Creationism and how it can be true.

[fallingblood]

the title of your OP states the exact opposite




stuffing a deity in the gaps of knowledge is a mistake people have been making for as long as we have had written history, how much longer should we play that game?


but your real problem is that your pseudoscience does interfere. Creationsim is a problem in the USA, pseudoscience has many negative impacts on society

it doesnt need defending

The title of the thread says very little especially since the term true doesnt always mean the same thing. That is why reading the OP is necessary as it explains my stance. But you did confirm one of my thoughts, you didn't read the OP and are thus wasting everyone's time by uninformed statements.

 

[outhouse]

The title of the thread says very little especially since the term true doesnt always mean the same thing. That is why reading the OP is necessary as it explains my stance. But you did confirm one of my thoughts, you didn't read the OP and are thus wasting everyone's time by uninformed statements.

you dont have the qualifications to talk down to anyone, including me. its not respectable.


You promote and defend pseudoscience in your personal definition, which your making wishy washy on purpose, so no one can nail down the scientifically unsupported position you hold.

Your being vague on what you attribute to a deity, and then place this in a science section of this forum, when its clearly "same faith"



do you have a scientific position or not??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The bottom line is I don't think changing it to mean something other than "a belief in a god having created living things the way they are today" is helpful or good for communication. It seems unnecessary and confusing to me.

Polysemy, metaphor, metonymy, and other foundations of linguistic meaning end up being a bit of a double-edged sword. Defining creationism as "a belief in a god having created living things the way they are today" is a good example. On the one hand, unlike terms such as "theistic creationism" or "progressive creationism", it is free of the "confusing" aspects of jargon/technical terms. However, the reason such terms exist is because of ambiguity inherent in non-techinical language.

What does it mean to say that god "created living things the way they are today"? That could mean god did something recently such that living things were created the way they are now. It could mean refer to constant activity between creator and creation. Or it could be Jefferson-type deism.

Making things "simple" often doesn't make them less confusing, and even when it does, often it is only through inaccuracy. Two quite different examples should suffice:
1) Every psych undergrad textbook I've ever encountered which covers neural physiology (even junior/senior level neurobiology texts) describes the "firing" of neurons inaccurately.
2) Almost every high school or college calculus textbook uses the Reimann integral as an introduction to integration. Then, when the student finishes two or three semesters of calculus, s/he is informed that this method of integration is not only a 19th century relic, but is also now (thanks to "simplification") a conceptual stumbling block for understanding modern integrals.

So the question is whether or not simplifying things improves the situation or not? I think that understanding creationism as an umbrella term for a wide-range of beliefs which at least meet the following criterion: some designer/design is involved in the evolutionary process itself (to the extent the belief system includes evolution at all).

I don't think it accurate to apply the "creationist" label to people who believe that evolution is the result of "natural" processes (i.e., they follow the the model of evolution the physical sciences do) but that all "natural" processes (physics, basically) are the work of a designer. Even those whose view goes beyond deism, in that they believe god has acted in the world in various ways (e.g., sending Jesus or Muhammed), need not hold any beliefs which are inconsistent with the way biologists describe evolution.

The fact that the term creationism is so inexorably bound to evolution (or anti-evolution) seems to me to indicate that it is no longer appropriate (and is more, rather than less, confusing) to call "creationist" any person whose beliefs don't conflict with the way scientists describe evolution.

 

[fallingblood]

you dont have the qualifications to talk down to anyone, including me. its not respectable.

Do know what's not respectable? Coming into a thread and refusing to read or address the OP. And then instead of addressing any of the points brought, going to the same basic played out arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. And please, don't act like a martyr and claim everyone who disagrees with you is talking down to you. I have seen you do it with others, and really, it is an ignorant and childish tactic. You have no idea what my qualifications are, and you are constantly talking down to people. So just give it a rest.

You promote and defend pseudoscience in your personal definition, which your making wishy washy on purpose, so no one can nail down the scientifically unsupported position you hold.

Your being vague on what you attribute to a deity, and then place this in a science section of this forum, when its clearly "same faith"

You have no idea what my position is because you're too laze and intellectually dishonest to actually read my OP. You do this over and over again, and you never actually deal with the issues that are brought up. Seriously is it more than annoying, and all that you show is that you're ignorant of what is being talked about.

If you read my OP, you would actually get an idea of what I'm saying. But since you're too lazy to do that, of course all you can do is make up ridiculous statements that have nothing to do with my position.

I am not promoting pseudoscience. I'm not defending pseudoscience. I'm not saying that creation beliefs are science, or should be treated as such. If you actually had any integrity, you would know this as you would have read my OP, as well as my later responses.

