Im from canada and I know very well that many people here hold to young
earth creationism as well..
Not exact matches
@Topher It seems that before Ken Ham started his own project over there at AIG, he worked for the Insti / tute for Creation Research, which basically does the same thing
as the Discovery Insti / tute — namely, try to create a «sciencey» veneer for Young
Earth Creationism.
In this way, young
earth creationism is demonstrably incorrect
as a theory.
E.g., in regards to scientific support for evolution and rejection of
creationism and the young
earth dogma, in 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, signed an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of
creationism, which the brief described
as embodying religious dogma.
As I said earlier today on this blog, it's not «
creationism» that's being rejected per se, but rather «young
earth»
creationism.
Without proof,
creationism should be taken
as seriously
as the claims of the Vikings that a giant serpent encircles the
Earth underground or that of the Egyptians who believed the Sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot.
My parents never really pushed young
earth creationism on me nor taught that it was a fundamental element of the Christian faith, but for most of my life I travelled in circles where it was assumed that good Christians embraced a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, which describes the
earth as being created in six days.
«The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the
Earth and living things, such
as creationism, in Religious Education,
as long
as it is not presented
as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.»
On the other hand, ideas such
as young
earth creationism should not be taught
as scientifically valid for the very simple reason that they are not.
Do you feel it's an improvement that many theists are backing away from Young
Earth creationism, and instead viewing evolution
as a divinely ordained process?
Dating is a stage of romantic relationships in humans whereby two people meet socially with the aim of each assessing the other's suitability
as a G. Brent Dalrymple's classic debunking of the young -
earth «scientific»
creationism's dating methods with a short explanation of how geologists know the age
G. Brent Dalrymple's classic debunking of the young -
earth «scientific»
creationism's dating methods with a short explanation of how geologists know the age Dating is a stage of romantic relationships in humans whereby two people meet socially with the aim of each assessing the other's suitability
as a
Their textbooks promote nonfactual and revisionist history
as well
as Young
Earth creationism and climate change denial.
Indeed, every single «original» idea from this guy's mouth has turned out to be
as accurate
as the likes of Young
Earth Creationism (aka not in the slightest) and his chances of getting things right seems to be about
as «good»
as the daily horoscope, TV psychics and Micheal Pachter's predictions (aka non existent).