Creationism and how it can be true.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

FYI. Those who support evolution have no problem with creationism or anyone who chooses to believe it. However,"evolutionists," as it were, do challenge creationists when they attempt to get it into public school science classes, or present it as a belief supported by science. And this, and this alone, is why there is such a confrontation between the two. If creationists would stop pushing creationism where it doesn't belong and lying about it evolutionists wouldn't care one wit what they believe.

Just because someone is religious or believes in god, doesn’t mean they are creationist, nor should they be placed in a category that makes up a minimal sum of the population.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

doesnt have anything to do with bias.


he did good work for his time, allthouigh interpretation of his results were a bit of a mystery as noted in the wiki link.

He is well noted biologists (father of genetics). Wiki was used to give people who know nothing about him a general idea of who he is. He laid the foundation for genetics which evolution theory heavily relies on.

 

[outhouse]

Just because someone is religious or believes in god, doesn’t mean they are creationist, nor should they be placed in a category that makes up a minimal sum of the population.

most of us here are not anti-theist


however. creationist do make up the majority of the population in the USA, with only 40% following evolution.

the 60% to me is a serious embarrassment for humanity, that mythology is favored over common knowledge

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

most of us here are not anti-theist


however. creationist do make up the majority of the population in the USA, with only 40% following evolution.

the 60% to me is a serious embarrassment for humanity, that mythology is favored over common knowledge

Can you give an accurate definition of creationist or creationism?

 

[outhouse]

He is well noted biologists (father of genetics). Wiki was used to give people who know nothing about him a general idea of who he is. He laid the foundation for genetics which evolution theory heavily relies on.

I understand that. he is often passed on as far as the study of evolution due to genetics being one aspect of evolution and biology.

 

[Skwim]

Just because someone is religious or believes in god, doesn’t mean they are creationist, nor should they be placed in a category that makes up a minimal sum of the population.

You consider this as relevant? Why not comment on the up-coming presidential election?

 

[Quintessence]

I say, let them come up with a new name, because after having consulted more than a three dozen sources to find definitions of "Creationism" for a previous post, all those that gave one---all dictionaries---pretty much agreed that when used in a biological sense it stood in direct opposition to evolution. Not that dictionaries are the last authority, but they do point to the common understanding of words, and in this case they don't support the sense of the word as expressed by George-ananda. So while he and others may feel fine using "creationist" to describe himself, I don't believe anyone need deal with this exception to the word. If he and others choose to use and explain it, fine, but I don't see this as being of any value to the discussion of C v E.

The problem I have with this is that standard dictionaries tend to have... how to put it... ethnocentric and cultural biases to them? What you would want to consult is a subject-specific dictionary (or better, a subject-specific encyclopedia) that is more likely to be sensitive to nuanced perspectives on highly complex subjects like religion. I think we're all more than wise enough about religion around here to be able to handle the nuances and complexity. And, if we want to limit discussion of a complex topic to certain narrower parameters, that should be made clear from the outset in the opening post (or later clarified when the issue comes up and added to it).

I would also note that in the spirit of this particular thread, discussing the diversity of belief regarding how the gods played a role in the architecture of reality is extremely relevant and adds value to the discussion. It's kind of the entire point of Fallingblood's OP to point out the diversity behind that word "creationism" or "creationist," along with how certain ideas about the role of the gods are in not incompatible with evolution. I imagine he gets tired of people oversimplifying the discussion, and so do I.

 

[outhouse]

Can you give an accurate definition of creationist or creationism?

I dont think a creationist can, they all have a different, in my opinion "fantasy"


but for me, my view is that a deity had a hand somewhere to some degree with making the universe or earth or life

 

[outhouse]

The problem I have with this is that standard dictionaries tend to have... how to put it... ethnocentric and cultural biases to them? What you would want to consult is a subject-specific dictionary (or better, a subject-specific encyclopedia) that is more likely to be sensitive to nuanced perspectives on highly complex subjects like religion. I think we're all more than wise enough about religion around here to be able to handle the nuances and complexity. And, if we want to limit discussion of a complex topic to certain narrower parameters, that should be made clear from the outset in the opening post (or later clarified when the issue comes up and added to it).