Also, this is science and religion. Not just science. Science and religion are not opposed. But again, you wouldn't even know what I'm talking about because you're too lazy to read my OP, and instead would rather just state the same tired rhetoric you always use in threads like this. Creationists are dumb, they are evil, and there is no god.

do you have a scientific position or not??

Read the OP. If you read the OP, you wouldn't have to ask me such questions.

And just to be extremely clear, because I know you won't read the OP or ever address it, I 100% accept evolution as being fact. I am making no argument against that. I am also saying that just because one accepts evolution, that doesn't mean they can't accept that god/s had a part in that process. Again, I fully agree with evolution, I just don't think it stands opposed to theism or creation ideas.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gregor Mendel for example. The father of genetics. Do you hear atheist speak of this man.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, because they are bias and have one train of thought. To reject anything and everything that has to do religion, whether they believe in god or not.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Mendel was an important researcher and played a key role in the initial understanding of genetics.

In which sense do you feel that we atheists are rejecting him? And why would we even want or have any reason to?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not just the word "evolution" that has anti-theistic baggage; it's the theory itself. Evolutionary theory as well as the evidence behind it suggests an unguided process.

Then again, it is subject to interpretation. I don't think this matter is all that different from the classical remark that if God is all-loving and the creator of everything than it is difficult to explain how evil exists at all.

For all everyone knows, there may be some surprising, mysterious or simply as-yet-unknown or even unknowable reason why things currently appear to have no guiding purpose despite supposedly having it. I agree with you that it is an unconvincing possibility, but others obviously disagree, and that isn't always due to bad faith.

 

[gnostic]

I actually have no problem with creationism being a story or myth. I have no problem with creationism may be part of religion ("may" because not all religions have creation story) and people may believe in their creation story.

My main problem are those people who tried to introduce creationism (or Intelligent Design) into the science classrooms. If it is not science, then no way in hell should it be taught as one.

If they seriously believe that creation should be taught as science, then they have to prove that this Creator(s) exist. "Prove" as providing physical and testable evidences.

The foundation of (most) modern science is to provide explanation (theory) to verifiable and testable fact (empirical evidence) to either natural or man-made phenomena.

(Note that I wrote "most", because theoretical physics, like the M-Theory of String Theory, is based mostly on mathematical models than evidences. Evolution is not theoretical.)

Real, hard and testable evidences are, what make evolution not faith-based knowledge. Faith is what distinguished creationism from science.

Creationists have often tried to misrepresent evolution in what it is not...which is another problem I have with creationists. Some examples:

• Saying that "evolution is just a theory", often misconstrue what a theory in science is.
• Saying that there are no evidences for evolution...they refused to acknowledge the evidences that are there.
• Refusing to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

To me, these creationists are either ignorant and with no understanding of the scientific processes, or worse - being deliberately deceitful.

Those are the major issues I have with creationists and creationism.

If people want to believe in their creation stories than they can believe they want; they have the right to it. As long as they don't treat creationism as science, I would have no quarrel with them. Sure, believers can accept both creation and evolution, but only if they can distinguish the differences between theology and science, and that are in no where the same, then you will get no argument from me.

But if they want to say that evolution is not science and creationism is, then yes, I will fight them with tooth-and-nail that this is not acceptable.

The question for you, fallingblood is: should creationism be treated as science?

 

[Quintessence]

My main problem are those people who tried to introduce creationism (or Intelligent Design) into the science classrooms. If it is not science, then no way in hell should it be taught as one.

Seconded. At best, it belongs in a course on the philosophy of science to be used as an example of what is (and is not) science, and why. That kind of depth is beyond the scope of your typical K-12 science classroom.

 

[Leonardo]

Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated. Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving.

Theories of the origination of life are founded high frequency permutations and combination theory. The basic chemistry of life has been evolved in laboratories from non-organic substances that are thought to be the composition of the earth's early atmosphere:

NASA - "Lost" Miller Experiment Gives Pungent Clue to Origin of Life
Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

With that said: Many creationist arguments against this theory claim that the odds of producing DNA are too great and therefore render the theory mute. However the flaw in that logic is the immensity of the amount of material that is combining. The amount of material is on the order of millions of tons. In terms of individual molecules the number is staggering, its astronomical. Nature literally can create life by a brute force probability approach! Take for instance the mole, a metric unit of entities used in chemistry, it has 6.022×10^23 entities per unit mass of a substance, which can be atoms or molecules the number of entities is the same. So when realizing that millions of tons of material are combining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

