• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationism: Is it New? Are creationists by default dishonest& ignorant in basic science?

Creationists


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
The reason "Creationists are Dishonest" would be the same seeming in some ways as "Christians are Dishonest", since the "Creationists" are very strongly connected to the Christians and the Bible, and so for those of us who think the Literalist interpretation of the Bible is totally false and a lie, the people promoting it as the truth are thus liars who are lying, dishonest people, really a bunch of criminals in a sense for all their lying to people and leading them into harm and danger and trying to destroy positive progress and proper education. That is probably why they are disliked.

They say things they can't possibly know or confirm about Jesus, about the Creation, about so many things, that makes them dishonest, liars, charlatans, frauds, deceivers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So when people are attacking Creationism and Creationists, I think they are often thinking of the "some" who they've seen on TV as fighting in America and are rejecting evolution and some basic scientific principles and major ideas in favor for the Biblical narrative taken extremely literally. This is similar to how Atheists who reject God are often referring to the very stupidest concept of God they can come up with, which may indeed be what some people actually follow as well. People who reject Creationism also can mean that they reject that any creating occurred ever in any sense, but when people are saying they reject the Creationists, I think what they may have in mind are the jokers they've seen on the television who call themselves the Creationists or are some kind of Christian movement.

But bro, isn't that absolutely a shallow understanding? How could one base this whole creationists are ignorant in science and are dishonest as a broad colour to paint from some stuff they see on TV? I can understand a few people who are innocent and are uninformed but how about some who claim to be highly educated, almost scholars and philosophers of science who have made this judgement? Yet, now I can understand how all of this has come to pass. Thanks for the contribution.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The reason "Creationists are Dishonest" would be the same seeming in some ways as "Christians are Dishonest", since the "Creationists" are very strongly connected to the Christians and the Bible, and so for those of us who think the Literalist interpretation of the Bible is totally false and a lie, the people promoting it as the truth are thus liars who are lying, dishonest people, really a bunch of criminals in a sense for all their lying to people and leading them into harm and danger and trying to destroy positive progress and proper education. That is probably why they are disliked.

They say things they can't possibly know or confirm about Jesus, about the Creation, about so many things, that makes them dishonest, liars, charlatans, frauds, deceivers.

But brother, you should also note that a person like Newton was a Christian. Not only a Christian, but also Christian theologian. Could I consider him dishonest? Do you understand what I say? Also, could I consider him "ignorant in basics of science"?

What should also be understood is that there are some people who completely reject evolution. They may have valid reasons, but maybe also they are ignorant in evolutionary biology and molecular biology, but they may have highly sophisticated knowledge in rocket science or physics. So even if a so called creationist is intolerant of evolution, he could still be knowledgeable in science. Thus those who claim "creationists by default are ignorant of basics of science" are ignorant themselves even in their misunderstood state of affairs.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium 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.
"Dishonest" is a word too easily tossed about. We're not really
in a position to say that creationists intend to deceive use or
themselves. Human brains are capable of holding conflicting
ideas, believing all, but without reconciling them. Perhaps
this mimics dishonesty. Or perhaps "dishonest" is just an
insult thrown at creationists out of frustration with failing to
get them to see the light.

But ignorance of science is commonly seen with them.
Not all, but they do endure a pandemic of it. So I voted
for <ignorant of science>. (Btw, a friend told me recently
that the Bible is science. I didn't argue.)
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
Ever since people have studied nature they have made assumptions based upon philosophy or religion, and that is kind of the same thing. When you make an assumption like this instead of investigating you have departed from science and headed towards something else, usually creationism but could be some other assumption system. For example if you want to use science to defend big oil's use of lead in petrol you could be calling something 'Science' but in fact be denying evidence. Louis Pasteur faced general assumptions imposed upon him and was attempting to avoid assumptions. Modern creationism seems like just another version of the same kind of resistance to investigation.

