In reply to parallaxicality
Quote:
|
I'm thinking of writing an article on creationism, but I realised as I contemplated it that I don't really have a clue how to respond to one. Every time I see a creationist online, they're always making some improbable claim without any citation, and it seems, looking over alt.origins, that the claims and counterclaims could fill an encyclopedia. So, let's say I was setting down for an interview with a creationist. What rhetorts should I expect?
|
From what I have read there are different flavours of creationism. From a religious standpoint there are “Young Earth Creationists” who from some ones literal reading of the bible have determined the world is approximately 8000 years old. It is interesting to note from a religious standpoint, that the bible was edited and has changed over time. Karen Armstrong’s series of books such as History of God provide a respectful history of the development of god and the different religions.
As there is no scientific evidence to support the young earth position those arguing that position use philosophical techniques such as introducing scepticism, how do you know what you know? There are a couple of scientific sounding arguments that I have seen to discount radioactive dating techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I believe most of “creationism” is more concerned with specific issues such as did life including humans evolve? The second level of ‘creationism” seems to allow an older earth in which all life was simultaneously created. Humans living contemporary with dinosaurs.
The most advanced form of the “creationist” argument is intelligent design. In that case as there isn’t a complete scientific explanation as to how life began the intelligent design arguments are difficult to disprove. Also as there are many unanswered questions in fundamental physics, the intelligent design has been applied by both scientists and others.