Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
So have I.
I am yet to fully understand human pride.
Many have.
I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.
You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.
All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.
Ok then prove there is no bigfoot. You know what I meant.
As for what you said about theories....
Theories are based on data, and subject to falsification.
The problem for creationism to even qualify as a theory is that it
a) has not data
b) is magic-based and as such not subject to falsification.
If you want to use the reasonable doubt model, i have reasonable doubts about creationism since it has no data to confirm it. Evolution has a real edge there!
I also doubt the existence of other things for which there is no evidence and no way to detect their existence.
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
Evolution does not posit origins.
And back at you.... I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.
This is not about "intellectual capacity" if by that you mean intelligence.
This is what "intellectual" means...
Definitions of intellectual on the Web:
of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
a person who uses the mind creatively
cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons.
There is nothing "rational" about faith, or OEC for that matter.
It isnt necessary to be lack intellectual capacity to believe in such things, its just necessary to avoid thinking too hard. The appeal is to the emotions, not to intellect.
I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.
I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
Why does it seem that so many fundamentalist Christians are against intellectualism? My father really looks down on universities and anyone who has a bachelor's degree or above. Of course my mom who is about to get her Doctorate in December is pretty upset.
I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?
My experience has been that Fundies, in general, are at least somewhat anti-intelliectual. Science is seen as "Man's Knowledge" and is always trumped by "God's Kowledge," as revealed through scripture. The joke is that both science and The Bible are works of Man. In addition, it is a particular interpretation of scripture that they claim is "God's Word," even though different people can interpret scripture differently.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do.
Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion...
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
It is perfectly possible to accept scientific findings about evolution, and the age of the earth, and all the knowledge that such findings entail, and still believe that God is the Creator. The theory of evolution does not talk of the Creator, only of the processes involved in the development of life.
In other words, not all Christians find it necessary to make an arbitrary and false distinction between science and faith. Some of us are happy to accept both for what they are, and to allow God to be rather more impressive than the Bible suggests.
Any God could make an earth centred universe in six days. To me, it takes a far more impressive God, with an infinite amount of patience, to spend 12 billion years (?) on it, and then say to Moses, 'Just call it a week; that's close enough.'
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion.
I used it twice, the first time sarcastically, and the second time as the barest of admissions that it's not technically impossible for an eminent scientist to be a creationist, though I sincerely doubt that one could maintain a position of eminence after making such a claim. Having never heard of one, despite a familiarity with scientists in general, I can concluded that the incidence is exceedingly rare if it exists at all, and would not disturb the results of these studies, which in any case extend far beyond simply cataloging scientists.
While statistics demonstrate that believers are less intelligent than non-believers, there is every reason to conclude that creationists are a still less intelligent subset of believers. However, we need not make that conclusion to recognize that, creationists being a subset of believers and not of non-believers, the original results will still apply to them.
So no, it's not simply my opinion.
I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
Than those that do what?
Evolution does not posit origins.
No, indeed it doesn't, but 'creationism' commonly presents itself as an alternative to evolution, and not simply to abiogenesis.
I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.
I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.
Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.
God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.
I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.
If it is tightly woven, please tell us how does the supernatural interact with/affect engineering?
I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.
Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.
God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.
I have to disagree with you here. Supernatural means "beyond nature." Unless Jesus used a natural mechanism to turn water into wine (much like winemakers use natural processes to turn fruit juice into wine), then what he did was "supernatural." I am unaware of any natural process that can turn pure water into wine. This is what Jesus was reported to do.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Linear Mode
