Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Personally I have no problem believing that the shape of a human face could occur by chance in a rock. What we creationists have a problem with is the notion that a living reproducing organism was produced by chance.
|
I beg to differ. As a former creationist, I would suggest that most have problems far more basic than this:
First, creationists suffer from a philosophical problem. With the enlightenment, rationalism became a dominant form of intellectual investigation in practically every academic discipline, and introduced critical literary and historical methods to biblical interpretation. The results called into question the historicity of many of the biblical legends, and was in effect fairly damaging to those with a purely rational approach to Christianity. Because most creationists have not yet outgrown this insatiable commitment to rationalism, it was necessary for them to invent a system which accomodated both their faith and philosophical credences. Which brings me to my next point.
Second, creationists suffer from an historical problem. Because science, archeology, historical anthropology, and a bevy of critical literary approaches have helped us to understand the historical and religious contexts of the biblical literature with much more precision, the Bible's position as a vehicle of divine revelation has needed to be refined. Most segments within the Church have managed to reconcile myth and legend within a legitimate historical context, in a manner which emphasizes the import of faith and morality through an archaic literary product. The Bible manages to be the Word of God, while not needing to conform to impossible standards of modernistic perfection. The creationists, however, because of their hyper-rational approach, could not tolerate any ambiguities between God's revelation and God's word. Thus, 200 years ago they invented the doctrines of "biblical inerrency" and "biblical infallibility", and then proceeded to claim that such doctrines were orthodox and historically legitimate, despite the vacuum of evidence needed to substantiate such claims. It led to the notion that a "plain reading of Scripture" was the best and only sure way to procure any kind of meaning from the text, which in turn pressed the creationists into some embarrassingly untenable scientific and historical positions. In truth, the Church never advocated for such an individualistic approach to faith, and always held the authority of the Scriptures in tension with the authority of the interpretive community and the church hierarchy.
Finally, the creationist now suffers from a scientific problem. A creationist is never free to conduct real science in the event that his discoveries might contradict his "plain reading" of the biblical records, which would be unthinkable. Thus, his system of investigation must begin with an unfalsifiable premise, which in turn can only result in bad science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I know! I know! Given enough enough time even the impossible happens. Right!  |
No. The "impossible" can never happen. If it can happen, it must be possible. I believe what you meant to say was that given enough time, even the
statistically improbable will occur. I am no scientist, so I will leave it to others to explain how evolution can and does occur given the space of billions of years and billions upon countless billions of permutations.
Human skull found by Mars rover!
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
