Creationism advocate shows where his loyalties lie

bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.

Wow, the classic "God of the Gaps" argument here before our eyes.
How many times does this argument have to be debunked before people stop using it?

intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology

And I feel obligated to ask...what exactly is "atheistic evolution"?  That isn't a theory I've heard of before.  If you are talking about the plain old ToE, then you are incorrect in describing it as atheistic.  Evolution says NOTHING about whether God exists, or not.
If it contradicts YOUR religion, that's your religion's problem.  But you can't assign a feature to a scientific theory just because you feel like it.

bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.

Creationism = ID. There is no functional difference. Both systems propose non-naturalist "laws of nature," and in doing so cease to be "science".

Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"

intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology

And I feel obligated to ask...what exactly is "atheistic evolution"?  That isn't a theory I've heard of before.  If you are talking about the plain old ToE, then you are incorrect in describing it as atheistic.  Evolution says NOTHING about whether God exists, or not.
If it contradicts YOUR religion, that's your religion's problem.  But you can't assign a feature to a scientific theory just because you feel like it.

yes, i understand that, and if you happen to be one of those people who doesn't believe that any "God" is moving evolution along, you would be believing in atheistic evolution. note how i use the word "atheistic" as an adjective, not as part of the noun. of course i understand that some people follow a religious belief system coupled with evolution, but the ones that don't are atheists. where are we getting confused here?

Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"

bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.

Creationism = ID. There is no functional difference. Both systems propose non-naturalist "laws of nature," and in doing so cease to be "science".

no, actually there are huge huge huge differences between ID and creationism, i could probably write an entire essay on the topic if i were so moved. ID is usually considered the "middle ground" between evolution and creationism.

yes, i understand that, and if you happen to be one of those people who doesn't believe that any "God" is moving evolution along, you would be believing in atheistic evolution. note how i use the word "atheistic" as an adjective, not as part of the noun. of course i understand that some people follow a religious belief system coupled with evolution, but the ones that don't are atheists. where are we getting confused here?

Well like I said, whether God is or is not "moving evolution along" is outside the scope of the actual theory of evolution.  The theory makes no claim on that topic in either direction.   It's perfectly compatible with the belief that God is doing it, or that he is not.

don't know which God you're talking about, but it sure as hell isn't my God. my God spoke the universe into existence in 6 days about 6,000 or at most 8,000 years ago. and yes, evolution does explicitly talk about whether or not there is a God, because the three fathers of modern secular sciences, Charles Lyle, James Hutton, and Charles Darwin, were all quite very anti-christian. i consider evolution to be very anti-religious.

and yes, evolution does explicitly talk about whether or not there is a God, because the three fathers of modern secular sciences, Charles Lyle, James Hutton, and Charles Darwin, were all quite very anti-christian.

Well, no, it doesn't. Do we really have to hold your hand around all this complicated science business?

1. The proponents of evolution theory were atheists. Good for them. Big deal.

2. Being scientists, their personal opinions on religion had no bearing on their theories and subsequent conclusions regarding the origins of life on Earth.

Behold! The very reason creationism and ID have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. The proponents of those theories have their own agendas to push, regardless of any facts.

Oh, and I took that original post as just a flippant aside. But I'm sure a quick check among Creationism and ID enthusiasts alike would probably reveal it to be closer to the truth than you would care to admit

and yes, evolution does explicitly talk about whether or not there is a God, because the three fathers of modern secular sciences, Charles Lyle, James Hutton, and Charles Darwin, were all quite very anti-christian. i consider evolution to be very anti-religious.

Why don't you show me the part of the theory where it says there is no God?  Any modern biology text will do.

Quote from: "Felix"

Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"

bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.

Creationism = ID. There is no functional difference. Both systems propose non-naturalist "laws of nature," and in doing so cease to be "science".

no, actually there are huge huge huge differences between ID and creationism, i could probably write an entire essay on the topic if i were so moved. ID is usually considered the "middle ground" between evolution and creationism.

Please note: no functional difference. Yes, they differ on the mechanisms God used to create man (animals, plants, the Earth etc.), but that's missing the point - they both assume God created man. In this regard - as I stated, that they propose non-naturalistic "laws of nature" (which is to say, "laws" which aren't really laws, being entirely subject to the whim of a Creator) they are isometric.

It doesn't matter if there are differences between ID and creationism
THEY ARE BOTH WRONG