mine) that most non-Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is to be taken as allegory and not literal.

So is everything in the Bible allegorical? Was the resurrection allegorical? Did Jesus really perform miracles? Was the immaculate conception real? And if all of these things are just metaphors, then what is the basis for the faith?

Sorry, I meant to to say that the Creation story was allegorical. I didn't make that clear, which I now realize as I re-read my post

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think this discussion should be debated by scientists.

Heck, if people rely on scientists for a living why are they still believing in Creationism while the scientist themselves do not.