Hi, Shaklfree! Welcome aboard!
quote:
But what is the root of the creationist philosophy? How does a creationists' approach to knowledge differ from an evolutionists' approach? It would have to be on the issue of supernaturalism/naturalism. These two philosophies (beliefs on knowledge) are the root of our interpretation of facts.
From the Britannica:
quote:
Naturalism, late 19th- and early 20th-century aesthetic movement inspired by adaptation of the principles and methods of natural science, especially the Darwinian view of nature, to literature and art.
In other words, naturalism is based upon science, not the other way around. I offer this as clarification to avoid confusing legitimate criticisms of naturalism with science.
quote:
Ultimately, a creationist is a supernaturalist, and a evolutionist is a naturalist. Does that summarize it correctly or no?
I would agree (as long as we include the stipulation that
naturalist should not here be interpreted to mean an adherent to the philosophy of naturalism) but go further and note that many Creationists believe science errs in excluding the supernatural. Philip E. Johnson, author of
Darwin on Trial, is the best known Creationist advocate of this position. But Creationism has as yet offered no legitimate scientific research based upon an inclusion of the supernatural, and of course their primary goal is not science but the suppression of information that contradicts their world-view.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-22-2001).]
{Took hard to read colors out - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2002]