I would also note that in the spirit of this particular thread, discussing the diversity of belief regarding how the gods played a role in the architecture of reality is extremely relevant and adds value to the discussion. It's kind of the entire point of Fallingblood's OP to point out the diversity behind that word "creationism" or "creationist," along with how certain ideas about the role of the gods are in not incompatible with evolution. I imagine he gets tired of people oversimplifying the discussion, and so do I.

most creationist are factually following the abrahamic versions of creation, and many of those have nothing more then a perverted view based from the mythology.

this includes, chistianity and islam which almost covers 2/3 of he planets population


how many theist in these two faiths, can honestly say, no deity had anything at all to do with something existing??? because if you get over that hurdle, you now had a deity that cant or hasnt done anything.


again, creationism can be true in exactly the same context, pink unicorns with purple polka dots and wheels for feet, can be true.

 

[Quintessence]

You know what, I'm not even going to specifically point out how you're wrong again, because it's been pointed out so many times that it's pointless. You're going to keep perpetuating misinformation no matter what anybody says to you.

 

[fallingblood]

I think many (most?) have missed the point of the OP.

The fact is, most who are creationists are not Biblical literalists or YECs. The supposed statistics that show this actually don't even deal with the subject, but a quite different subject, that is then completely ignored and used in a horribly biased fashion.

I'm not saying creationism has a place in science. I'm saying it is not opposed to science. Why would someone want this? Because they believe in God, and feel a guiding presence. It doesn't take away from science, it doesn't take away from evolution.

So please, lets not let this thread circle the toilet and go into something that it isn't; creationism vs. evolution.


I think Skim does make a good point. The definition for creationism, as is generally given, is problem some (I know you didn't say that exactly, but I'm some what paraphrasing). The problem with that though is that there is a small vocal group who has changed the idea of what creationism. It completely ignores that vast variety of different ideas, many of which fully accept evolution (with the idea that God guided it, which is in no way denying evolution).



It does not have to be an either/or choice. Let's please get back onto topic. If you seriously dislike creationism to the point you want to wipe away all thought of it, this is not the thread for you.

 

[Quagmire]

It does not have to be an either/or choice. Let's please get back onto topic. If you seriously dislike creationism to the point you want to wipe away all thought of it, this is not the thread for you.

I think what happened here, FB, is that some people saw the word "Creationism" in the title, said to themselves, "Oh goody!!!! I know what that is and I hate it!!!", and when they saw that the OP was about something else entirely, they decided to pretend they didn't see that and went on from there, lest they waste a perfectly good bout of sanctimony. :yes:

 

[outhouse]

I think what happened here, FB, is that some people saw the word "Creationism" in the title, said to themselves, "Oh goody!!!! I know what that is and I hate it!!!", and when they saw that the OP was about something else entirely, they decided to pretend they didn't see that and went on from there, lest they waste a perfectly good bout of sanctimony. :yes:

OP promotes ID as acceptable to evolution.


which is nothing more then trying to sneak creationism in the back door of science.



and what do you expect with a unscientific statement such as creationism and how it can be true.


Its not a matter of hate, there is a war going on with childrens education at stake. have you ever seen the ignorance in public schools that exist today back in the midwest??? you live a little over 2 hours from me, in a place where we dont have the issues my relatives from the midwest have to put up with.

The ignorance due to creationism, is still fighting science as a whole and is detrimental to society as a whole.


It has no useful place in society, or science.

 

[Quintessence]

 

[outhouse]

one of your better post

this sums up part of my view.

Why Creation 'Science' Must Be Kept Out of the Classroom

One of the issues here is the integrity of our students' education: Creation 'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins and, therefore, it does not belong in a science classroom any more than the theory of leprechauns and the theory of unicorns do, though I wholheartedly concede that the subject of Creationism could and should be taught elsewhere -- perhaps in a course on comparative religion, critical thinking, or abnormal psychology). As one educator has put it, "Why should we teach levitation in a pilot training course? Why should we teach the "Stork Theory" in a sex education class?"