Creationism by definition is the belief that there was a supernatural intervention of some in the creation of the universe and life itself.
That is close, but its important to make a distinction. Creationism means defending miraculous creation instead of not defending it. Simply believing in God and believing in a created world doesn't make you a Creationist. If you defend your belief through arguments then you're a Creationist.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Ever since people have studied nature they have made assumptions based upon philosophy or religion, and that is kind of the same thing. When you make an assumption like this instead of investigating you have departed from science and headed towards something else, usually creationism but could be some other assumption system. For example if you want to use science to defend big oil's use of lead in petrol you could be calling something 'Science' but in fact be denying evidence. Louis Pasteur faced general assumptions imposed upon him and was attempting to avoid assumptions. Modern creationism seems like just another version of the same kind of resistance to investigation.

So you call it modern creationism! Which specific kind are you referring to?

This seems like a very subjective reference.
 
But brother, you should also note that a person like Newton was a Christian. Not only a Christian, but also Christian theologian. Could I consider him dishonest? Do you understand what I say? Also, could I consider him "ignorant in basics of science"?

What should also be understood is that there are some people who completely reject evolution. They may have valid reasons, but maybe also they are ignorant in evolutionary biology and molecular biology, but they may have highly sophisticated knowledge in rocket science or physics. So even if a so called creationist is intolerant of evolution, he could still be knowledgeable in science. Thus those who claim "creationists by default are ignorant of basics of science" are ignorant themselves even in their misunderstood state of affairs.

If Newton said that "Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who will save him from God's Judgment" then yeah, he was practicing dishonesty by saying what he doesn't even know for certain and can't verify. So in that case he would be a dishonest person, but one can of course take the other things from an occasional liar and deceiver if they seem to work well, like the theory of Gravity and whatever else. That doesn't make them a wholly trustworthy person in every sense, and it doesn't make them truthful entirely, and they remain a dishonest person if they tell lies or insist upon things they themselves don't even know are true as true or fact.

I don't think Newton did make any extraordinary claims like those I mentioned, but if he even thought this, he was dishonest, a self-deceiver, and if he taught this to people, then he was dishonest and spreading lies and what he didn't even know, so its also about how people say things.

Someone might even try to catch me out as a dishonest person and a liar too, but I don't consider myself such really.

To say that "Jesus will save you, Jesus is God" is such a dangerous statement and lie and destructive thing, far more dangerous (if we are to believe the scriptures) than to say "there is no evolution" even.

The term "Creationism" as it is being used frequently now, does not bring to most minds Newton as far as can be assumed or estimated most likely, but rather brings to mind people in the United States who are basically big-time idiots by most standards.

If they say 2+2=4, that remains true, and doesn't make them an honest person, if they say 2+2=4 and God is a man, who created us in his image literally, men like him. Then, you have to distinguish from the liars speech what is true and useful and valid and verifiable or workable, and what is not verifiable, or can never be true, and by their stating such, they are a dishonest person, even if they say some true things in between (as most con artists and liars tend to do, and even Satan(s) makes things fair seeming by likely mixing truth with lies that are ultimately harmful but convincing due to the true aspects perhaps).
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
So you call it modern creationism! Which specific kind are you referring to?

This seems like a very subjective reference.
I added to the post. Yes, modern creationism attempts to defend through argument, belief in miraculous creation of the world.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
PS. I didn't respond to the poll since I don't believe any of the options can necessarily be justified as being correct.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Evolution has it own version of creationism. This can be seen by their theory for how life first appears on the earth. The theory of Evolution starts and only applies with life already present. Before evolution applies, i.e., before life, science assumes a god of random and dice made life happen; probability. Nobody has made life in the lab, this way, to prove this mythology. It is based on faith.

There is no lab proof for how the first life happened on earth, so science evokes God's idiot savant younger brother, who magically fills the gap, without any forethought or plan, using only the throw of dice. That is powerful magic for a blind God without a face. That is a different form of creation mythology. The same idiot savant god also made the universe appear, like a jackpot in a casino slot machine. The ancients rejected this notion of God, since even man could reason. They assumed that God had to be even better than reason; omniscience.

