42
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + + + + + + + + +
→What a creationist is not
== What a creationist is not ==
== What a creationist is not ==
A creationist is not necessarily a holder to the scientific paradigm of [[intelligent design]]. All that an ID scientist sees is that the world looks very much like a thing planned and built, not a thing that "got here" by accident. An ID thinker never troubles himself to discover or even to think about ''who did the planning and the building.'' A creationist would think about things like that, but not an ID man. And while an intelligent design for the world and life might be ''part'' of any workable model of creation, identifying the Creator is not part of intelligent-design theory.
A creationist is not necessarily a holder to the scientific paradigm of [[intelligent design]]. All that an ID scientist sees is that the world looks very much like a thing planned and built, not a thing that "got here" by accident. An ID thinker never troubles himself to discover or even to think about ''who did the planning and the building.'' A creationist would think about things like that, but not an ID man. And while an intelligent design for the world and life might be ''part'' of any workable model of creation, identifying the Creator is not part of intelligent-design theory.
Nor is a creationist a shaman or other practitioner of "magic" or any "secret art" or "black art." We make no secret of what we presuppose--nor do we pretend to have any secret knowledge.
Nor is a creationist a shaman or other practitioner of "magic" or any "secret art" or "black art." We make no secret of what we presuppose--nor do we pretend to have any secret knowledge.
Although "identifying the Creator is not part of intelligent-design theory", but when you know there is someone behind the creation, it is perfectly logical to ID the creator as the next step. Just like when we see a good picture, painting or an art, or eat a good dish, or see a good job done, it is natural for us to right away ask who did/made this, and then probably give the person a compliment.
That's why it is entirely different between to think there is someone who created the world and to think the world is "self existence", like what the humanists claimed. This "self existence" idea is really ridiculous - nothing in the world can self exists, they all got to be made/come from somewhere. Even those humanists who claimed this, they are born from their mothers' bodies. Here is a challenge: find something in the world that is "self existence" and explain how this thing "self exists".
They want to exclude the creator is one thing, but saying something can "self exists" is way too much.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:38, 27 December 2008 (EST)
== Presuppositions of creationism ==
== Presuppositions of creationism ==