Why are people afraid of creationism?

[JoshuaTree]

Actually, science has answered this question. Since chickens evolved from egg-laying animals, the egg must have preceded the bird.

Chicken egg, ha ha, got me!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t think atheist are afraid of creationism , its seems to be a case of “creationism is out of fashion and I like to be an atheist because that makes me feels smart and open minded.

It seems as if once again you just take your strawman opinions and assume them to be factual.
And you too seem to be guilty of casually confusing science with atheism.

Many evolutionary biologists, who accept all of natural evolution, are theists. You realize that, right? Sounds like you don't though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which came first, the chicken or he egg? Genesis 1 is chicken first view, Genesis 2 is egg first view. Presenting both views back to back suggests to me the author didn't know which view was correct, only that God was responsible for creation however it happened. Science certainly can't answer the question as to which came first, but that is the point of the text I think.

Science can and does know.
And the answer is the egg, since chickens evolved from egg laying ancestors.

As for the egg itself, that also is a product of evolution.

Science did answer this question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Raising man from the dust of the earth might seem more in alignment with the science and evidence of the process of evolution but God being God could have just poofed that proof of creation into existence and science would never know, right?

Ever heared of "Last Thursdayism"?
That's basically the logic you are using here.

It's the idea that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives and the rest of perceived history, was created just last thursday.

Science would never know, right?



10000 years ago, 6000 years ago, last tuesday, last thursday, 5 minutes ago... all the same (non-)"argument".

 

[JoshuaTree]

Ever heared of "Last Thursdayism"?
That's basically the logic you are using here.

It's the idea that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives and the rest of perceived history, was created just last thursday.

Science would never know, right?



10000 years ago, 6000 years ago, last tuesday, last thursday, 5 minutes ago... all the same (non-)"argument".

Right!

 

[JoshuaTree]

Creationism would/could be in alignment with science if only it were not in opposition to predestination, but creationists can't give up free will...

 

[Polymath257]

Chicken egg, ha ha, got me!

The boundary of 'chicken-ness' is so broad that it goes over many generations. So there is no first chicken nor a first chicken egg.

Just like there was no first French speaker.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The main thing about it that Muslims object to is the creation of man and that he supposedly evolved from the ancestors of monkeys.

What is the harm in it being said that God created everything? The children are going to hear it anyway.

In my opinion it is nothing but one of the many tactics used to attempt to annihilate religion, belief, and righteousness.

That is the first problem. If you cannot agree to humans evolving from ancestors of monkeys, then you can take that they evolved from fish. That also will satisfy science.

Saying that God created everything is the second problem as the atheists do not agree to existence of any God or Goddess.

You have not mentioned Mohammad in your post. That would have been the third problem since the atheists do not believe in existence of God, they will also not believe that any person is a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi sent by any God.

Lastly, atheist also will not agree that there can be no righteousness without God. Do you mean that all believers are righteous?

 

[JoshuaTree]

The boundary of 'chicken-ness' is so broad that it goes over many generations. So there is no first chicken nor a first chicken egg.

Just like there was no first French speaker.

What about Babel?

 

[Polymath257]

Creationism would/could be in alignment with science if only it were not in opposition to predestination, but creationists can't give up free will...

Science doesn't really have much to say about free will either way. Even giving a decent definition of the problem isn't so easy. maybe another thread?

 

[Polymath257]

What about Babel?

The French language does not go back that far. Nobody spoke French 2000 years ago.

 

[JoshuaTree]

The French language does not go back that far. Nobody spoke French 2000 years ago.

I suppose the next chapter will have another Babel event to explain that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which came first, the chicken or he egg? Genesis 1 is chicken first view, Genesis 2 is egg first view. Presenting both views back to back suggests to me the author didn't know which view was correct, only that God was responsible for creation however it happened. Science certainly can't answer the question as to which came first, but that is the point of the text I think.

One should never say "science cannot answer this" when it is questions about the material world that we live in. Odds are that the problem has been solved. If you don't know it is almost always better to ask questions.

 

[JoshuaTree]

One should never say "science cannot answer this" when it is questions about the material world that we live in. Odds are that the problem has been solved. If you don't know it is almost always better to ask questions.

Thanks for the pointer, I definitely need to work on my delivery.

 

[epronovost]

As long as it allowed that science does not know it all.

