5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 490:
Line 490: + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 20:42, November 2, 2008
, 20:42, November 2, 2008→Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It...
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.