1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by firedragon, Nov 1, 2020.

?

Creationists

Poll closed Nov 11, 2020.
  1. Are ignorant of basic science

    66.7%
  2. Are by default dishonest

    26.7%
  3. Are a new phenomena

    30.0%
  4. None of the above

    26.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Putin' on the Blitz!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,643
    Ratings:
    +5,913
    Religion:
    None - agnostic with strong atheist tendencies.
    Creationist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

    A creationist is someone who believes that the story of the creation of the universe in the Bible is true, and who rejects the theory of evolution.

    I suppose it depends upon one's definition of such. If, as depicted, evolution is not seen as an appropriate mechanism then they will be seen as ignorant, or defying a lot of science that has much support. Allowing for the fact that evolution might not be fully worked out but where the underlying theory is accepted by the larger number of scientists.

    Definition of CREATIONIST

    A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

    Same here, not mentioning evolution, but implying God formed life 'as is', which would be unscientific.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    18,315
    Ratings:
    +7,554
    Religion:
    Christianity
    Creationism is something new to me...since in my country there is not even a debate about it from the point of view of School & Education.

    Still...I believe that Education is a serious thing.....so the State must impose the biology and natural sciences curricula based upon official Science. In all public schools, at least.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    15,617
    Ratings:
    +15,975
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Creationism in the commonly used modern sense of a biblical literalist is indeed a new phenomenon, associated with the Seventh Day Adventists and similar fundamentalist Protestant sects from the c.19th onward.

    Before that most Christianity did not take everything in the bible literally, being aware of the various literary style and devices it uses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    Hmm. Okay. So you associate creationism with the literal reading of the Bible? Is that your definition of creationism?

    Im sorry, this definition I have not heard of before. So I am clarifying to be sure. How about the older Christians? Did they not take the Biblical account literally? How about Jews?
     
  6. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    So you define it as "rejection of evolution" as an addition to the creation belief?

    Thus, this whole idea of Evolution vs creationism stems from a "definition". It sounds like a subjective definition to me. Because creationism has always existed in some form or another. Yet, it seems like you are referring to one phenomena which is subjective to you and your school of thought.

    Please clarify if you have some time.
     
  7. DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +624
    Religion:
    Syncretic Universal Monotheism
    I put that they are by default dishonest, because they insist something which they don't even clearly demonstrate is the only possible answer for whatever they are claiming. I selected the other options all as well, but the one most important to me and interesting to me is the dishonesty one, and how religious people (Christians) are sometimes basically liars who lie a great deal about things they scarcely understand or know about (and I think the "Creationists" were probably pretty often Christians mainly, but then wise-guy Muslims thought to imitate the Christians as usual and joined in behind them, denying the evolution that is apparent even in the Qur'an).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +624
    Religion:
    Syncretic Universal Monotheism
    I'm thinking it must be based on what they, as well as I, have seen on the television and documentaries, where the major focus of the creationist movement people or those identifying very specifically as creationists are people who insist upon evolution as a falsehood and that life didn't develop like that in stages but was rather created in a shorter period of time "as is", which may be the case, but they don't make any really outstanding or undeniable case for such typically. They even went to court or something and brought all kinds of things that were their best ideas, and it didn't seem to fly. Worse than them, but in the same self-destructive course ultimately, are the "Flat-Earthers" who emerged from under the rocks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,653
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    This is going to be like "herding cats".
    The current modern version of science versus creationism is a mainly Western cultural phenomenon. And due to that there will be different versions of what creationism is, because what science and creationism are, are both in part cultural.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Putin' on the Blitz!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,643
    Ratings:
    +5,913
    Religion:
    None - agnostic with strong atheist tendencies.
    No school of thought actually. I was quoting two reasonable definitions of creationism, both of which seem to imply no belief in evolution, but I don't know the extent of their use. I'm not interested in definitions to be honest, just what people tend to believe, and I can't say if the usage matches either of the two definitions.
     
  11. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    29,789
    Ratings:
    +13,867
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Yeah, some are dishonest, some are ignorant. One cannot be both about creation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    Okay I understand.
     
  13. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    So that would make "some", not "all".
     
  14. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    16,827
    Ratings:
    +29,600
    Religion:
    Hindu
    I don't think so. I think creationism came about early in history to help humans understand their existence and the existence of the world around them.

    I think when most people hear the word "creationist," it brings to mind a person that disqualifies evolution in favor of the creation of the universe by a supernatural being. But by your definition in the OP, I suppose I can be considered a creationist of sorts, though I concur that the universe exists as a result of the big bang, and that evolution is how we came to be.

