some thoughts on creationism

[Eddi]

There have been quite a few creationism threads here lately and all of them were tediously similar to each other...........

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

The evidence alone does not point to God or anything like that, God is a total non sequitur, you may as well go about saying "Mr Potato Head did it!" that would be just as valid

Nobody who had never heard of God would see the evidence and then conclude that some entity with the features of God created it, the evidence does not lead to God, God is an enormous assumption

The bible is the only reason to think that God created reality, none of the evidence points to that and I think the reason the so-called "creationists" have it in for things like evolution is because evolution shows us that their dear book is not a literal scientific account, which is what they think it is

As such, believing God did it has nothing to do with evidence, it is a fantasy and the evidence does not naturally lead to the idea of there being a God - unless you already believe that

This is the sentiment I wanted to express in this thread:

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence, I would have much more respect if they said this instead of pretending to be interested in science in a pathetic attempt to beat their opponents at their own game

I don't even think creationism should be called something with an "ism" at the end as that bestows undue dignity on it, I think "willful ignorance" is a more accurate term

I found this picture earlier today and it reminded me of some of the threads we've had here on RF recently, I thought I'd share it here:

Edit: I found this as well

 

[F1fan]

People aren’t born with language or reasoning skills. Language is acquired through social experiences and what comes with language is abstractions. These abstractions are relative to the culture. That’s why children born in India don’t learn about Jesus as savior, but the many gods that are part of the Hindu tradition.

From what I have observed those who are creationists lack critical thinking skills AND have been exposed to the beliefs if literal interpretations of the Bible. They become committed to these ideas snd can’t understand why the ideas are false. Brain scans show that this sort of non-rational thinking bypasses the frontal cortex and actually activates the reward system in the brain. This causes small amounts of hormones to be injected into the blood and the person experiences a bit of euphoria, a physical experience. This is similar to Pavlov’s Dog where behavior is driven by the expected response.

Oddly many counter the criticism of a Adam and Eve fall from paradise as their fault for not being obedient. God could have created them adequately obedient, and the pushback is that God didn’t create robots. Ironically creationists are much like robots in that they behave automatically via learned scripts, and can’t think past what they have already decided is true.

 

[Eddi]

Brain scans show that this sort of non-rational thinking bypasses the frontal cortex and actually activates the reward system in the brain.

That's interesting, I always thought of creationism as an affliction of the mind rather than as a disorder of the brain

 

[PureX]

Creationism is not about God creating the world. It's about God creating the world via 'divine magic'. Rather then God creating the world via natural physical processes. Once we remove the insinuation of magic, creationism ceases to be an issue for anyone but a few stubborn theists and a few stubborn atheists. Everyone else is fine with it. Scientists can study the processes while the religionists thank and praise the glory of God for setting it all in motion. And life moves on.

 

[shunyadragon]

Creationism is not about God creating the world. It's about God creating the world via 'divine magic'. Rather then God creating the world via natural physical processes. Once we remove the insinuation of magic, creationism ceases to be an issue for anyone but a few stubborn theists and a few stubborn atheists. Everyone else is fine with it. Scientists can study the processes while the religionists thank and praise the glory of God for setting it all in motion. And life moves on.

There are far more than a few stubborn Creationists. In fact the support for Intelligent Design has become a world problem due to Intelligent Design evangelism, and in Islamic countries the belief in literal Genesis dominates.

Also, the Christian evangelism in the third world is dominated by Churches that believe in Biblical Creationism.

 

[Heyo]

There have been quite a few creationism threads here lately and all of them were tediously similar to each other...........

I've observed that creationism vs science threads have become rarer over time.

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

Someone did.
The creation stories and the gods and religions have been invented by someone at some time. Once upon a time a kid did what all kids do and asked a question the parents couldn't answer. So one creative parent came up with a story that at first glance made sense to the child.

This is the sentiment I wanted to express in this thread:

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence, I would have much more respect if they said this instead of pretending to be interested in science in a pathetic attempt to beat their opponents at their own game

Yep. I just recently expressed the same in answer to a creationist claim.
We acknowledge that the believers have faith and we don't.
Why can't they acknowledge that we have reason and they don't?
That's why I call them greedy, they want to have it all, faith and reason - even though you can't have both.
And what's more is that by trying to appropriate reason they acknowledge the superiority of reason.
Shouldn't they dismiss reason and insist that faith is superior?

