Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade  You're trying to sell the idea of belief in a Creator *isn't* religion? You do realize there are many religions out there that do NOT espouse a Creator, right? |
Actually, that's part of my reasoning that it's not religion.
Quote:
This was what I tried to illustrate further. How would you like proponents of say, Buddhism trying to declare their concept of the universe as bearing up under the same scrutiny as evolution - to the detriment of a belief in a Creator? I daresay, the supporters of Intelligent Design would get their religious hairs on end. They'd fight back - because what they're trying to establish is practical, relevant belief in a Creator - NOT trying to challenge science. There's this sentiment that evolution is somehow the antithesis of a "Creator" - but it's not. There are other religious thoughts on the matter.
This is WHY it is religion masquerading as science. I've never seen it ever as anything other than that, and the ones who advance it are the same ones who gave up the creation science gig. They feel that evolution threatens their position on the universe, and it's pointless.
|
It's not religion because it doesn't propose THE Creator, or try to teach anything other than the POSSIBILITY that there is a creator out there, and gives reasons why. I think they get their backs up against evolution because evolution has no more basis in
fact than ID. Evolution gets to be taught as science, though it meets virtually none of the critera placed upon ID to be thought of as science. It's taught as fact, when it's an unverifiable theory, with many holes.
I agree they're not incompatible, though. I actually, personally, believe in a creator that does not effect his/her changes instantaneously, but over long periods of time - affect by letting the change evolve over time.