justlookinla
Regular Member
No it doesn't. It attributes the creation of humanity to only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Darwinist creationist view isn't taught in school because it attributes the development of species to an act of divine creation.
And most Christians do not agree with the viewpoint that Jesus and the 16 disciples were beheaded in Rome.
You made yours up, I made up mine. Fair's fair.
Dizredux
No it doesn't. It attributes the creation of humanity to only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes.
This is incorrect. Historical sciences can be tested as well as any other kind of science. Evidence does not have to be "tested in its own time" or else (for example) geology, astronomy paleontology, archeology, and a fair amount of physics would not be sciences. For any hypothesis or theory be science, it must be able to be tested but there are a number of ways of doing this scientifically.
With the "historical" sciences, testing is usually done in some form of look over there and you will find thus. This is what was done with Neil Shubin finding Tiktaalik roseae. The TOE suggested that this kind of fossil would be found in a certain type of formation and Shubin went there and found Tiktaalik.
The same with archeology, a prediction can be made that in ruins of a particular type of culture certain artifacts will be found and others will not. The scientists go there excavate and see how well their predictions work out.
The idea of splitting science into two types in this manner is advocated by Answers in Genesis but few if any scientists agree with them.
All science uses the same process. There are considered to be two general classifications in science but it is more along the lines of "experimental" (Ham calls this observational science) and historical but with no clear dividing lines.
Something to go along with this: What is reproduced are the observations not necessarily the event. How could you research stellar physics if you had to reproduce a sun forming in the lab? What is reproduced and studied are the recordings made of stellar events. The observations are the evidence and they are often observations of events that happened millions of years ago. The same principle holds true for geology and all the rest.
For an archeologist to work by the "in its own time" restriction means they would have to replicate the culture they are studying people and all. No, in archeology, the artifacts are the observations and those are studied in the here and now.
While techniques vary, all science works the same.
I don't know. You are probably describing anti theists more than the general run of non theists. Most non theists will admit that there is no evidence disproving the existence of God just that in the absence of evidence either way they will provisionally not believe in a deity.
Anti theists on the other hand are usually asserting the non existence of a deity. In my opinion, they cannot back that up and are mostly blowing smoke. Why they are anti theists is a whole other question much too complex to get into here.
Just my thoughts though. Others may and can differ.
Dizredux
I said tested objectively. We can not go back in time and observe or test the actual event.
Which doesn't conflict with what I said.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. See the definition:
Darwinist creationism:
The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.
See?
I would assume that for the most part on this forum that it is the anti-theist that posts the most frequently and who are most vocal about the ToE being devoid of God?
I would assume that for the most part on this forum that it is the anti-theist that posts the most frequently and who are most vocal about the ToE being devoid of God?
So what? That does not mean they cannot be tested objectively.
I believe it may, but I am late to this conversation. The fact is that we can test our claims about the past objectively.
From what I have seen it is the theists who make that claim.
Most anti-theists and even atheists will admit that the ToE is as devoid of God as the theories of gravity, atomic theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc..
Just don't try to prove it...right?
On the contrary. Science demands proof of all claims. It's just that some of those get butt hurt because they can't provide it and act like there is some sort of conspiracy against them.
The Darwinist creationist view is not atheistic. I just provided you with the definition. Here, I'll do it again.Now you're speaking of theistic evolution. Is that what Darwinism promotes in our schools? Of course not.
As there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, there is a difference between theistic evolution view and the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view. One invokes God in the process, the other demands creation without Him.
There is an obvious effort by atheists to promote their worldview in the classrooms and in society. Nothing surprising about that.
DizBottom line, the majority of Christians do not agree with the Darwinist creationist viewpoint that God wasn't involved in any manner in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.
OnceAnd most Christians do not agree with the viewpoint that Jesus and the 16 disciples were beheaded in Rome.
You made yours up, I made up mine. Fair's fair.
I was simply paralleling Just's statement to demonstrate how equally foolish both statements were.What?]
The Darwinist creationist view is not atheistic. I just provided you with the definition. Here, I'll do it again.
Darwinist creationism:
The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.
See? Not atheistic...in fact, it can't be taught in school because it specifically references divine creation.
I think the fault of this understanding is mine, rather than using the term objective I should have used the term empirical evidence.
Just DizOnce I was simply paralleling Just's statement to demonstrate how equally foolish both statements were.
That is why I often try to put all of the relevant comments in a post so readers can get an accurate idea of the context of the discussion. Just to run off the quote function can result in a lot of confusion.
Dizredux
Nope, but there are plenty of efforts on the part of people to try to make out atheists to be evil satan worshippers who want to destroy all religion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?