    I think the vast majority of people that are creationists as I defined it above are such as a result of Pascal's wager. I think they feel that science is likely correct, but feel there will be an eternal consequence of not believing the story of creation. Would you consider this dishonesty or just playing it safe?

    As I alluded to above, while I'm confident there are some that are, there are many who are not that, as I said above, are just playing it safe.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    29,789
    Ratings:
    +13,867
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    1. Is creationism a brand new concept that came up 100 years ago?: On the contrary, it is the oldest when you did not need to provide evidence.
    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?: Apologists have their tales. But still no evidence.
    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?: One can be dishonest in one thing and honest in other things. These people were surely ignorant.
    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?: No, they are not ignorant. They are not even dishonest. But in some, creationism is so deeply ingrained that they cannot accept the truth, publicly or even privately. Hindu scientists are one example, and every religion has them.
     
    #15 Aupmanyav, Nov 1, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  16. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    Just as a side note, creationism was by word referred to as "al huluku" in arabic. And there were many scholars and philosophers and scientists if you may call them that, who were proponents of evolution. Also, in my opinion this whole thing about creationism vs evolution matter is a misnomer created due to those in some cultures oppose evolution with a vengeance as if that is the satan to their theology, and the atheists who believe or propagate that creationism by default is this and this alone. Creationism has been turned into anti-evolution by them which is not even a contention of creationists overall historically. Its almost a religious war as if atheism and darwinism are either one religion or two religions by themselves.

    Evolution does not even touch the creation aspect considered by traditional creationists like Ibn Khaldun or any other evolutionary biologists and philosophers way before him.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    20,525
    Ratings:
    +5,338
    Religion:
    Islam
    I am understanding that. Im sorry to say though that its a very shallow and latest creation that creationists are anti-evolutionists if there is such a word.

    There may have been some creationists like Hovind who was anti evolution but he is a fraud. So if people like him are the cause of this misnomer, its truly sad. There were creationists who did not even think about evolution to even begin to be opposed to it. So painting that broad brush that "creationists are dishonest" is absurd, yet prevalent.

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +624
    Religion:
    Syncretic Universal Monotheism
    Yeah, I bet there are a lot of people now identifying with the term "creationist" to mean simply that they think God creates everything one way or another, or some things, and so I'd be one of those myself, but the "some" they show on TV are generally certain types of Christians who believe and insist upon the Biblical story, and some who go so far as to say 6 actual days like our days, and who vehemently deny evolution type things or any progressive stages leading up to the development of various animals or humans.
     
  19. DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +624
    Religion:
    Syncretic Universal Monotheism
    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.
     
  20. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,135
    Ratings:
    +10,806
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    I believe that creationism is basically a 'knee-jerk' reaction to relativism.

    For a long time (from the end of the Roman era and until well into the Enlightenment) western cultures believed in a 'fixed universe', in which humans existed within a kind of pyramidal hierarchy. God was at the top, then the angels, then the saints, then lords, then the common folk, then the various animals, and so on. And this hierarchical ordering had been set at the dawn of time, to remain until the end of time, by God. Everything existed as it was intended to exist, and everyone understood their place within it all, no questions asked.

    But eventually humanity entered into the 'age of enlightenment', wherein people began to question this long-standing presumption of the static nature of existence. And as they did so, they began to recognize, slowly, that reality is a lot more "fluid" then that old paradigm allowed for. Humans began to realize that the answers they get depend a lot on the questions they ask. And on how they go about resolving them. And soon a method was developed to accommodate this 'fluidity' (let's call it relative perspective) and of the resultant "truth". A 'scientific' method.

    As this new way of approaching and understanding existence, and our places within it developed, the 'industrial revolution' began (because of it), and life started changing dramatically, and quickly, for a huge number of people. And these changes were not always good, and not always welcomed. So that a backlash began to develop, as well. And that backlash was based on a desire to return to the old paradigm of a set, hierarchical, unchanging world order. And that's when "creationism" began to become popular among those anti-relativists that wanted to return to the old paradigm.

    Change is scary and not always good. And no small number of people will want to "go back" to whatever was before when they're confronted with it. And that's what religious creationism and biblical literalism is all about. It's about making the Bible the unassailable, unquestioned, "word of God" so that it can then be used to re-establish that eternal, unchanging, hierarchical view of existence. And can 'take us back' to that intellectual paradigm that we held before the enlightenment, and before science, and before the industrial revolution changed everything.
     
Loading...