Left unchecked, Creation 'Science' will damage public perceptions of both Christianity and science. In a way that Charles Darwin never could, Creation 'Science' has the potential to make monkeys of us all.

 

[outhouse]

You know what, I'm not even going to specifically point out how you're wrong again, because it's been pointed out so many times that it's pointless. You're going to keep perpetuating misinformation no matter what anybody says to you.

YOU cant point out errors, thats the problem. running away when faced with a challenge, solves nothing.

Do you think we chould give creationism a big ole pat on the back and a hug????? and give it back ground its lost?

here this backs my statements to a T, you had a issue with.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The percentage of people in the USA who accept the idea of evolution declined from 45% in 1985, to 40% in 2005.[93] A Gallup poll reported that percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report.

The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution.

47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).[94] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the United States. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a non-theistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[94]

 

[Magic Man]

I think many (most?) have missed the point of the OP.

The fact is, most who are creationists are not Biblical literalists or YECs. The supposed statistics that show this actually don't even deal with the subject, but a quite different subject, that is then completely ignored and used in a horribly biased fashion.

I'm not saying creationism has a place in science. I'm saying it is not opposed to science. Why would someone want this? Because they believe in God, and feel a guiding presence. It doesn't take away from science, it doesn't take away from evolution.

So please, lets not let this thread circle the toilet and go into something that it isn't; creationism vs. evolution.


I think Skim does make a good point. The definition for creationism, as is generally given, is problem some (I know you didn't say that exactly, but I'm some what paraphrasing). The problem with that though is that there is a small vocal group who has changed the idea of what creationism. It completely ignores that vast variety of different ideas, many of which fully accept evolution (with the idea that God guided it, which is in no way denying evolution).



It does not have to be an either/or choice. Let's please get back onto topic. If you seriously dislike creationism to the point you want to wipe away all thought of it, this is not the thread for you.

Sure, creationism can just mean "God created everything", rather than "God created everything just as it is today". But I don't see the need for the first one. The second one is useful since it distinguishes someone from a different group, those who accept evolution.

 

[outhouse]

Here is the jest of the OP's post

. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

for roughly 40% of the united states, who oppose evolution, it is a either or case.

and those who folow theistic evolution or ID, or any other creationism, are doing nothing more then blatantly promoting pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design


which would also include theistic evolution.


Ok so, some want to give pseudoscience a hug and make it acceptable. I feel there is great harm in such as noted below, from the same wiki link posted above.

Claims advanced by pseudoscience may result in government officials and educators making poor decisions in selecting curricula; for example, creation science may replace evolution in studies of biology.[7]



Pseudoscience harbors a continuous and an increasing threat to our society

^ a b C.J. Efthimiou, R. Llewellyn (2006). "Is Pseudoscience the Solution to Science Literacy?". arXiv:physics/0608061 [physics.ed-ph].




so that leaves us with alienating people.

studies have shown this is a matter of education

At what cost do you do you find refusing education acceptable???? we are not alienating people, we are alienating a harmful concept known as pseudoscience

 

[Breathe]

Stating that evolution is only possible with an atheistic outlook, and equating theistic evolution with pseudoscience and putting it in the same category as YEC is not only a dishonest tactic, but one that pushes many into the arms of scriptural literalism.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

most of us here are not anti-theist


however. creationist do make up the majority of the population in the USA, with only 40% following evolution.

the 60% to me is a serious embarrassment for humanity, that mythology is favored over common knowledge

A serious embarrassment for the USA, not for humanity. Don't drag the rest of the world into it.

However, is it really such an embarrassment? People aren't weighing up mythology and science and choosing mythology because it sounds more logical or believable. Before coming to that issue, they already have a belief in God that has provided people with all the knowledge they need; the scriptures. Now let's assume the Christian God is real, and weigh up mythology vs science. Is it really that embarrassing or illogical if one is to take literally and believe the words of an almighty God rather than the theories of men? Now of course one can go the other way and take other interpretations of scripture, but surely you can understand why one would come to the conclusion that evolution is false and the Bible is literal, if we were to assume that there is a biblical God.