Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Where does this come from? It comes from the falsehoods and bad theology that you have been fed.Evolution says nothing about God. The majority of believers have no problem with both. The only thing that evolution is any problem for is a minorities interpretation and misunderstanding of the true value of the Bible.While I know that there are many who appear to deliberately espouse very poor theology it is surprising that you haven't gotten the true relationship between the sciences and religion sorted out.The sciences are concerned with the natural world. So science is, by definition, not concerned with God.

Let's chew away at these bit by bit shall we.That evolution has occured on Earth is a proven fact. The theory of how it occured isn't, technically "proven" in the 100% math like way of proving things. It is just enormously sure after all this time.In what way hasn't it been "proven" scientifically? That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you should describe what you think "scientifically" is?I don't think any one here has said all truth is determined by the scientific method. I think most say that we haven't seen any other method that seems to work for determining things about the natural world. If you have a better one we have a thread or two asking for it.If the evidence isn't "physical" how can two people agree on what there is? What "evidence" is there that isn't physical?If you think there is evidence for creationism (and maybe you should define what you mean when you use the word creationism since it seems to mean a lot of things) then please present it for examination and consideration. If that evidence isn't physical then I guess I can't see it so why should I consider something I can't see? (see used to mean observe in some way or another).I'm no expert on history or the Bible. I believe it can be used as a historical reference but I have been told that it isn't a very reliable one and needs to be bolstered with whatever other sources or evidence is available. However, I don't really know.Whether the Bible is the word of God or not seems to me to be a matter of belief. One person may believe one way; another may believe differently. However, even with my limited knowledge it seems pretty apparant that what we have as "the" Bible today is the work of humans. For one thing we don't have any original documents so they are all copies and translations of others. Not my area so you may take that up in one of the Bible threads.Perhaps you should define what you think science is (another topic in this forum I think). If you think you can make up a better way of learning reasonable secure things about the natural word that does not include falsifiablity, reproducability, tentativeness, coherence etc. then that would be interesting. You might -- in that new thread -- show why any one of these characteristics should not be used.I absolutely do not think that creationists deserve to be spoken to as if they were vermin. I do think that those who knowingly lie should be treated as such.I also think that those who are unable to learn and think logically can be pitied.I think that those who wish to force teachings of a specific minority religious veiw into the schools should be treated as dangerous and as opposed to what the USA and other western democracies are founded on.For those who are simply uninformed and have not had a chance to learn but are willing to learn I have both a degree of respect and sympathy over how hard it must be to have some fundamental ideas changed and to discover that some people have been lying to them.I think that you will find that the above views are those of the majority of Christians and have little or nothing to do with any specific science.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-19-2005 09:15 PM

Belivers in Christianity and taking the Bible as the "final authority on the faith" but not on things outside of the faith.Matters of faith are not contradicted by science. The fact that the people of the time had no comprehension of the actual nature of the universe around them and were in no way prepared to grasp it simply means that some parts of the Bible are not expected to be equivalent to a modern understanding of the world.If someone wishs to take those parts of the Bible and make them as important as the messages about matters of faith then they are the ones who should be held accountable for the damage that they do to the faith. That is the view of Christians I know well and the view of several Christians here. It is not science that is a danger to the faith it is those who cling to a primitive world view that is centuries out of date and claim that without this view the faith is destroyed. These are the ones that the faithful see as destructive to a more mature, stong faith that doesn't require sciences help to survive.

If no one is trying to force a religious view into the science class room what are all the various court cases about then?What does ICR want and why does it exist?It is the unfounded claims that there is scientific support for creationism (the literal, fundamental sort) that some are trying to force into the schools. You aren't claiming that these don't exist are you?I suspect that you think there is actual scientific, observable evidence for creationism and think this should be taught in the science class.I happen to agree that it should be. I have said so in several posts in the 'education' forum. If you wish to pick up on one of those then take the rest of the discussion there.Of course, my reason for wanting some facts about so-called creation "science" taught in the science class room is to show it up for just what it is.

Does this suggest PG that disparagement of that kind of creationist is ok with you?And just what is it that you think they are wrong on?

Scraf, he may have a point though.I do wonder myself how much of the creationist stuff is political rather than religious. It is hard to unscramble.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-20-2005 01:47 AM

ABEDarn! This is all off topic. It belongs in the GD thread not here. If you wish to ignore it here Faith that would be reasonable. I don't, however, want to lose it. If you feel like answering the GD would be the place.It might be an idea for you to give as detailed a summary in the GD thead of what you actually are picturing. I think we are all a bit uncertain of that. I know I am a bit confused or incredulous that you could be espousing what you appear to be. Please refer to anc give some details of the creation "scientists" description of how the flood occured and what evidence for it should be expected. Enough detail is required to be able to distinguish the flood idea from the current geological idea.If that could be nailed down then perhaps evidence could be sought for.Meanwhile, I presume those "scientists" who believe in the flood are looking hard for such evidence. Could you refer me to the field work that they have been conducting over the past few decades?All I have seen so far are things using Mt St Helen's as a comparison to geologic processes and other ideas which don't seem to work out well on careful examination.When you present these we can discuss them.If however, you don't care what the evidence is then the discussion really is over. You may voice your opinions all you want. Just don't expect anyone to take them very seriously unless they are already a member of your minority sect. You seem to keep making this statement in one form or another. Perhaps you can explain a bit more carefully as to why you think it is.As noted over and over, there will be times when, in a particular place no net desposition will take place. There will also be time when net erosion will take place. Do you not accept this? You have, IIRC, said that net erosion HAS to take place. I presume you would also accept that there will be times when NO depostion will take place.If those two things are true then how can there NOT be a missing layer at that particular location and time?I think you have, meanwhile, got this weird idea that the geologic column says that there should be a uniform layer of specific rock forms all over the world. Is that a correct understanding of what you think?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-21-2005 01:06 AM

I think that Faith has answered the question that is the topic of this thread.Her continued assertion as fact of things which are utterly wrong. Her unwillingness to learn. Her utterly, unchangeable dogmatic interpretation of text. Her unwillingness to recognize the legitimate concern of other, more knowledgeable and more sophisticated believers offers only one answer to the question.Yes!

I think you have something of a point Holmes but not one you can overstate.I try, myself, to point out weak arguments in the "evo" side and ask for backup but don't always pay enough attention.We seem to relay on the "opposing" side to do the demanding of evidence etc. Of course, the 'evos' are more rigourous about that so it ends up unbalenced.Perhaps we should not only remind the 'creos' about the need for supplying evidence but also about not letting the 'evos' off the hook?Does this make sense in the context you are putting forward?

Why don't you just look them up at the creationist websites or read over the creationists books on geology for these answers. The evidence has been around for many decades and the creations "science" organizations have been "researching" for at least a few decades. You can report back when you find the results of this. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to spell out your thinking in more detail and correct the misimpressions that we have.