firedragon
Veteran Member
Encountering a new conversation the curiosity of this made me open a new thread to understand further.
Is creationism a brand new movement of some sort that sprung up around 100 years ago? If that is the case how about those who lived prior to that? Are they not creationists?
Creationism by definition is the belief that there was a supernatural intervention of some in the creation of the universe and life itself. I understand that thinking in retrospect various people have proposed varying levels of understanding with some believing Adam was created as a full grown mad directly out of clay and breathed life into while some other's propose that man evolved from apes. But these are both claims of creationists.
The curious case of some proposing that creationism is some "movement" that arose as a defiance to evolution in the last century seems like a subjective matter but not a general matter because creationists by default are everyone who generally believe as said above.
1. Is creationism a brand new concept that came up 100 years ago?
2. Is creationism by default against evolution? If that is the case how about creationists who proposed evolution in history? Are they not considered creationists?
3. Being a creationists, does that mean you are dishonest by default? So all our parents, friends, scientists, laymen, in history who believed in creationists, called themselves creationists, all just dishonest?
4. Are all creationists ignorant in science? To reiterate, that's ignorance in basic science! How about those creationists who were scientists, physicists, biologists, etc? Are they all ignorant in science? If that is the case can an ignorant person in science be called a scientist?
Is this a phenomena of the Michael Shermer writings on "why creationists fear evolution"? Well, one must realise that is not general to all creationists. It's subjective. Don't these general statements border the fallacy of composition? Nevertheless, one must understand that those who are opposed to evolution may have some fear of it in the eyes of the atheist, but would the man proposing evolution still fear evolution simply because he is a "creationist"?
Thinking that creationists by default are ignorant in basic science would have actually followed Newtons laws. Is not that a contradiction?
It sounds like a lot of contradictions but there could be something to these claims obviously addressed in the post. So some enlightenment would be great to discuss.
Is creationism a brand new movement of some sort that sprung up around 100 years ago? If that is the case how about those who lived prior to that? Are they not creationists?
Creationism by definition is the belief that there was a supernatural intervention of some in the creation of the universe and life itself. I understand that thinking in retrospect various people have proposed varying levels of understanding with some believing Adam was created as a full grown mad directly out of clay and breathed life into while some other's propose that man evolved from apes. But these are both claims of creationists.
The curious case of some proposing that creationism is some "movement" that arose as a defiance to evolution in the last century seems like a subjective matter but not a general matter because creationists by default are everyone who generally believe as said above.
1. Is creationism a brand new concept that came up 100 years ago?
2. Is creationism by default against evolution? If that is the case how about creationists who proposed evolution in history? Are they not considered creationists?
3. Being a creationists, does that mean you are dishonest by default? So all our parents, friends, scientists, laymen, in history who believed in creationists, called themselves creationists, all just dishonest?
4. Are all creationists ignorant in science? To reiterate, that's ignorance in basic science! How about those creationists who were scientists, physicists, biologists, etc? Are they all ignorant in science? If that is the case can an ignorant person in science be called a scientist?
Is this a phenomena of the Michael Shermer writings on "why creationists fear evolution"? Well, one must realise that is not general to all creationists. It's subjective. Don't these general statements border the fallacy of composition? Nevertheless, one must understand that those who are opposed to evolution may have some fear of it in the eyes of the atheist, but would the man proposing evolution still fear evolution simply because he is a "creationist"?
Thinking that creationists by default are ignorant in basic science would have actually followed Newtons laws. Is not that a contradiction?
It sounds like a lot of contradictions but there could be something to these claims obviously addressed in the post. So some enlightenment would be great to discuss.