A couple definitions/distinctions: Hard creationism: Principally headquartered out of CRI in California--its bible (other than the protestant scriptures is The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, a couple of engineers. They generally believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth and bring up arguments such as entropy disproves evolution. Other names include characters such as Kent Hovind (or something like that). Soft Creationism: generally speaking, this encompasses anyone who believes in some sort of a divine beginning to the universe--an ex nihilo fiat as it were. Thus Catholics, and I suppose just about any western religious scientist fits in this category. Under this must be mentioned the Intelligent Design people who can be in either category and commonly use a form of the anthropic principle. A hot name right now is Philip Johnson, the Berkeley prof who wrote Darwin on Trial--not a creationist text per se but rather an attempt to demonstrate that the mechanics of evolution (especially large scale speciation) rely on unproven and broad-ranging assumptions. Though Johnson overstates his case, he's a formidable advocate and rhetorician in debates and some of his points do make logical sense (though not all). What intrigues me is the naturalistic argument that ID is not science because it does not rely solely on natural mechanisms. In contrast, one could assert that speciation must have occurred solely by natural selection because no other secular explanation is possible. The problem with this line of thought is what if hypothetically the IDer's are correct. Then it is the very definition of science which has excluded a truth.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST