|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: International Aspects of Creationism/ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
there are several versions. I tend to prefer god becoming the universe, emulating self in the process and exhaling the words "surprise me" ... but I was a deist before I knew what it meant
the predominant theme is that what we can know is from natural means and that there is no revealed truth. wikipedia has a fairly good article (and lists some famous deists) and you can also google to find some websites for some different flavors. the zen part is the path: zen as an approach originally to buddhism, but now to 'motocycle repair' etc. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Very interesting. We have something in common then, the belief that something could have at one time been outside of nature i.e. supernatural in the purest sence of the word. It seems inconsistant with a Darwinian worldview so far. This is the root of the problem. The average person on the street has little idea of the full philosophical implications of Darwinism, and how they lead to inconsistant philosophical worldviews for Americans. Religious people sence these inconsistancies easily...they just have a hard time separting their religious views from their philosophical views...add on top of that the difficulty separating the theories of science from the philosophical implications of these theories and its easy to see why there is so much inconsistancy and contradiction in American culture. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-14-2005 11:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
it appears you have added this in your edit (or I missed it the first time):
I mean, you say "I don't believe you can know." but I would expect to hear that from an agnostic. I answered that in greater detail on the {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem}http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. thread (now closed, but you could ask to have it opened) I can believe that the only evidence we will see is the natural evidence of the universe and all that is in it, while still believing that it was created. I can also recognize that the logical position is agnostic but still choose to believe. to bring this back to the topic more or less, I would say that I consider ID to be a poorly considered form of deism, and that deism had it's roots in the age of enlightenment, as much in europe as here in the USof(N)A. I pursue this theme in greater detail in my {Is ID properly pursued?} threadEvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? and we can take this discussion there if you are interested. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Love to!
Ill check the links out and get back to you tomorrow!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Hume would find it ridiculous and skewered much of the philosophy behind ID and Creationism centuries ago. He'd probably ask why people are still considering such philosophizing as valid. I'd agree.
Besides Hume and me, who are the world's greatest thinkers? Heheheh. Hijack my thread will ya? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok I get it.
That was me dropping acid drops where it belongs not at first. I understand now.I retract the context. I can make the transition thing clearer. We can do it in another thread. Yes collecting forms and trying to relate them sequentially is the first stage in any good taxanomic tool book. I dont think it is ignorance, but at least you gave something to go off of however I dont think my eyes were deceiveing me last night as I dont recall your postinterdigitated between Limbo's and Mick's perhaps it came in on delay. ---------------------------- May the loom do the prunning. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2005 07:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Poor education in science and critical thinking and logic among the entire populace + lots of protections for lots of crazy religions + tradition of Christian religious extremeism ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock = prominent Creationist movement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: As I have explained to you once or twice before, Methodological Naturalism is not the same as Ontological Naturalism. ON is the philosophy that "nature is all there is". MN is the way scientific investigations are carried out, and it requires that we can only use naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. MN neither confirms not denies the existence of the supernatural in general. No scientist is ever required to believe or embrace the philosophy of ON in order to do good science. This is why we have scientists of many diverse religions, and no religion, able to work together and speak a common language in order to uncover how natural phenomena work. If ON becomes the overriding philosophy of everyday people, however, then them's the breaks for those who wish the whole world was religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: And just what is this "Darwinian worldview" you refer to?
quote: The average person on the street has little idea of any basic Biology at all. Also, what are the "full philosophical implications" of "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time"?
quote: Scientific theories are wholly separate from any philosophical implications that people choose to construct from them. Do you blame Astronomy for the Heaven's Gate mass suicide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It seems inconsistant with a Darwinian worldview so far. um, what is " "a Darwinian worldview" in your worldview? I rather look at {the whole enchilada} as a universe that was created as diverse as possible and primed for the {abiogensis} of life in as many places as it can find a toehold to live and {evolve} and become more complex and diversified with the passage of time. We just happen to be one species on one planet. One privileged to look at the stars with wonder and excitement, but not necessarily a planned outcome (unless evolution with sufficient time and resources tends to result in conscious thought, in which case we should not be alone). And this certainly is not inconsistent with evolution. This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:34 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Religious people sence these inconsistancies easily...they just have a hard time separting their religious views from their philosophical views...add on top of that the difficulty separating the theories of science from the philosophical implications of these theories and its easy to see why there is so much inconsistancy and contradiction in American culture. Perhaps the problem is that the religions are inconsistent with reality. {{added by edit}} I have no problem with inconsistencies between my religious views and science and I know of many christians that also do not have such conflicts. I think you are conflating the problems of certain sects into a bigger {worldview} issue than it is. I certainly can understand that people who believe in a flat earth at the center of the universe would have problems with inconsistencies between their views and science. I can also understand that people who believe in a young earth have similar problems. But these are problems of inconsistency between the beliefs and reality, not with science per se, just the results that have been discovered through science. People are welcome to their beliefs, but they do not get to say their beliefs are more valid than reality, regardless of what the belief involves. This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:57 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6469 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
quote: Yes there are creationists in Holland. Peter Scheele wrote a book and put the whole thing online. It suffers a little as english is his second language but is an improvement on US stuff http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/ This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 06:57 PM This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 06:59 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6469 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
While we are on the subject of dutchmen, who here could forget the evil Dr Borger. }(
Sure he lives here in Australia now but we all know he was from....Holland :-) EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 07:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Yes. Strange isn't it how religions seek to grow and propagate themselves at the expense of competing dogmas.
It's almost Darwinian... Not hard to see why their biggest threat is science that espouses no dogma at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
how religions seek to grow and propagate themselves at the expense of competing dogmas. It's almost Darwinian... it's because they have unprotected sects. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024