The real debate is that the Creationist assume a type of divine plan that is logical. rational, and sequential. To them God had a plan that he executed. He was the king of engineers. While evolutionists use a divine plan based on a gambling casino approach, where jack pots can be won by the blind, without any effort or forethought. This appeals to the atheists ,who want to subdue all the gods, but occasionally use him/her's luck when they need an excuse for ignorance in the gaps.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Evolution has it own version of creationism. This can be seen by their theory for how life first appears on the earth. The theory of Evolution starts and only applies with life already present. Before evolution applies, i.e., before life, science assumes a god of random and dice made life happen; probability. Nobody has made life in the lab, this way, to prove this mythology. It is based on faith.
Evolution only applies to what happens regarding the development of life, so stop talking nonsense. :oops:
 
Last edited:
But bro, isn't that absolutely a shallow understanding? How could one base this whole creationists are ignorant in science and are dishonest as a broad colour to paint from some stuff they see on TV? I can understand a few people who are innocent and are uninformed but how about some who claim to be highly educated, almost scholars and philosophers of science who have made this judgement? Yet, now I can understand how all of this has come to pass. Thanks for the contribution.
It is definitely very shallow, and most people are shallow and discussing shallow things in a shallow way, for the sake of ease and convenience. It is far too difficult and cumbersome to account for every possible nuance and distinction in how a term might be used, so generally people use easy pastiches and stereotypes and quick references to just a certain major type or popular type or "straw man" or whatever. Its just for the sake of speed and it would slow down dialogue or getting to the point too much if people in casual dialogue were to not be as shallow as they are.

Almost all Theists, people who believe in God in the most typical fashion, are Creationists in the sense of "people who believe that God is Creator" one way or another, and would even argue as such that this is their belief and why, but they are not the same as this movement that people are typically referring to who are coming out of Evangelicals or something, they don't represent all Theists with their arguments at all, and they frequently focus on denying evolution, whereas I am a theist, and I believe Allah controls and invented Evolution in every sense, even the notion of it, beside controlling every nuance of it and what happens and what breeds with what etc or the entire histories behind things.

Now when people are saying "Creationists deny Evolution", I come along and confuse the matter by saying "I am a Creationist and I insist upon Evolution as real", when they were never at all even referring to me, but to this particular group of fundamentalist literalist typically Christian but now sometimes Muslim people who try to say that their books are entirely literally and as cartoony as their imaginations and that God never evolved anything, that things didn't develop and grow and change and come out of the water, and didn't follow normal stages, but were historically just zap there (which could happen, but doesn't appear to be what happened). I'd be confusing people by saying I'm one of them or really like them, its like me saying I'm a Homosexual. I'm not a Homosexual, the Homosexuals have taken over the name, they have taken over the term "Gay". I'm a happy guy, I'm gay in that sense, but now when people say Gay they are meaning not every nuance of the word or possibility, but just the homosexuals in particular, men who want sex with men or are attracted sexually to other men. I'd be confusing people if I said "Hey, I'm gay too!".

I'm probably gayer than most gay people, but I'm no homo. Now someone can say "homo what? homo sapien? Homo these days typically is used to refer to homosexuals, I'm a qualified homo sapien, homo erectus, I have all my badges.

So, this group of sometimes educated seeming "hicks" have come up with their resistance to modern science and have called themselves Creationists. They try to make there be an incompatibility between scriptures and science, they are also deceivers, liars, and however noble they may think their intentions are, they are mainly working harm and trying to take people backwards. These are the Creationists. So either we can try to reclaim this word, and might as well reclaim Gay and Queer too while we're at it, or we can let them have their idiotic terminology that they wish for, and let it be what makes them stigmatized and dissociate ourselves from them.

