Creationism: A Political Fight For A Theocracy?
Friday, February 19th, 2010Let's be clear. Whether they admit it or not evolution, biology has never interested creationists. Science, they would swing. The only thing that matters to them is to reintroduce transcendence in the living world, connecting again with the supernatural natural for us to believe that descends from heaven and that religion is science . And then, hunt chance to give the creature a mission and duties to his Creator, highlighting the Bible or the Koran of mothballs to teach children what is good or evil, a morality that says "natural "course with the label of science. You think I exaggerate? No, the ultimate challenge and unacknowledged these religious fanatics is to moralize society to condemn condoms, sex, abortion, homosexuality and AIDS applaud.
lol
Frankly, you handle well the irony (BUT I'm not saying this in favor of Darwinian fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins!)
Creationists are idiots. Mankind can not know more than the con creationist.
well they are wrong because obscurantism of transcendence and transcendence are not specifically set
"Whether they admit it or not evolution, biology has never interested creationists. Science, they would swing" ==> So when you're not interested in a subject, it closes its mouth above ! THANK YOU!
You included. One question remains: Creationists and proponents of "intelligent design" did they really choose to be? Absence of relevant arguments, creationists cite in particular the "arguments": – The science dealing with the how, the religion of reason. The error is therefore not – impossible to reproduce experimentally the evolutionary processes that took place millions of years. And for good reason! It is obviously impossible to test! – The lack of evolution of species such as turtles or lizards. Yet it is normal if the environment does not change. – Current gaps in science. There will inevitably always! – Rare fraud, unworthy of a true scientist, etc … Some even argue that this opportunism by professional scientists as evolutionists would refrain from criticizing evolutionism … Unless refuse to open their eyes, the evolution appears as a fact. It does not matter finally there was or not, micro or macroevolution, adaptations random mutation-positive or not, etc … Our ignorance desmécanismes bio-physico-chemical that led to the evolution of species still remain very partial . Like, for example, explaining the ability of neurons only human "producing" creative thinking and imagination, an ability that is also an undeniable fact, but enough already explained to spend a divine intervention. In my view, the fundamental question is: why creationists are they? In other words, they really chose to be why creationists, even scientists, they are obviously impervious to any argument Yet scientific and rational? The creationist belief follows, in my opinion, several factors: – First is the fact that we are unable at this level unless centennial of the influence we represent hundreds of millions 'years has had on the adaptation of species. – probably also because most people support evil imaginary metaphysical uncertainties that. – Probably also because most people support evil imaginary metaphysical uncertainties qu'onleur has taught and they need immediate and reassuring explanations. For believers, as stated by Evangelical Pastor Philip HUBINON: "If there was no creation, everything else falls apart! "… – Finally, and even more importantly, because of educational influences unconscious, even among scientists. Also prominent are they elsewhere, but also by pride and ignorance of "mechanisms" brain, they do not seem to have considered for a moment that their religious upbringing and their environment unilateral thinking may have had an influence on their emotional brain, with as a result of anesthesia at least part of their rational brain and therefore may be critical, when it comes to religion. So regardless of their intellect and intelligence. But is it possible explanatory hypotheses, they were definitely very partial to the origin and the frequent persistence of faith? There is obviously no question of wanting. But is it possible explanatory hypotheses, they were definitely very partial to the origin and the frequent persistence of faith? There is obviously no question of vouloirsimplifier or reduce the extraordinary complexity and richness of the human psyche, and especially the phenomenon of religion, to "mechanisms" psycho-neuro-physio-genetic-cognitive learning. However, this new approach is already in my eyes, the relative share of individual freedom. As stated by neurobiologist Henri Laborit: "(…) I am frightened by the automation that is possible to create unwittingly in the nervous system of a child. He must, in his adult life, a rare chance to be detached, if there ever comes .(…) You are not free of environment where you were born, or all that has introduced automation in your brain, and, finally, is an illusion, freedom! ". Finally, what matters is not so much that the EC we think, but