Average mass of a mole of amino acids is 137g per mole.( Amino Acids: Formula, Molecular Weight - Chemistry Online Education) There are 907185 grams per ton, say we only take a million tons of material mixing in the shallow seas around volcanic vents, that makes for 907185000000 grams X 6.22 10^23 = 1640116540915709472956897209507 molecules combining! Now the number of reactions per-second is dependent on the distances between molecules and the temperature of the water. Let’s just say that its one in a billion chance RNA can arise from the amount of material and its environment in one year; that would give rise to 1640116540915709472957 RNA molecules per year and in a billion years 1640116540915709472956897209507 RNA molecules! Now let’s say that the chances of RNA collecting in a lipid membrane and forging DNA and mitochondria is one in a billion, billion chance in 100 million years, that would lead to 1640116540915.71 single cell organisms! In a span of 2.5 billion years leads to 41002913522892.7 randomly created single cell bugs, but about 1 billion years ago multi-cellular life came about. Now let’s take another astronomical probability of single cell life mutating into multi-cellular life in 100 million years, one in a billion chance. That realizes into 41,000 types of mulit-cellular life forms! Now I have to take into account that these organisms multiply and end up in astronomical numbers. Simple multi-cell life forms could have arisen from single cell symbiotic relationships that eventually evolve into specialized multi-cellular life, I'll peg our calculation to one hour for each specie to divide where the cells seek a symbiotic relationship. Starting from just one multi-cell life form per species in 1 month creates a total per species of 9.25 10^223! Now we have to take into account death which comes about through malfunctions, predation and extinctions which brings about balance of the population and is called the stationary phase of an organisms population. This lowers the total and can be averaged at half the population per month lives, that still leaves 2.35 10^108 multi-cell organisms. Life exploded into complex organisms about 500 million years. Now say out of our menagerie of multi-cell organisms it’s a one in a trillion, trillion, trillion chance of one becoming a complex organism in 100 million years! From the population of 2.35 10^108 would allow for a staggering 2.38 10^84! So Mr. creationist let’s decrease the probability of complex animal life to one in a googleplex, that 10^100. This still allows for 234,854,258 complex animal life forms arising from pure randomness!:yes:

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

Ah no...matter need not have a cause. Now the term matter is in the context of E-mc^2 not the complex atoms of today. With that said; because of forces like gravity there is no need for a designer or creator to create a universe.:beach:

 

[fallingblood]

I think a lot of people misunderstood the OP. No, creationism or creation ideas should not be taught as science. They aren't science and this should not be taught as such.

That doesn't mean that they are false though.

To be very clear, I accept evolution. However, I also think that evolution does not have to stand agaisnt ideas of creation.

 

[outhouse]

I think a lot of people misunderstood the OP. No, creationism or creation ideas should not be taught as science. They aren't science and this should not be taught as such.

That doesn't mean that they are false though.

To be very clear, I accept evolution. However, I also think that evolution does not have to stand agaisnt ideas of creation.

thats the problem bud, evolution does stand against creationism for most americans.

I agree with you that it doesnt have to stand against creation mythology though.


It fails all on its own merits with evolution getting drug down with it. Creationist fight the science behind evolution creating a mythical fight where there is none.


for the most part science ignores creationist claims as it files it all under pseudoscience and mythology and theology

 

[Leonardo]

thats the problem bud, evolution does stand against creationism for most americans.

I agree with you that it doesnt have to stand against creation mythology though.


It fails all on its own merits with evolution getting drug down with it. Creationist fight the science behind evolution creating a mythical fight where there is none.


for the most part science ignores creationist claims as it files it all under pseudoscience and mythology and theology

Are you referring to creation of life or the universe or both?

Creation of a Universe by an intelligence doesn’t solve the ultimate answer since such a creator lives in a universe that allowed it to create this universe, so how did the creator's world begin and where did it come from?

The only remote possibility of applying some kind of creationism on a scientific level to explain life on earth is to use a terraforming theory. The problem with that is the geological evidence, fossil record and ancient ice records tell a different story that spans billions of years. So life starting by creationism doesn't have strong evidence to support it. The other approach is to use the 2001 Space Odyssey theory, an intelligence discovered life on earth and has nurtured it to produce human intelligence. The problem with that approach is the fossil record dates back as far 6 million years for human evolution. The point being, a society develops technology to get solutions to questions and problems as soon as possible, developing technology is a short term adaptive kind of solution. With that said; Who would wait millions of years to get an answer to a question? If an intelligence has mastered DNA then why make incremental changes over millions of years when they could simply transform an Australopithecus into a human within one generation?

