Talk:Creation science
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
interesting
I thought this was interesting and contains a lovely paraphrase of the creation story. http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html
Quote: The Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, is known to modern readers from the Masoretic text, a compilation of Hebrew texts assembled by Jewish scholars in the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. from older scrolls and codices. That text, and thus the Old Testament, contain two creation stories. It is not unusual for cultures to have multiple creation stories, and throughout this booklet the paraphrases have melded two or more variations of a culture's creation story into one. However, because the two stories in the Old Testament are so different, the two stories are recounted separately here as "Yahweh" and then "The Elohim".
Quick comment
Quick comment - is "This creation was relatively recent" really a basic belief of creationists? Surely the belief is that "The bible account is accurate," with the recent dating of creation being a consequence.
Roy 12:16, 8 Sep 2005 (GMT)
ID
In the intro:
- intelligent design (ID) is a form of creation science
Is this statement generally accepted by design theorists? --Ed Poor
- I'm still looking for an answer to this, because ID opponents say that ID is a form of Creationism, and I'm not sure what that means or whether it is true. I think I'm correct in saying that ID has some roots in Scientific Creationism.
- What I'm wondering is whether some theorists decided to separate the wheat from the chaff here. In other words, divide creation science into a faith component (still to be called Creationism and a science component (to be called intelligent design).
- Can anyone enlighten me here? --Ed Poor 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good observations. It all depends how we're defining our terms. The article defines "Creation science" without any religious component. Thus, ID and Religious creationism are subsets of creation science that are agnostic and religious, respectively. To many, however (both ID advocates and opponents), "creation science" is inherently religious. Thus, creation science, exogenesis, and panspermia are all subsets of ID. Seems like this definitional issue is important enough to address in the intro. I'll give it a shot. Ungtss 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arguable point. ID proponents want to distance themselves from religious creationism (that is indeed true), but most people would define ID as a subset of Creation science rather than the other way around. "Religious scientific creationism" being science that argues for creation (based foremost on religious beliefs), whereas ID is science that argues for creation (design) based purely on emperical evidence. I've switched that distinction around and made some other tweaks. Take a look - I think its better...