I have the quote still handy so here it goes again:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” - Martin Luther​

 

[sun rise]

Why can't they acknowledge that we have reason and they don't?
That's why I call them greedy, they want to have it all, faith and reason - even though you can't have both.

False dichotomy. I'm not referring to those who use a book of scripture in opposition to science but to believers who have no issue with evolution etc. To put it simply "God is who. Evolution is how".

 

[PureX]

There are far more than a few stubborn Creationists. In fact the support for Intelligent Design has become a world problem due to Intelligent Design evangelism, and in Islamic countries the belief in literal Genesis dominates.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design is just an obvious observation on reality that a few eccentric religious adherents want to push on everyone else as fact. And their evangelism has very little effect except to rile up the few rabid atheists that cannot tolerate any theistic view of reality.

Also, the Christian evangelism in the third world is dominated by Churches that believe in Biblical Creationism.

Churches don't believe anything. People do. And people will choose the best options available to them in most instances. And because oppression is so prevalent in the 'third world' people often pretend to believe whatever the powers that be want them to believe.

 

[McBell]

Intelligent design is not creationism.

yes it is.
The only difference between the two is they removed the blatant references of their favored deity from Intelligent Design thinking they would fool science.

 

[PureX]

yes it is.
The only difference between the two is they removed the blatant references of their favored deity from Intelligent Design thinking they would fool science.

The 'intelligence of design' is what science studies in nature. That a few religious zealots use the term for their own agenda doesn't change that, or mean they own the term. Nor does the fact that as a zealous atheist, you can't tolerate any relation to religion.

As stated above, once we remove the claims of divine magic, no one but a small faction of zealots, both religious and atheists, care anymore. Everyone else can move on, and can abide the idea of intelligent design being expressed within physical reality.

 

[F1fan]

Intelligent design is not creationism.

Yes it is, the Wedge Document proves it. It's just a retooling of the same idea, just more deceptive, and without the deliberate references to the Bible.

Intelligent design is just an obvious observation on reality

And what observaion is that?

that a few eccentric religious adherents want to push on everyone else as fact.

More than a few, it is big business for many religious groups. They dupe religious people and take their money for bogus materials.

And their evangelism has very little effect except to rile up the few rabid atheists that cannot tolerate any theistic view of reality.

And here you go with your prejudice against atheists. And no, it is any well educated person that is offended by ID/creationism, and how it is a massive fraud on the willing public.

Back in the 90's there was two attempts by religious groups to elect a majority of creationists for the Kansas school board, and they got 6 of the 10, and these 6 used their authority to start dismantling the science standards for the state. These groups created public forums to present their case, and I went to several of them. Thee were supposed to be presentations about how ID is correct and needed to be taught in public schools. Oddly the event started with a prayer, and even included a performace by a musical group. This was like a progressive church service, and I think those who designed the presentation did not know how to appeal to the more scientific citizens. To my mind this was trying to get the religious more comfortable. At the end of the presentation there was a Q&A and there were many scientists who got up and asked questions that challenged the presentation, and they shut it down pretty fast.

The board had gotten around to ordering new science books for the state that cast doubts on evolution. But God must have intervened because within a year one of the creationist board members, good, decent Christians, got caught having an affair on her husband, and the other got caught in business fraud. Both resigned. They were replaced with educated members, and the state board went back to the established science standards.

This is more than a "little effect" as you claim. This has an ongoing, and well funded, political activism by people who also advocated against abortion access and trans rights.

Churches don't believe anything. People do.

Churches are buildings, but these buildings are built to house the people who do believe, and can do good or work to spread bad ideas and fraudulent, anti-science garbage that affects children their whole lives.

And people will choose the best options available to them in most instances. And because oppression is so prevalent in the 'third world' people often pretend to believe whatever the powers that be want them to believe.

Religion is like a tool that can be used for good and for bad. It doesn't lead people to the best decisions in areliable way. So civilized society needs to teach children the good and bad in religious ideas and its influence.

 

[F1fan]

The 'intelligence of design' is what science studies in nature.

There is no intelliegnce in order. Order is how matter behaves according to the natural laws. That includes tornados, earthquakes, tidal waves, and hurricanes that kill people. It includes genetic defects that kill humans. It includes bacteria, viruses, lions, tigers and bears that can kill humans. So, who is this "intelligence" serving?

