Why do people believe in Creationism despite its lack of testable predictions?

[FFH]

Maybe because people don't need science to believe in things. All they really need is evidence.

Again, I'll turn that right back at ya, by inserting evolution into Fluffy's opening post. It seems to fit much better that way, with what you've just asserted as truth..

Creationism is based on scientific evidences, evolution is based on unproven theories...

Not going to let this thread slide, like all the others...

 

[Random]

DO you want Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive, Fluffy?

 

[robtex]

Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?

If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?

I think it sometimes boils down to intellectual satisfaction for an emotional desire. People who are creationists, or intelligent designers or have melded both want there to be something tangible to project what they have already accepted as true irregardless if there is evidence or not to support it. In that light it really doesn't matter if the theories are testable or not because the conclusion is unalterable of the minds of the creationists.

A further and important use for creationism and intelligent design it can be used as a tool to recruit prospects who are on the fence about the God question by giving them something more tangible than faith.

I want to be quick to point out that that some theists are comfortable with faith alone (fideism is a good read for this) but others are not and for them, in both self acceptance and recruitment evidence and or proof of God is necessary and creationism and intelligent design are tools for this end.

I happened to watch a debate between Ray Comfort/kirk Cameron and two members of the rationalist response squad "God can be proven to exist" and in this forefront note Comfort and Cameron articulate the goal of using creationism as a recruitmetn tool so I put it in as a relevant footnote:
YouTube - Debate Introduction

 

[robtex]

DO you want Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive, Fluffy?

It already is on four points:

1) In evolution new species are created through genetic drift. In creationism life is guided by a creator. Genetic drift is random and God guides those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

2) Life of a single species has a beginning point and ending point in evolution. In creationism some life, humans for instance, doesn't have an end but instead morphs to an afterlife. Life either has an ending point or it doesn't. those ideas are mutually exclusive.

3) In evolution and biology in general all life is organic and contains carbon. In creationism there is a proposed non-organic non-carbon carrying life form called a soul. Either all life is organic or some of it is not. Those ideas are mutually exclusive.

4) In creationism man is the zenith of creation. In evolution he is just another mutation from another species and perhaps will mutate to still another life form over time. The idea of man being the zenith of the species or just another mutation that is part of a chain of mutations is mutually exclusive.

 

[lilithu]

Namaste Fluff-diddy.

Yes I agree but I think there is a difference between viewing emotion as an equal part of the decision making process and viewing it as an integrated but ultimately inferior component.

I do not see emotion as inferior. On what basis do you judge it inferior to reason? By the basis of reason? Isn't that circular?

From my understanding, biblical creationism predicts that the earth was created 6000 years ago and asserts that evidence that suggests otherwise is a peculiarity of the way in which it was created. Therefore this does not constitute a testable prediction but the theory does continue to "jive" with empirical evidence.

Is that an unreasonable assertion for creationists to make? If reason is not the driving force of belief then it does not seem like it should be.

Yeah, I've heard that. God put the fossil record there and otherwise made it so that the world would seem a lot older than it really is, all to test our faith or something like that.

If one asserts something like that, then yes, there are no testable predictions, since if God is meddling with creation, changing the laws of the universe, then all bets are off in terms of what we can deduce.

I still don't see this as a reason to not believe it. It's simply that I have no reason to believe this and some very good reasons to believe the scientific account, since it falls in line with my personal experience.

 

[Random]

It already is on four points:

1) In evolution new species are created through genetic drift. In creationism life is guided by a creator. Genetic drift is random and God guides those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

2) Life of a single species has a beginning point and ending point in evolution. In creationism some life, humans for instance, doesn't have an end but instead morphs to an afterlife. Life either has an ending point or it doesn't. those ideas are mutually exclusive.

3) In evolution and biology in general all life is organic and contains carbon. In creationism there is a proposed non-organic non-carbon carrying life form called a soul. Either all life is organic or some of it is not. Those ideas are mutually exclusive.

4) In creationism man is the zenith of creation. In evolution he is just another mutation from another species and perhaps will mutate to still another life form over time. The idea of man being the zenith of the species or just another mutation that is part of a chain of mutations is mutually exclusive.

Thus, the folly of establishing and promoting a "Creationist" position and an "Evolutionist" position is revealed...

There is no discrepency between believing in a Universe that was created and the evolution of life within that creation. This belief need not contain the ideas described in the four points above.

 

[Blindinglight]

People haven't looked into enough archaeological and geological evidence that ties in with biological/genetic evidence that proves evolution.

Niagra Falls has been eroding for around 12,500 years, proving the earth cannot be older than that...

Then, how do you explain this?

lawnorder: Canadian unearths 70,000-year-old religious snake icon

A Canadian archeologist has discovered what's being hailed as the world's oldest known religious artifact: a six-metre-long, serpentine rock carving made 70,000 years ago by a prehistoric, python-worshipping people in what is now the African nation of Botswana.

The find -- sure to startle Christians steeped in satanic images of snakes -- is described as revolutionary for understanding the origins of human ritual, pushing the roots of religion back 30,000 years and moving its apparent birthplace from Stone Age Europe to ancient southern Africa.