Nazi means National Socialism. I believe that the Government should socially support the people, that a Nation should only function to protect and benefit its people. I'm a freaking Nazi? Calling myself a Nazi will get me beaten up and shot at, no freaking way do I want that, plus the jackasses called Nazis today and the Nazi party of history all refer to freaks that I want nothing to do with, who were bad, even liars themselves, and connected to all sorts of terrible racism and genocidal thinking. I can't say that "I believe that National Socialism should mean anyone who thinks a government should socially support its people and provide all sorts of free benefits for those within the Nation". When someone says "Nazi" today, they mean a racist, white pride, anti-Jewish, anti-other, type of hate group person, they don't mean a person who wants the country to provide free social benefits and advantages to those who are its citizens and supporting it through taxes or whatever.

So this specific group has taken on the term Creationist, and people are shallow, and they mean only the shallowest reference, most likely to this group who denies evolution, the denial of evolution is just another shortcut shallow way that people clarify who they are dealing with talking about. I can't be a "Creationist" as they mean it, because I believe in evolution. That is just how monkey-men humans are, they are simple and shallow and using shortcuts in thinking and speaking, using vague generalizations that make it easy to quickly communicate their feelings or ideas.

So, to spare people confusion, its probably best to avoid confusing terminology which might mislead them towards stereotypes when we are trying to be clear about our own individual thinking. Its like a Mormon claiming to be a Mainstream Christian, they absolutely are not, their theology is totally different from mainstream or popular Christianity, if one says "Hey look at that Christian, that person has Christian beliefs", generally Mormon theology isn't going to be what they mean in particular, so it can confuse and mislead as well.

I can not even represent mainstream Islam, because mainstream Islam at this point differs on some points, even though I am a Muslim, and God knows I am a Muslim, but I deny a variety of things the modern or current Muslims tend to say, and even to identify myself as Muslim in public would lead to misunderstandings, confusions, false stereotypes applied to me, wrong assumptions. So I say I'm nothing, non-religious, which is an easy way to say "don't bother me about it, I'm not interested" even though I'm hyper-religious, a religious fundamentalist and extremist even, all I think about and talk about and do every day is religion religion religion, but this would again confuse people, make them think wrongly, so they have to be told "non-religious" which actually just mean "not what you would think if I were to say religious, you dummy". Its necessary seeming when dealing with the human apes. They are shallow. I am "non-religious" as in not practicing any of the religions they likely know or could think of or have any understanding about.

If someone approached me with hostility regarding religion, I'd deny religion, and say I'm an Atheist, or deny God, but this would not even be a lie, because what they are calling God is not anything I believe in at all. I completely avoid the topic as much as possible in any discussions in real life mainly with strangers or outside, same with politics, whatever might be controversial or anything or create disputes or hostilities, which is why I enjoy venting so freely online about everything in a casual way, I live a double life in a sense, not wanting to appear at all anything worthy of any thought or comment except that such is a good person that they know very little about their specific thoughts or beliefs.

If I proclaimed I'm a Creationist, it would create a huge mess, everyone would get wrong ideas about me, all the shallow stupid thoughts would then be asked of me. What a mess! Ok, I'm going to eat some pasta now.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree. There were creationists that were heavily scientific. Heavily. Newton was one. There were many. So they never had any notion like "Science is likely correct". They would not even consider thinking something like that. There is no need to say "science is correct". This correct matter is absurd. If you read some of the material we have from old scientists and other scholars and philosophers who lived 1000 to 500 years ago or even earlier they considered science as a walk of life.

Some people have invented this "science vs religion" warfare. I know it was there in some places in history, like anything else but nothing could be generalised. Nothing.

I know people personally that understand the big bang, evolution, etc., but still hold true the Biblical story of creation for fear that if disqualify creation story, it will impact their eternity and their eligibility to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some have even gone as far the alter the meaning of the word "day" to shoehorn their views into science.

While I'm sure some are ignorant of science, there are some that disqualify science more out of fear than ignorance.
 
