Why do people believe in Creationism despite its lack of testable predictions? (reject, Creator)

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Maybe because people don't need science to believe in things. All they really need is evidence.

Again, I'll turn that right back at ya, by inserting evolution into Fluffy's opening post. It seems to fit much better that way, with what you've just asserted as truth..

Creationism is based on scientific evidences, evolution is based on unproven theories...

Not going to let this thread slide, like all the others...

[Random]

DO you want Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive, Fluffy?

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?

If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?

I think it sometimes boils down to intellectual satisfaction for an emotional desire. People who are creationists, or intelligent designers or have melded both want there to be something tangible to project what they have already accepted as true irregardless if there is evidence or not to support it. In that light it really doesn't matter if the theories are testable or not because the conclusion is unalterable of the minds of the creationists.

A further and important use for creationism and intelligent design it can be used as a tool to recruit prospects who are on the fence about the God question by giving them something more tangible than faith.

I want to be quick to point out that that some theists are comfortable with faith alone (fideism is a good read for this) but others are not and for them, in both self acceptance and recruitment evidence and or proof of God is necessary and creationism and intelligent design are tools for this end.

I happened to watch a debate between Ray Comfort/kirk Cameron and two members of the rationalist response squad "God can be proven to exist" and in this forefront note Comfort and Cameron articulate the goal of using creationism as a recruitmetn tool so I put it in as a relevant footnote:
YouTube - Debate Introduction

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Random

DO you want Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive, Fluffy?

It already is on four points:

1) In evolution new species are created through genetic drift. In creationism life is guided by a creator. Genetic drift is random and God guides those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

2) Life of a single species has a beginning point and ending point in evolution. In creationism some life, humans for instance, doesn't have an end but instead morphs to an afterlife. Life either has an ending point or it doesn't. those ideas are mutually exclusive.

3) In evolution and biology in general all life is organic and contains carbon. In creationism there is a proposed non-organic non-carbon carrying life form called a soul. Either all life is organic or some of it is not. Those ideas are mutually exclusive.

4) In creationism man is the zenith of creation. In evolution he is just another mutation from another species and perhaps will mutate to still another life form over time. The idea of man being the zenith of the species or just another mutation that is part of a chain of mutations is mutually exclusive.

[lilithu]

Namaste Fluff-diddy.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Yes I agree but I think there is a difference between viewing emotion as an equal part of the decision making process and viewing it as an integrated but ultimately inferior component.

I do not see emotion as inferior. On what basis do you judge it inferior to reason? By the basis of reason? Isn't that circular?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

From my understanding, biblical creationism predicts that the earth was created 6000 years ago and asserts that evidence that suggests otherwise is a peculiarity of the way in which it was created. Therefore this does not constitute a testable prediction but the theory does continue to "jive" with empirical evidence.

Is that an unreasonable assertion for creationists to make? If reason is not the driving force of belief then it does not seem like it should be.

Yeah, I've heard that. God put the fossil record there and otherwise made it so that the world would seem a lot older than it really is, all to test our faith or something like that.

If one asserts something like that, then yes, there are no testable predictions, since if God is meddling with creation, changing the laws of the universe, then all bets are off in terms of what we can deduce.

I still don't see this as a reason to not believe it. It's simply that I have no reason to believe this and some very good reasons to believe the scientific account, since it falls in line with my personal experience.

[Random]

Originally Posted by robtex

It already is on four points:

1) In evolution new species are created through genetic drift. In creationism life is guided by a creator. Genetic drift is random and God guides those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

2) Life of a single species has a beginning point and ending point in evolution. In creationism some life, humans for instance, doesn't have an end but instead morphs to an afterlife. Life either has an ending point or it doesn't. those ideas are mutually exclusive.

3) In evolution and biology in general all life is organic and contains carbon. In creationism there is a proposed non-organic non-carbon carrying life form called a soul. Either all life is organic or some of it is not. Those ideas are mutually exclusive.

4) In creationism man is the zenith of creation. In evolution he is just another mutation from another species and perhaps will mutate to still another life form over time. The idea of man being the zenith of the species or just another mutation that is part of a chain of mutations is mutually exclusive.

Thus, the folly of establishing and promoting a "Creationist" position and an "Evolutionist" position is revealed...

There is no discrepency between believing in a Universe that was created and the evolution of life within that creation. This belief need not contain the ideas described in the four points above.

[Blindinglight]

People haven't looked into enough archaeological and geological evidence that ties in with biological/genetic evidence that proves evolution.

Niagra Falls has been eroding for around 12,500 years, proving the earth cannot be older than that...

Then, how do you explain this?

lawnorder: Canadian unearths 70,000-year-old religious snake icon

A Canadian archeologist has discovered what's being hailed as the world's oldest known religious artifact: a six-metre-long, serpentine rock carving made 70,000 years ago by a prehistoric, python-worshipping people in what is now the African nation of Botswana.

The find -- sure to startle Christians steeped in satanic images of snakes -- is described as revolutionary for understanding the origins of human ritual, pushing the roots of religion back 30,000 years and moving its apparent birthplace from Stone Age Europe to ancient southern Africa.

"Python Cave" Reveals Oldest Human Ritual, Scientists Suggest

A team of archaeologists has discovered what it says is evidence of humankind's oldest ritual. Africa's San people may have used a remote cave for ceremonies of python worship as much as 70,000 years ago—30,000 years earlier than the oldest previously known human rites—the team says.

Skull Is First Fossil Proof of Human Migration Theory, Study Says

A 36,000-year-old skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence that modern humans left Africa 70,000 to 50,000 years ago to colonize Eurasia, new research suggests.

Evidence that shows the Earth to be much older than even 13,000 years old.

Niagara falls was likely formed after the previous ice age. I have not researched that at all, but the ice age did change the land scape of the northern part of the globe dramatically.

[skeptic griggsy]

Faith is just the I just say-so of credulity. We naturalists have confidence in what experience teaches us.It would be the fallacy of equivocation to link confidence and blind faith as both the same kind of faith.Exactly, Lilithu, and that applies to theistic evolution[ see the thread] also as Victor Stenger shows well in "Has Science found God?" and "God: the failed Hypothesis." As the ignostic-Ockham shows, God is unemployed!

[painted wolf]

I find that most staunch bleivers in creationism are greatly bothered by the idea that the Bible is not infalable.
Any science (not just evolution) that rocks the literalist boat is outright discarded regardless of its merrits. Any 'evidence' however contrived and mistaken that supports bible literalism is taken as 100% truth.

Take the mistaken notion that Niagra falls is an absolute marker for the age of the Earth and not a result of the end of the Ice Age.

IMHO staunch YEC believers have tied thier faith in God to the idea that everything in the bible is 100% "true", if the bible is only 90% "true" then thier faith is at risk.

wa:do