Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Wow....as is always the case with the two sides of this debate (Creationists vs Evolutionists) no one will change the others mind. (I have never understood why they cant be looked at as being mutual in some way, but I digress).
However, the condescending nonsense posted above is so far over the top it's embarrassing.
A lot of table-pounding by some to declare how correct they are.
Weak.
|
I think there are two points of clarification here: this debate is not between "Creationists" and "Evolutionists"--the former being dogmatic proponents of a creation myth and the latter, as much as it even exists as a group, being advocates of science as a way of accessing the truth about the evolution of species on this planet.
It's between proponents of "Intelligent Design"--a specific KIND of creationism, and proponents of the teaching of real science in classrooms. The former are a group whose stated objective is to undermine the materialist bases of science itself, the latter are interested in the preservation of science.
In point of fact, there is no reason why a belief in evolution cannot, as you put it, mutually coexist with a belief in God. And many scientists are very religious people. "Evolution" actually does not make any claims as to the origins of the universe, the nature of existence, or the existence of God. In fact, it's arguably true that science doesn't either--leaving that sort of thing to religion and philosophy.
But ID as a movement wants to change the way we teach science to children, and that's why people get bent out of shape about it. Science and religion can co-exist as long as people recognize that they are fundamentally different approaches to truth, and cannot answer the same questions. ID seeks to blur that boundary--my perspective is: believe what you want, but don't force it down the throats of children.