Message 169 of 231 (330729)
07-11-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:41 AM
Creationism vs. Creation Science
creationism using scientific evidence
I know we use the terms in an interchangeable sense here because a)creationists using the terms in a interchangeable fashion and b) because generally at some stage most creationist scientists rely on "goddunit" as part of their answer, but I always think of Creationism and Creation science as two different and distinct things*.
Let's use Noah's ark to explore where I see the difference and we can see where the differences are and if you agree or disagree?
God flooded the earth and with a boat, Noah and his family and the animals were saved
Now to this - a skeptic might ask:
How come Noah was able to get all of the Animals into the ark and they didn't eat each other and fill the place with shit
Because it was God's will that Noah was able to collect the animals. The Grace of God protected them.
To what I consider a "proper" creationist - the fine details are irrelevant, God wanted something to happen - it happened, what more needs to be discussed?
I actually have no problem at all with this and in many respects is by far the most sensible scenario.
however a creation Scientist is likely to say:
|creation scientist writes:|
Well it's clear from the evidence that the kinds we had then were of a different type than today, far more robust and it's also clear that lion kinds did not require meat and were asleep for 23 out of the 24 hours of the day. This is evidenced by...
The Creation Scientist seems to say that, yes god created everything and the physical laws, but that the physical laws we currently have means that the ark story makes perfect sense without any special intervention on the part of the Almighty.
In short, the difference is that, in the creationist scenario, God is active in stages of the process. In the creation science, God creates the conditions and physical laws that enabled the ark sceanrio to work but his hand is not needed during the process.
Creationism = God the Doer
Creation Science = God the enabler
Am I making any sense?
* (Let me put a little qualificatio to this statement - there is of course a fuzzy overlap, which I suggests represents a continuum from Hard science God representing Creation science and "I can do anything how I please" soft science god representing the extremes of Creationism)
Edited by CK, : Fixing DB tag
Edited by CK, : Copyedit
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 166 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:41 AM|| ||riVeRraT has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 7:38 AM|| ||CK has not yet responded|