The Stupidest Claim of Yec'ism is....
Well, the simple answer is their claim that the earth is young. Yes, it's a bit boring I know, but it really is the stupidest claim that young earth creationists make. The scientific evidence favoring an earth older than 6000 years is overwhelming and makes any counterclaim appear exceedingly silly. The only real reason for having a young earth is so that evolution does not have time to take place and that means humans are somehow special. In fact, the only evidence for a young earth is a literal reading of Genesis and the assumption that the post-Adamite generations are a true history of all humankind. There is no independent corroborating evidence to support this claim. Just about ll the idiocies mentioned in previous posts flow directly from the assertion that the earth is young.
I think it's also interesting that, despite howling protests from the Intelligent Design camp, the goal is the same as young earth creationists. All their pleading about bacterial flagella are not really about elevating bacteria to a special place, but about using the same illogical arguments to support the claim that humakind could only have gotten here via special creation. ID'ers try to distance themselves from questions regarding the age of the earth because it is politically expedient to avoid discussing that issue. What is truly amazing about ID-creationism is that in attempting to get theocracy established via a back door, they are forced to abandon their belief in the very document that fueled their efforts (and yes, I know they've co-opted a few token non-Christians into the effort).
Cheers
Joe Meert
posted by Unknown @ 12:41 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
"What is truly amazing about ID-creationism is that in attempting to get theocracy established via a back door."
sigh...Joe, have you ever thought for just one moment that there are millions of us out there who want nothing to do with "establishing a theocracy"?
I don't believe for one second that the DI wants to establish Christianity in the science classroom.
Regardless of what you think, I'd bet the farm that 95% of people who support ID or creationism want nothing to do with a "theocracy". We are FAR too insightful not to realize what would happen if a specific religious preference were pushed upon our children.
But, I suppose there is no way to convince you of this unless we just climb into a hole and let Dawkins et. al. push his religious/philosophical positions onto every child in the country via the science classroom.
Sorry, I must disagree with aka..forthekids. The emphatic belief in YEC or at least ID seems to underpin an agenda. The massive amount of ink and money spent on the topic is not the symptom of someone who, for example, wonders if Easter Island was deforested by humans or never had forests to begin with.
Anne Coulter reserves a big chunk of her literature discussing Evolution, in order to draw political conclusions. There is a motive behind public proponents of YEC and ID.
But I think there is a huge difference between YEC and ID that is often overlooked. YEC requires a massive shift in thinking to ignore the layers and layers of supporting interwoven evidence about the age of the earth, the cumulative baggage of DNA as we move between species, fossil progression, and so on. ID on the other hand suggests a motive but not a method; it should not be 'taught' because there is no way to prove or disprove.
Personally, I'm at peace with the idea that I harbor a presumption that ID is true. If I evolved, blindly, want to believe in God, and it causes no communal harm, then why object? If try to use this belief to enslave others, well, then I have a problem with political philosophy, not theology.
Post a Comment
<< Home