Secularism

The term ' creation scientist ' is somewhat of a misnomer in that the two words seem to contradict one another. However, there are scientists/researchers that will readily admit that their findings, both geological and archaelogical can be directly paralleled to the teachings of the Bible. For instance, we are taught that God created the first generations of all living things. The fossil record seems to confirm this. For a long time [ a geological moment] there was absolutely nothing on the earth. Then suddenly there was an abundance of life, plants, insects, animals and dinosaurs. We are also taught that a great worldwide flood destroyed the earth and that it was ' ..without form and void' of life. Again, the fossil records clearly indicates that such an event did actually occur. So certainly, there can be a sort of coexistence between science and creation.

The word 'secular' can be defined as 'not specifically religious'. Secular science is basic General Science without a religious influence. In much the same way that secular music is not necessarily religious music, secular science is not a religious discipline in that it does not involve, and is not bound by any monastic views or principles. Answer

A creation scientist would be a scientist that believes that something created the universe, while a secular scientist would probably not believe that, but would say that everything occurred by chance or natural processes.

Both scientists can still be "genuine" and relatively objective, but are looking at the problems from differing points of view. Both types of scientists, and indeed all people, have their own separate ways of looking at the world.

Science, n. Investigation of natural phenomena.

Engineering, n. Domestication of natural phenomena.

Technology, n. Domesticated natural phenomena.

Another Answer

"Creation scientists" have no concern about natural phenomena, just the supernatural phenomena described in the Bible. They aren't scientists.

It is plausible to say that the right of freedom of religion is violated.

~Prince Lion - A True Christian.

Source: Self-knowledge

Something that's "secular" means that it's non-religious in nature. Conversely, something that's non-secular means that it's religious in nature.

Theocracy is, by definition, related to religion; and so it's non-secular. Specifically, a theocracy is a form of government which is believed to be guided by the Abrahamic God... or at least some god or diety; or guided or led by those who claim to be said god's or diety's (or the Abrahamic God's) agent or agents.

The "theo" part of the word "theocracy" (or "theocratic") means of, about, or the study of a diety or god... or, for many: Of, about, or the study of the Abrahamic God. The word "theocracy" (and/or the word "theocratic") is, therefore, inherently religious... and so is non-secular in nature.

A secular government is just the opposite: One which doesn't factor any kind of religion or religiosity into its beliefs, standards, practices, or operations.

Any properly-founded, -administered and -maintained democracy (or even a republic) is typically secular... and so is inherently non-theocratic.

The United States government, for example, is not a theocracy. On the contrary, it is a "Democratic Republic," or a "democracy," which specifically prohibits, by the so-called "separation of church and state" provision of the First Amendment to its Constitution, any official government religiosity of any kind. The United States, then, is a decidely (even if sometimes not necessarily unambiguously) secular (and therefore, non-theocratic) government...

...and that, even though the United States is a decidely -- at least in terms of the percentages of its population which have or don't have certain religious beliefs -- religious (specifically, Christian) nation. Sadly, the line between church and state in the US sometimes gets blurred by such as, for example, those who believe that the Christian Ten Commandments should be displayed on and in government buildings; or those who think it's okay to begin government legislative sessions with invocative/benedictive Christian (or at least ecumenical/interfaith) prayer at the beginning/ending of said legislative sessions; or those who think it's okay for US currency, and/or plaques on walls in courtrooms, above and behind judges heads, to contain the words "In God We Trust." The United States, despite these things, is a decidedly (even if not, sometimes, completely unambiguously) non-religious, non-theocratic, secular nation.

The government of Iran, for example, on the other hand, is controlled, ultimately, by Islamic imams and other relgious leaders. Iran, then, is a non-secular nation; and its government is unambiguously theocratic.

A:

Christians cite the Bible as their moral guide, although there is little in the Bible that really provides practical, day-to-day advice on resolving ethical problems. More directly, some would attribute morality to God, saying that without God there can be no morality. This very issue was examined by Plato in one of his Dialogues. Here, Euthyphro seeks to define goodness in terms of what the gods would want. At this point, Plato has Socrates raise the Euthyphro Dilemma: 'Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods choose it?' If the first option is true, this shows that good is good independent of the gods (or in modern terms, God) - good is good and that is why a good god will always choose it. If the second option is true, this makes the very idea of what is good arbitrary. If something is good simply because the gods choose it, then what is to stop the gods choosing torture, thus making it good?

The problem with the second option in answer to the the Euthyphro Dilemma is that for God to choose torture, thus making it good, is absurd. But the reason it is absurd is that we believe torture is wrong and that is why God would never choose it. To recognise this is to recognise that we do not need God to determine right or wrong.

Euthyphro had tried to attribute morality to the gods, but Socrates showed him that no such attribution is possible. So it is if we attribute morality to God. Morality comes from within and is guided and informed by our consciences.

Ultimately, Christian morality is based on the concept of reward and punishment. If I behave morally, I have the chance of eternal life, but if I fail then I am doomed to hell. But Julian Baggini (Atheism) says that it is an odd morality that thinks one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. He says the person who does not steal only for fear of being caught is not a moral person, but merely a prudent one.

The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so. Many Christians are truly moral persons by this definition, but so too are many secular atheists.