"Python Cave" Reveals Oldest Human Ritual, Scientists Suggest

A team of archaeologists has discovered what it says is evidence of humankind's oldest ritual. Africa's San people may have used a remote cave for ceremonies of python worship as much as 70,000 years ago—30,000 years earlier than the oldest previously known human rites—the team says.

Skull Is First Fossil Proof of Human Migration Theory, Study Says

A 36,000-year-old skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence that modern humans left Africa 70,000 to 50,000 years ago to colonize Eurasia, new research suggests.

Evidence that shows the Earth to be much older than even 13,000 years old.

Niagara falls was likely formed after the previous ice age. I have not researched that at all, but the ice age did change the land scape of the northern part of the globe dramatically.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Faith is just the I just say-so of credulity. We naturalists have confidence in what experience teaches us.It would be the fallacy of equivocation to link confidence and blind faith as both the same kind of faith.Exactly, Lilithu, and that applies to theistic evolution[ see the thread] also as Victor Stenger shows well in "Has Science found God?" and "God: the failed Hypothesis." As the ignostic-Ockham shows, God is unemployed!

 

[painted wolf]

I find that most staunch bleivers in creationism are greatly bothered by the idea that the Bible is not infalable.
Any science (not just evolution) that rocks the literalist boat is outright discarded regardless of its merrits. Any 'evidence' however contrived and mistaken that supports bible literalism is taken as 100% truth.

Take the mistaken notion that Niagra falls is an absolute marker for the age of the Earth and not a result of the end of the Ice Age.

IMHO staunch YEC believers have tied thier faith in God to the idea that everything in the bible is 100% "true", if the bible is only 90% "true" then thier faith is at risk.

wa:do

 

[FFH]

I find that most staunch bleivers in creationism are greatly bothered by the idea that the Bible is not infalable.
Any science (not just evolution) that rocks the literalist boat is outright discarded regardless of its merrits. Any 'evidence' however contrived and mistaken that supports bible literalism is taken as 100% truth.

Take the mistaken notion that Niagra falls is an absolute marker for the age of the Earth and not a result of the end of the Ice Age.

IMHO staunch YEC believers have tied thier faith in God to the idea that everything in the bible is 100% "true", if the bible is only 90% "true" then thier faith is at risk.

wa:do

Yes, the mythical "Ice Ages"...

I have a moving timepiece, evolutionists have nothing but false archeological and geological dates and events.

Show me one living or moving proof of the earth being more than 13,000 years old. There is none..

Only false dates and mythical events...

 

[yossarian22]

Yes I agree but I think there is a difference between viewing emotion as an equal part of the decision making process and viewing it as an integrated but ultimately inferior component.

Wrongo
Emotion is the single most useful thing humans have because it allows us to have a useful intelligence. Emotion is just a process to short circuit thinking so we do not sit down on a rock and ponder whether or not to run from a horde of angry beats.

 

[FFH]

My prediction..

The oldest living plant should fit within the 7,000 year creation model and within my 13,000 year old proposed age of the earth.

According to the Biblical time frame, that I've layed out, the first plants and trees were created, and started to grow, baginning in the year 9,000 BC/11,000 years ago...

The King Clone creosote bush is 11,700 years old, according to Jim Cormett, curator of the Palm Springs Desert Museum and is possibly the oldest living thing on earth, discovered in the Mojave desert, Palm Springs, California.

First 1,000 year period of creation starts 11,000 BC/13,000 years ago
Earth was without form and void
Water was upon the whole face of the earth
Light created

Second 1,000 year period starts 10,000 BC/12,000 years ago
Firmament/heavens/skies created
Waters divided between earth and the firmament/heavens/skies

Third 1,000 year period starts 9,000 BC/11,000 years ago
Land and waters divided
Dry land appears and seas form
Plants and trees of all kinds created

The World's Oldest Living Thing
King Clone Creosote Bush 9,700 BC/11,700 years old

The Oldest Germinated Seed approximately 10,000 years old

Fourth 1,000 year period starts 8,000 BC/10,000 years ago
Sun, moon and stars created
Day and night begins

Fifth 1,000 year period starts 7,000 BC/9,000 years ago
All creatures of the sea and skies created

Sixth 1,000 year period starts 6,000 BC/8,000 years ago
All creatures of the land created
Adam and Eve created

Seventh 1,000 year period starts 5,000 BC/7,000 years ago
God rested from all his labors
Adam and Eve commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

4,004 BC/6,000 years ago
Time of the fall

Oldest Living Tree (Bristlecone Pine)
2,800 BC/ 4,800 years old
The oldest Bristlecones are found at elevations of 10,000 or 11,000 feet

2,304 BC/ 4,300 years ago
Time of flood

See this page: Date of the flood

 

[Seneca]

My prediction..

The oldest living plant should fit within the 7,000 year creation model and within my 13,000 year old proposed age of the earth.