Science doesn't make claim to know everything. In fact it can't by its very own method assume it knows everything. It can only assume it knows some things and others are left to be discovered. It can also know that some things are not. For example, it doesn't know everything about the evolutionary process, but it does know that animals, plants and bacteria aren't created or modified magically through some obscure process by an invisible super entity.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There is only one way to begin to comprehend reality: measure it.

 

[leroy]

It seems as if once again you just take your strawman opinions and assume them to be factual.
And you too seem to be guilty of casually confusing science with atheism.

Many evolutionary biologists, who accept all of natural evolution, are theists. You realize that, right? Sounds like you don't though.

Again, my own personal impression is that most internet ant creationists/athaists (including you) are anticreationists/athaeists because they *feel * that Smart people are atheist/anticreationists.

I honestly and sincerely don’t think that you looked at the evidence objectively from both sides and decided “anti-creation” over creationism as a result of an honest and objective inquiry.



that my own personal opinion and my own personal guess...............from past conversations its obvious that you dont understand the theist arguments and that you are not making an honest effort in trying to understand them

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, my own personal impression is that most internet ant creationists/athaists (including you) are anticreationists/athaeists because they *feel * that Smart people are atheist/anticreationists.

I honestly and sincerely don’t think that you looked at the evidence objectively from both sides and decided “anti-creation” over creationism as a result of an honest and objective inquiry.

Well I've been a professional biologist for the last 20 years, so my views on the issue have nothing to do with what I think smart people believe. It's simply about the data.

As far as creationism, I used to wager the creationists I debated that I knew more about creationism than they did. I spent an enormous amount of time reading and studying creationist arguments, via their books, websites, videos, and even in person appearances.

Probably the most bizarre aspect of these debates was how often creationists would try and pretend that their views on evolution had nothing to do with their religion. The funniest was when a creationist would try and act like they only came to that position after studying the science, only to subsequently reveal that they had no idea what the science even was.

IMO, that dynamic is a great illustration of how science is more authoritative and persuasive than religion in modern society. If religion were more so, creationists wouldn't hesitate to point to that as the reason why they're creationists. But instead they try and hide the role their religion plays, while inflating the role of science. They wouldn't do that if religion were more widely respected.

 

[leroy]

Well I've been a professional biologist for the last 20 years, so my views on the issue have nothing to do with what I think smart people believe. It's simply about the data.

As far as creationism, I used to wager the creationists I debated that I knew more about creationism than they did. I spent an enormous amount of time reading and studying creationist arguments, via their books, websites, videos, and even in person appearances.

Probably the most bizarre aspect of these debates was how often creationists would try and pretend that their views on evolution had nothing to do with their religion. The funniest was when a creationist would try and act like they only came to that position after studying the science, only to subsequently reveal that they had no idea what the science even was.

IMO, that dynamic is a great illustration of how science is more authoritative and persuasive than religion in modern society. If religion were more so, creationists wouldn't hesitate to point to that as the reason why they're creationists. But instead they try and hide the role their religion plays, while inflating the role of science. They wouldn't do that if religion were more widely respected.

Probably the most bizarre aspect of these debates was how often creationists would try and pretend that their views on evolution had nothing to do with their religion. The funniest was when a creationist would try and act like they only came to that position after studying the science, only to subsequently reveal that they had no idea what the science even was.

Based on my experience creationists (YEC ) openly and shamlessly admit that they “start with the bible” and then they see if the can fit science in to the bible………..(the bible is the prime authority)

They say things like “let’s use our biblical glasses” or the bible is the word of God, science is the word of men”

 

[Jose Fly]

Based on my experience creationists (YEC ) openly and shamlessly admit that they “start with the bible” and then they see if the can fit science in to the bible………..(the bible is the prime authority)

They say things like “let’s use our biblical glasses” or the bible is the word of God, science is the word of men”

I guess we've had different experiences then. Most creationists I've interacted with insist that their position is science-based, rather than religion-based. Just look at the Jehovah's Witnesses here; every one of them swears up and down that it's all about the science for them and they get rather upset if you suggest that just maybe, their religion is a factor.

I've always had the view that if a creationist tells me their position is based in their religious beliefs, then my response is to basically not debate them and tell them I'm fine with them believing whatever they want. As long as they're not bashing science or trying to affect science education, I generally don't care what someone believes.