|
When it comes to the "age of the earth" debate, it is really important to remember there are typically three camps of Christian creationists and to just say creationists is unfairly lumping them all together. It does not surprise me that Dawkins would do that, he's a smart guy who knows a ton about evolution, but sometimes he lets his hatred of religion get the better of him.
The major division is old world/new world. Old world creationists believe the in a non-literal interpretation of the bible and the earth could be any number of years old (aka who the hell knows how long a day is to God?). The others are new world creationists who believe in a literal translation of the bible (aka the universe was made in 7 days).
There is also a division of new world creationists, ones who say scientists are full of crap and the other who says that the scientists are right, but the earth is still only 6000 years old. The earth was just made to look older (rewind to science's picture of the earth 6000 years ago and that is how God made it).
Of course there are more positions than this, but most of them fall roughly into one of those three categories. So saying that you are a creationist doesn't inherently mean you think science is wrong. I think at last poll most non-literal creationists fall into a watchmaker type of belief. Saying science is right in evolution, but God is the grand mover, which is also more to the belief of the Catholic church than a strict evolutionist position.
__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.
|