| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] | | A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] |
| | | | |
| − | == Fallacies in, and Critiques of Creationism == | + | == Attempts to Criticize Creationism == |
| − | (1) Religious theory itself does not support creationism. In fact, creationism is of fairly modern provenance, as Biblical literalism was in fact frowned upon by such religious authorities as [[St. Augustine of Hippo]]. Augustine, in his [[On Christian Doctrine]], discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters must engage in. The first interpretive step, and therefore the most juvenile, was literalism. As Augustine argued, if [[God]] himself is incomprehensible to Man, how can his words carry only limited, superficial meaning? Obviously, then, a seven-day creation cannot be intended as literal. | + | <br>(1) Some critics of creationism assert that [[St. Augustine of Hippo]] disfavored some literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, they claim that St. Augustine, in his [[On Christian Doctrine]], discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in. Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic. |
| − | (2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth can only be 7000 years old, contradicts the vast amount of evidence based on [[the fossil record]], stellar residue on earth, crater evidence, etc., etc. | + | |
| − | (3) Creationism is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the vast scientific community, as unscientific and inadequate to account for the evidence. | + | <br>In fact, St. Augustine did not reject creation or creationism. He did not propose or accept any view of man as anything other than a creation of God in the image of God, exactly as the Bible says. |
| | + | |
| | + | <br>(2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young [[moon]] and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development. |
| | + | |
| | + | <br>(3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old. |
| | | | |
| | ==External links == | | ==External links == |