"Dishonest" is a word too easily tossed about. We're not really
in a position to say that creationists intend to deceive use or
themselves. Human brains are capable of holding conflicting
ideas, believing all, but without reconciling them. Perhaps
this mimics dishonesty. Or perhaps "dishonest" is just an
insult thrown at creationists out of frustration with failing to
get them to see the light.

But ignorance of science is commonly seen with them.
Not all, but they do endure a pandemic of it. So I voted
for <ignorant of science>. (Btw, a friend told me recently
that the Bible is science. I didn't argue.)

I don't think they are generally intending to deceive, but the term "dishonest" for me is extended to include anyone who also spreads falsehood or confusion on accident or with the best intentions, though it should probably be better limited to people who are intentionally trying to deceive or harm or conceal, which I don't think they are probably, I think they are most likely well-intended folks who think they are spreading the truth that will ultimately save people's souls or afterlife states. So did these guys: Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think they are generally intending to deceive, but the term "dishonest" for me is extended to include anyone who also spreads falsehood or confusion on accident or with the best intentions, though it should probably be better limited to people who are intentionally trying to deceive or harm or conceal, which I don't think they are probably, I think they are most likely well-intended folks who think they are spreading the truth that will ultimately save people's souls or afterlife states. So did these guys: Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia
Intent to spread "the truth" isn't dishonest.
That word then is mere insult.
"Wrong headed" would be a better term.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If Newton said that "Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who will save him from God's Judgment" then yeah, he was practicing dishonesty by saying what he doesn't even know for certain and can't verify. So in that case he would be a dishonest person, but one can of course take the other things from an occasional liar and deceiver if they seem to work well, like the theory of Gravity and whatever else. That doesn't make them a wholly trustworthy person in every sense, and it doesn't make them truthful entirely, and they remain a dishonest person if they tell lies or insist upon things they themselves don't even know are true as true or fact.

I don't think Newton did make any extraordinary claims like those I mentioned, but if he even thought this, he was dishonest, a self-deceiver, and if he taught this to people, then he was dishonest and spreading lies and what he didn't even know, so its also about how people say things.

Someone might even try to catch me out as a dishonest person and a liar too, but I don't consider myself such really.

To say that "Jesus will save you, Jesus is God" is such a dangerous statement and lie and destructive thing, far more dangerous (if we are to believe the scriptures) than to say "there is no evolution" even.

The term "Creationism" as it is being used frequently now, does not bring to most minds Newton as far as can be assumed or estimated most likely, but rather brings to mind people in the United States who are basically big-time idiots by most standards.

If they say 2+2=4, that remains true, and doesn't make them an honest person, if they say 2+2=4 and God is a man, who created us in his image literally, men like him. Then, you have to distinguish from the liars speech what is true and useful and valid and verifiable or workable, and what is not verifiable, or can never be true, and by their stating such, they are a dishonest person, even if they say some true things in between (as most con artists and liars tend to do, and even Satan(s) makes things fair seeming by likely mixing truth with lies that are ultimately harmful but convincing due to the true aspects perhaps).

So in your thesis, your bottomline is that any Christian, anyone who believes that Jesus is God, is lying. Not that they are mistaken, their faith is flawed or anything of the sort but they are simply being dishonest. They are lying. So you are saying that about 2.3 billion people in the world are all liars because of their belief. You dont need to know his reasoning, what his claims for proof are, or anything. Nothing is necessary because just because he believes in Jesus being God, he is a liar. All Christians in the world are simply lying. Thats your thesis.

Brother. With all due respect. Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Deist, or alien, what you just portrayed was the definition of bigotry.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I know people personally that understand the big bang, evolution, etc., but still hold true the Biblical story of creation for fear that if disqualify creation story, it will impact their eternity and their eligibility to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some have even gone as far the alter the meaning of the word "day" to shoehorn their views into science.

While I'm sure some are ignorant of science, there are some that disqualify science more out of fear than ignorance.

Thats fine, but its anecdotal and subjective.
 
Top