Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 06-12-2002, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
<strong>What the heck is an "Evolutionary Creationist"?</strong>

Probably one of those creationists who accepts everything about evolution except its name. They accept common descent and adaptation but not "evoolution." Such people have little problem with evolutionary concepts, but have some sort of adversion to the word "evolution."

Evolutionary Creationist could also apply to those creationists who proprose a "God-centered" mechanism that's not evolution but is indistinguishable from it. IOW, God created in such a way that it only "looks like" evolution is true.

~~RvFvS~~

Coragyps · 06-12-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

One of the first to state this view was Galileo (yes, that famous martyr), who stated that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Wasn't that Cardinal Bellarmine's line?

Quote:

Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.

ChortleChortle <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

lpetrich · 06-12-2002, 02:11 PM

Galileo had gotten that line from a certain Cardinal Baronius.

Cardinal Bellarmine was the one who had ordered him to stop advocating heliocentrism back in 1616. The year before, he had warned against treating heliocentrism as a fact; the Church thought it OK to discuss heliocentrism, as long as it was presented as "only a theory", without any special claim to truth.

And Galileo had been assured that it was OK to present heliocentrism as "only a theory" by Pope Urban VIII himself in 1624. But in 1632, he published his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", which followed the letter, but not the spirit, of the Pope's instructions, and which for some reason got the Pope's goat. A year later, in 1633, the Church forced Galileo to recant heliocentrism.

I think it strange that our favorite wildlife biologist, Ed, makes a hero out of Galileo, because Galileo had clearly believed that the Bible need not be correct about the motions of the planets -- a view that can easily be extended to creationism and Noah's Flood.

06-12-2002, 03:11 PM

I would certainly rank the day-age creationists closer to evolution than intelligent design.

To me it exemplifies the attempt to remove contradiction by modifying bibilical interpretation in light of scientific finding.

ID on the other hand, seeks to redefine science by forcing it into a horrendously ad hoc pseudo-scientific doctrinal framework.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Quetzal · 06-13-2002, 12:16 AM

Rufus: When I hear "evolutionary creationist" I tend to think of someone like Denton. IOW, someone who totally accepts long time frame, completely naturalistic processes explain diversity of life, etc, but that proposes "goddidit" when it comes to establishing the fundamental laws that govern the processes. Anthropic principle or "best of all possible worlds" argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2002, 02:11 PM	#13
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Galileo had gotten that line from a certain Cardinal Baronius. Cardinal Bellarmine was the one who had ordered him to stop advocating heliocentrism back in 1616. The year before, he had warned against treating heliocentrism as a fact; the Church thought it OK to discuss heliocentrism, as long as it was presented as "only a theory", without any special claim to truth. And Galileo had been assured that it was OK to present heliocentrism as "only a theory" by Pope Urban VIII himself in 1624. But in 1632, he published his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", which followed the letter, but not the spirit, of the Pope's instructions, and which for some reason got the Pope's goat. A year later, in 1633, the Church forced Galileo to recant heliocentrism. I think it strange that our favorite wildlife biologist, Ed, makes a hero out of Galileo, because Galileo had clearly believed that the Bible need not be correct about the motions of the planets -- a view that can easily be extended to creationism and Noah's Flood.

06-12-2002, 03:11 PM	#14
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	I would certainly rank the day-age creationists closer to evolution than intelligent design. To me it exemplifies the attempt to remove contradiction by modifying bibilical interpretation in light of scientific finding. ID on the other hand, seeks to redefine science by forcing it into a horrendously ad hoc pseudo-scientific doctrinal framework. [ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

06-13-2002, 12:16 AM	#15
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Rufus: When I hear "evolutionary creationist" I tend to think of someone like Denton. IOW, someone who totally accepts long time frame, completely naturalistic processes explain diversity of life, etc, but that proposes "goddidit" when it comes to establishing the fundamental laws that govern the processes. Anthropic principle or "best of all possible worlds" argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.