Do creationists accept biology?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since you have explained your view of those who believe in a God who made the heavens and the earth, and I thank you for that, I certainly do not believe that God created things like smallpox and deformities. Or two persons born with one body or attached bodies.

Good job missing the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it isn't. a creationist is someone who believes that there is a Creator God responsible. From the Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy:
Creationism
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven

That's why there are qualifying adjective phrases attached to the word. You know...."Young Earth Creationism."

It is to help separate them out from those of us who believe in a Creator God, but not necessarily that He created everything ex nihilo in seven 24 hour days, six or so thousand years ago, measured in modern earth rotations and orbits.



Says who?



No it doesn't. 'Young Earth Creationism" does, but not all creationists do.



Well, obviously you think so.

I, however, have provided a source other than my own opinion.

Read the title of the subforum you are posting in.

It says "evolution vs creationism".

Colloquial use of the term "creationist", refers to someone who rejects evolution.
This is why evolution vs creationism, is a thing.

 

[PruePhillip]

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

Yes, I am a "creationist"
The bible says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life.
And then he command the seas to bring forth life.
And that's how life formed - firstly from the wetting and drying of
fresh water pools which help concentrate organics.
And then life came from the sea.

We are either creationists or we believe the universe was here
forever - which dodges the issue of how it came to be, and why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are either creationists or we believe the universe was here
forever - which dodges the issue of how it came to be, and why.

Talk about a false dichotomy...

 

[PruePhillip]

Talk about a false dichotomy...

As I see it, you can one of three absurd propositions for the existence of the universe:

1 - it was created from someone/something outside of the physical world
2 - it created itself, forming time, energy, space, matter and the law of physics as it progressed
3 - it has been here forever

other options are open for consideration. Such options need to address the "why" of why we
are here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I see it, you can one of three absurd propositions for the existence of the universe:

I think it's kind of funny how you think you can know what is and isn't absurd in advance, especially concerning something like the origins of the universe, which wil extremely likely be so out-of-touch with the reality we commonly experience that it will completely baffle us and defy all reason and common sense. Just like when we discovered relativity or quantum mechanics.

Before Einstein, people would have called it "absurd" as well that the flow of time is dependend on speed and/or gravity relative to a third party observer.

Before quantum mechanics, people would have called all the weird things particles do even more absurd as well.

The lesson here, is that you don't know what is and isn't sensible or absurd in advance. Especially not concerning phenomena like the very origins of the universe, which is necessarily so bizar that it literally makes our math break down at this point in time.

No, I wouldn't count on the actual origins of the universe making much "sense" to our minds that evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators in Africa.

1 - it was created from someone/something outside of the physical world

That assumes that the physical world = the universe and that it doesn't include whatever else might exist "outside" or "beyond" the universe.

Next, a "someone" is a "something", so I don't see any need to make explicit mention of it. Smells like just an attempt to smuggle your god of choice in.

So, allow me to rephrase:

"it was created from something outside of the universe".

That already is a much better statement.

2 - it created itself, forming time, energy, space, matter and the law of physics as it progressed
3 - it has been here forever

other options are open for consideration. Such options need to address the "why" of why we
are here.

"why" is a loaded question.
What makes you think that "why" is a valid question?

Or do you really mean "how"?


In any case, the point is that we don't know how the universe originated, if it even originated. We simply don't know. It's unknown. Whatever it was, it's bound to be something so strange that most of us won't be able to wrap our minds around it - just like it is the case with quantum mechanics.

The point here, is that this really isn't the type of unknown where we can rule out / in certain options based on no more then "common sense" or what "sounds appealing" or "what sounds absurd".

The origins of space-time, is literally the kind of problem that when solve, will literally defy our common sense in every possible way - even much more then relativity or quantum mechanics did.

 

[dianaiad]

Read the title of the subforum you are posting in.

It says "evolution vs creationism".

Colloquial use of the term "creationist", refers to someone who rejects evolution.
This is why evolution vs creationism, is a thing.

Frankly, the title of the subforum should be 'evolution vs. YEC" to be more accurate.

Just call me being picky. I'll admit that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Frankly, the title of the subforum should be 'evolution vs. YEC" to be more accurate.

Just call me being picky. I'll admit that.

Now, you're just wrong about the idea that only YECs reject evolution.
There's also OECs. And ID-ers. Or as I like to call them: cdesign proponentsists.

 

[Link]

I believe both happen, creation and evolution. Design is proven, so is evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good job missing the point.

I think you missed the point. While I cannot explain everything about creation, and neither can scientists who postulate evolution explain everything about that belief, I will tell you that there is no reason for me not to believe that God was not the One who formed the beginning of life on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it's kind of funny how you think you can know what is and isn't absurd in advance, especially concerning something like the origins of the universe, which wil extremely likely be so out-of-touch with the reality we commonly experience that it will completely baffle us and defy all reason and common sense. Just like when we discovered relativity or quantum mechanics.

Before Einstein, people would have called it "absurd" as well that the flow of time is dependend on speed and/or gravity relative to a third party observer.

Before quantum mechanics, people would have called all the weird things particles do even more absurd as well.

The lesson here, is that you don't know what is and isn't sensible or absurd in advance. Especially not concerning phenomena like the very origins of the universe, which is necessarily so bizar that it literally makes our math break down at this point in time.

No, I wouldn't count on the actual origins of the universe making much "sense" to our minds that evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators in Africa.



That assumes that the physical world = the universe and that it doesn't include whatever else might exist "outside" or "beyond" the universe.