That a few religious zealots use the term for their own agenda doesn't change that, or mean they own the term. Nor does the fact that as a zealous atheist, you can't tolerate any relation to religion.

You're definately a different kind of zealot, so don't sell yourself short. You are pushing your anti-science agenda yourself, as you make false claims as a dig to atheists. Of course your dig affects religious people who get science right, too.

As stated above, once we remove the claims of divine magic, no one but a small faction of zealots, both religious and atheists, care anymore.

ID is magic. There is nothing in science that you claim is science.

Everyone else can move on, and can abide the idea of intelligent design being expressed by physical reality.

See how your propaganda gets spread in a way that seems benign and honest? It isn't. You are either one of the deliberately dishonest IDers, or are a victim of their fraud and don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Creationism is not about God creating the world. It's about God creating the world via 'divine magic'. Rather then God creating the world via natural physical processes.

"Natural" and "physical" aren't prescriptive; they're descriptive, inferred from what actually happens.

IOW, "natural physical processes" just means "what happens."

Once we remove the insinuation of magic, creationism ceases to be an issue for anyone but a few stubborn theists and a few stubborn atheists. Everyone else is fine with it. Scientists can study the processes while the religionists thank and praise the glory of God for setting it all in motion. And life moves on.

What you're describing is theistic evolution, not creationism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design is just an obvious observation on reality that a few eccentric religious adherents want to push on everyone else as fact. And their evangelism has very little effect except to rile up the few rabid atheists that cannot tolerate any theistic view of reality.

Disagree Intelligent Design is the foundation of the necessity of a Creator, because they claim the complexity of nature cannot be explained by natural processes. References to follow concerning the world wide problem of the beleef in Intelligent Design.

Churches don't believe anything. People do. And people will choose the best options available to them in most instances. And because oppression is so prevalent in the 'third world' people often pretend to believe whatever the powers that be want them to believe.

Churches teach and promote beliefs. Unfortunately many believers are not choosing the best options available

The bold above is false,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design is just an obvious observation on reality that a few eccentric religious adherents want to push on everyone else as fact.

No, intelligent design was an unsuccessful rejigging of creation science intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

And creation science was an unsuccessful rejigging of Christian Creationism intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Creationism is not about God creating the world. It's about God creating the world via 'divine magic'. Rather then God creating the world via natural physical processes. Once we remove the insinuation of magic, creationism ceases to be an issue for anyone but a few stubborn theists and a few stubborn atheists. Everyone else is fine with it. Scientists can study the processes while the religionists thank and praise the glory of God for setting it all in motion. And life moves on.

That still leaves goddidit which is still an issue in light it's not anywhere in the real world except in people's minds and imagination

 

[PureX]

"Natural" and "physical" aren't prescriptive; they're descriptive, inferred from what actually happens.

IOW, "natural physical processes" just means "what happens."


What you're describing is theistic evolution, not creationism.

Evolution is related to forms of life. Not to the creation of the world. And your proscription/prescription point is not relevant. Most people have no issue with the idea of a creator God so long as it does not require that they accept some mythical magical process. Most people can simply accept the God-creator ideal as an unconfirmable possibility.

But not the zealous 'believers' among both the religious and the atheists. Neither of these can tolerate any degree of acceptance of the other's perspective. Fortunately they are both very small in number even though they both wildly exaggerate the numbers of their 'opponents' in their own minds.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, intelligent design was an unsuccessful rejigging of creation science intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

And creation science was an unsuccessful rejigging of Christian Creationism intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

The Kitzmiller Dover trial thankfully put that all to rest for now anyways.

 

[PureX]

Disagree Intelligent Design is the foundation of the necessity of a Creator, because they claim the complexity of nature cannot be explained by natural processes. References to follow concerning the world wide problem of the beleef in Intelligent Design.

Their claim, however, does not logically nor actually necessitate an intelligent mindful creator.

Churches teach and promote beliefs. Unfortunately many believers are not choosing the best options available

You don't get to decide what is the best option for them. They do.

You don't get to control what other people believe or teach their children. And for good reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Kitzmiller Dover trial thankfully put that all to rest for now anyways.

I would have hoped that, but we still see people parroting stuff from the Discovery Institute.