 

[PolyHedral]

Who would wait millions of years to get an answer to a question? If an intelligence has mastered DNA then why make incremental changes over millions of years when they could simply transform an Australopithecus into a human within one generation?

1) Someone with no sense of boredom
2) Someone who didn't want to be known.

 

[Sapiens]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used). However, such a position is foolish, and only hampers actual understanding and acceptance. I am proposing here that a both/and solution is just as possible, where creationism is recognized not as opposed to evolution, but an idea that can peacefully coexist.

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

YEC adherents argue that it is the ONLY TRUE way and that anything else beggars the WORD OF GOD!

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

ID is, as far as I can see YEC with a new suit of clothes.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated.

Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving. Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about. There are other theories regarding the formation of the world and the universe, but they do not necessarily disagree with these other forms of creationism either.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. 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.

Yes, one could ... but rarely does. Even here you feel a need to make the claim that, "One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans" with the clear implication that humans were some sort of special creation that is different than all others. The underlying problem is not resolved by your suggestion, religionists think that they are special and above all other organisms and they they have some pixie promise of world domination and survival, regardless of their personal behavior. At the same time they see atheists as immoral and uncontrollable, since without a fairy-godfather to punish evil-doers people will not behave. Cottoning to a cop-out of a shrinking God that backs away whenever he is found to be full of it by scientific inquiry just isn't going to work ... for either side.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is not concerned with how life began? That's because it doesn't explain it. The scientists would love to have one theory about how life began and evolved, it just doesn't work so they say "Well, evolution is not concerned with it", bull, they wish more than anything that it did.

No theory of evolution can contain a theory of life's origins which excludes divine explanation? So you have proof that there is not a superior alien race out there who goes around planting life?

Any scientific theory of evolutionary processes restricts the causes of natural evolutionary forces? Not if it's built in to DNA to evolve. You guys just don't think for yourselves at all, no imagination whatsoever. You're so used to having others figure everything out for you.

Name one evolutionary process, or any other process, that precludes divine intention.

You find it hard to believe that Dawkins would agree? So, Dawkins is not in charge. Does the wind check with Dawkins before it does it's thing? Does the rain? Does DNA before it divides? Nope. Not even his own DNA does.

Not yet but down the road a bit the real scientists are going to come up against a wall and the only way to get around that wall is to include God in their theories.

There is actually a field of science that deals with how life began. It's called abiogenesis.

Why should evolution explain origins??

 

[Sapiens]

Gregor Mendel for example. The father of genetics. Do you hear atheist speak of this man.
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, because they are bias and have one train of thought. To reject anything and everything that has to do religion, whether they believe in god or not.

I hear Mendel spoken of often, we even use the terms "Mendelian Genetics or Mendelian Trait or Mendelian Inheritance" to honor him. Most evolutionists greatly regret that Charles Darwin did not understand German ... do you know why?

 

[Sapiens]

...

Not yet but down the road a bit the real scientists are going to come up against a wall and the only way to get around that wall is to include God in their theories.

I suggest that you try and hold your breath until that happens.

 

[Sapiens]

So no new ideas? Only peer reviewed theories? Who decides what is science and what isn't? You?

The vast majority of the modern, civilized world accepts evolution? But with a Creator.

Ideas designated as "Theories" are way beyond the point of peer review.

Theistic evolution maybe "fine" but it is, at base, a cop out.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You know, I recently called my aunt to ask a question about a kerosene heater that she purchased for my grandmother.(Fascinating, huh?) She didn't answer, so I got her voice mail. It contained the usual greeting followed by a promise to call back and then she finished with "And just remember, Jesus is Lord and he loves you."

I found it interesting, in light of this conversation, and specifically to the points posted by SUPER UNIVERSE, that I've never heard anyone say:

"Hey guys, this is Jonathan. Sorry I couldn't answer the phone. Don't worry though, I'll call you back soon. Oh, and just remember, Evolution is real!"

Have you?

I wonder how much proselytizing is self-affirming.

On topic though, the only way that creationism can be true is if it starts accepting observable evidence and understands that "god" created things naturally - through natural processes - over very long periods of time.

 

[R34L1TY]

I think a lot of people misunderstood the OP. No, creationism or creation ideas should not be taught as science. They aren't science and this should not be taught as such.

That doesn't mean that they are false though.

To be very clear, I accept evolution. However, I also think that evolution does not have to stand agaisnt ideas of creation.

This comment makes about as much sense as your "Agnostic Theist" custom title.

You need to explain what you are saying.