Next, a "someone" is a "something", so I don't see any need to make explicit mention of it. Smells like just an attempt to smuggle your god of choice in.

So, allow me to rephrase:

"it was created from something outside of the universe".

That already is a much better statement.



"why" is a loaded question.
What makes you think that "why" is a valid question?

Or do you really mean "how"?


In any case, the point is that we don't know how the universe originated, if it even originated. We simply don't know. It's unknown. Whatever it was, it's bound to be something so strange that most of us won't be able to wrap our minds around it - just like it is the case with quantum mechanics.

The point here, is that this really isn't the type of unknown where we can rule out / in certain options based on no more then "common sense" or what "sounds appealing" or "what sounds absurd".

The origins of space-time, is literally the kind of problem that when solve, will literally defy our common sense in every possible way - even much more then relativity or quantum mechanics did.

So you really think it's a possibility that the universe was always 'there', since you said you don't know if it even originated?

 

[YoursTrue]

Talk about a false dichotomy...

Let's just say you're correct about that. So although you indicate you don't know how, when, or if the universe began, you say you know for certain how life began and moved along on this earth, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not an accurate representation.

A "creationist" is someone that explicitly rejects evolution theory and instead believes some god created everything as-is.

A theist that accepts evolution and believes perhaps that some god "kickstarted" it, or "guided" it or what-have-you, isn't typically called a creationists but rather a "theistic evolutionist".

Creationism includes the explicit rejection of evolution theory.
Theistic evolution accepts the science of evolution and adds an undetectable "hand of god" or something.

This is what the catholic church does. Eventhough I've literally heared vatican cardinals state that if someone we could push the "reset" button and turn back time 3 billion years to let evolution unfold once more, that it would be extremely unlikely that we'ld end up with homo sapiens again, considering lots of random variables that (at least) co-determine evolutionary outcomes.

So, to summarize, calling someone who adheres to "theistic evolution" a "creationist", is just confusing / ambiguous terminology.

Creationism as a term, implies the explicit rejection of the science of evolution.

It is interesting. Animals die. Sometimes they kill other animals. Plants die. Plants do not write, neither do animals. Only humans write of their experiences with dying.

 

[YoursTrue]

As others have pointed out it depends upon one's definition of "creationism". If one goes by the traditional definition, then clearly the answer is no. One has not only deny biology, one needs to deny almost all of the sciences to be a creationist. If one is of the "evolution is how God created" then one could have a valid argument that they do accept biology.

We have vaccines from scientists that virtually eliminated polio (for a while). And scientists have made many wonderful strides in reference to combating ailments such as heart disease.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have vaccines from scientists that virtually eliminated polio (for a while). And scientists have made many wonderful strides in reference to combating ailments such as heart disease.

Yes, and none of those scientists used creationism for those discoveries. A scientist may have a false belief and still do work in other sciences. In fact why mention the polio vaccine? Jonas Salk was almost certainly not a creationist. The percentage of creationists in the sciences is very low. In biology it a small fraction of a percent. In the sciences as a whole it is close to one percent. Bringing up scientists hurts your argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Frankly, the title of the subforum should be 'evolution vs. YEC" to be more accurate.

But even that wouldn't be entirely accurate. Many anti-evolution creationists don't believe in a young earth. Even the Discovery Institute takes no specific stance on the age of the earth.

 

[Polymath257]

As I see it, you can one of three absurd propositions for the existence of the universe:

1 - it was created from someone/something outside of the physical world
2 - it created itself, forming time, energy, space, matter and the law of physics as it progressed
3 - it has been here forever

other options are open for consideration. Such options need to address the "why" of why we
are here.

4. Causality makes no sense outside of the universe.
5. It simply exists with no cause.
6. Time itself is finite and causality only makes sense when there is time.

In general, I think the question of why there is anything as opposed to nothing *cannot* have an answer because it assumes some sort of pre-existence as well as causality. It also implicitly assumes that 'nothing' is something that can exist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Frankly, the title of the subforum should be 'evolution vs. YEC" to be more accurate.

Just call me being picky. I'll admit that.

That wouldn't make any sense, since we're mostly down to Jehovah's Witnesses as our resident creationists, and they're adamantly not YECs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you missed the point. While I cannot explain everything about creation, and neither can scientists who postulate evolution explain everything about that belief, I will tell you that there is no reason for me not to believe that God was not the One who formed the beginning of life on earth.

But for some reason, you can't share that reason.

Every single aspect of the evolutionary process can and has been demonstrated.

Your god only lives on paper and in the minds of believers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you really think it's a possibility that the universe was always 'there', since you said you don't know if it even originated?

Well, technically, it WAS "always" there.

Always = for all of time.

Throughout history, whenever there was "time", there was a universe in which that time was flowing.
But "time" is a very tricky thing. So is space, for that matter.

Consider a black hole. Does it exist?
Doe the "inside" exist? Gravity is so strong there, time could actually stand still. Space itself could be compressed into a singularity. Does that point "exist"?

It's hard to tell imo, considering colloquial use of the word "exist".
To "exist" is a temporal notion, after all. So what does it mean "to exist" when there is no time to exist "in".

So to sum up: what I am saying is that I DON'T KNOW.

The universe might have always existed, it might have been produced by a multiverse or by a farting unicorn. I don't know.

The "possibilities" at this point are really only limited by our own imagination.
Now, as for the plausibilities, that is a whole other story.

Right out the gates, the universe having "always existed" and for example just "changed form" with the big bang, is more plausible then a universe creating deity.

For the simple fact that the universe demonstrably exists and a deity doesn't.