According to the Biblical time frame, that I've layed out, the first plants and trees were created, and started to grow, baginning in the year 9,000 BC/11,000 years ago...

The King Clone creosote bush is 11,700 years old, according to Jim Cormett, curator of the Palm Springs Desert Museum and is possibly the oldest living thing on earth, discovered in the Mojave desert, Palm Springs, California.

That article on the oldest living thing is merely talking about the oldest one still living. It doesn't say it was the first! Totally different.

Look further down the page, there is a yellow box that discusses a bacterium Bacillus that existed in rock strata 'millions of years before dinosaurs roamed the earth'.

This isn't evdence for your time frame in one small bit. It merely states that the oldest thing that is STILL ALIVE is this plant. It does not say that it was the first plant to ever be on the Earth. I'm surprised that wasn't clear to you.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no evidence for evolution.

On the contrary, FFH, the evidence for evolution that has been collected by qualified scientists since the theory was first proposed 150 years ago would now fill a large public library building. If you want to refute evolution, you have your work cut out for you: There are billions of facts for you to refute.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm surprised that wasn't clear to you.

Me too. It would have taken only a moment's thought for FFH to realize his mistake.

 

[yossarian22]

So your argument is, Trees live a long time?
How does that prove your point exactly?

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, the mythical "Ice Ages"...

I have a moving timepiece, evolutionists have nothing but false archeological and geological dates and events.

Show me one living or moving proof of the earth being more than 13,000 years old. There is none..

Only false dates and mythical events...

You're writing checks that will bounce, FFH. Please demonstrate:

1) The ice ages are mythical.

2) That having a moving timepiece is significant.

3) That evolutionary science is composed of false dates and mythical events.

 

[Seneca]

So your argument is, Trees live a long time?
How does that prove your point exactly?

It doesn't.

It just proves his ability to read into things that which he likes or wants.

 

[Seneca]

Me too. It would have taken only a moment's thought for FFH to realize his mistake.

Ah yes, but who needs thought when you have FAITH!

 

[Fluffy]

DO you want Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive, Fluffy?

I feel that based on the definition of evolution, creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. For example, natural selection is a process that doesn't require constant maintenance from a higher power so for those who believe that it does are no longer talking about natural selection.

I see from your conversation with robtex that I am perhaps using the term "creationist" innaccurately. I wish to refer only to the Christian movement and perhaps also those Christians who have mixed Creationism and Evolution in a way that I find to be mutually exclusive, as I explain above.

If there is a God and he has created life through processes similar in result but seperate in cause to evolution then I would want to gather sufficient data to find that out. I am more concerned with discovery than with what I am discovering.

Heya lilithu,

I do not see emotion as inferior. On what basis do you judge it inferior to reason? By the basis of reason? Isn't that circular?

Initially you pointed out that everyone to some extent holds beliefs according to both reason and emotion and that when somebody says "I believe this according to reason" that they are not implying that emotion took no part but simply that reason took the leading role. I agreed with you but disagreed that this premise can be used to infer any value into either emotion or reason.

I feel that emotion is inferior if one wishes to find truth because, by definition, that is the purpose of reason. It is not circular because it is a reiteration of the same concept.

Yeah, I've heard that. God put the fossil record there and otherwise made it so that the world would seem a lot older than it really is, all to test our faith or something like that.

If one asserts something like that, then yes, there are no testable predictions, since if God is meddling with creation, changing the laws of the universe, then all bets are off in terms of what we can deduce.

I still don't see this as a reason to not believe it. It's simply that I have no reason to believe this and some very good reasons to believe the scientific account, since it falls in line with my personal experience.

I guess I am sceptical of the extent to which personal experience can be useful. For example, I have experienced no God but others say they have. If people can experience a phenomena and others can't then it seems a poor basis to derive conclusions as I don't see how we could measure the quality of a person's perception in order to differentiate between them.

This is partially why, as you see above, I am not interested in debating with FFH on the evidence for evolution/his form of creationism since our personal experience clearly differs and so we are making conclusions from different pools of information. However, the scientific method is not based on empirical data but on rationalism and so the importance of testable predictions can be justified without needing to look to that pool of information that might differ from another.

However, this assumption might be incorrect so I am inviting Creationists to justify their lack of testable predictions.

Emotion is the single most useful thing humans have because it allows us to have a useful intelligence. Emotion is just a process to short circuit thinking so we do not sit down on a rock and ponder whether or not to run from a horde of angry beats.

And then you get people who freeze on the spot with fear, are filled with so much adrenaline that they go into a rage and fight or put themselves near angry beasts because they are too arrogant or brave.

Emotion has its uses but I don't think decision making is one of them. Perhaps it is great for making fast guesses but keeping your head free of emotion and running will increase your chances of survival more than running from fear.

Lastly to everyone else: I realise that people have strong opinions about this issue but if both sides could refrain from getting too heated and attacking each other that would be really great. You might really really think that the other person is very much wrong but then I think it would be safe to assume they probably feel that way about you too. I doubt anything productive can result from a discussion involving those mindsets.