Is Creationism Dead?

I.D. is creationism in a cheap lab coat, it's pseudoscience at it's worst. If it were anything else it would've presented some form of new discovery or new information for it's pre-determined conclusion, but it hasn't.

a reply to: Osiris1953

I studied biology at high school, and macro-evolution provided me with some good laughs and still does to this day, anyway i'll tell you what wiseguy, when you have seen a prehistoric ape turn into a man you can get back to me with your evidence, oh but wait now that is impossible you say because we don't live long enough to witness such an event first hand, well well, looky here it does take faith to believe in magical apes after all.

See you on the other side, we'll find out who's dogma is right then

a reply to: Haxsaw

If a jury requires faith to convict the rapist despite the mountains of evidence showing him to be guilty of the crime, then yeah sure.....but that's not the same as religious faith where you just believe regardless of the lack of evidence or even a good reason to beleive.

But if you really had studied evolution at school you'd have realised this already....

Creationism is not dead. It's an idea from a book and it will not die. We still have the Flat Earth Society, remember. It's simply a thought, a story.

Creationism and Flat Earth cannot be compared to evolution. The first are thoughts. Evolution is science. There is no science whatsoever involved in the other two. Comparing them is like comparing gravity to garden fairies.

I'd like to agree with Ben Wattenberg in think " that the only the seriously intelligent position is agnosticism. And anyone who claims to know how the world works, I don’t believe frankly." The more I read about anything on this subject the more my head just wants to explode.

I'd like to add my two-sense in with everybody but any point I'd make has already been made.

Here's a link to a nice little discussion on PBS's Think Tank on Intelligent design Vs.Creationism for those who might be confused on the difference between the two.
www.pbs.org...

a reply to: Astyanax

Dead? Absolutely not. But are people tired of arguing about it? Absolutely. Discussing such topics is like bashing your head on a wall repeatedly. Eventually you either pass out or just get tired of it.

According to this about half of the world believe in one of the three main world religions: followers of the Bible, Qur'an and the Torah.


So no creationism is not dead.

originally posted by: Haxsaw

magical apes or GOD, both require faith at the end of the day, for me I think I'll take faith in GOD as I really cant see a magical ape getting me to heaven.

What's the difference??? If you're gonna believe it's "Magic" it doesn't make any difference whether it's a Magic Sky Wizard, or Magic Apes. You're still believing in "Magic" BS regardless of what form you choose.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Is Creationism Dead?

No, it's still evolving nicely.

a reply to: Astyanax

Is Creationism Dead?

Like religion that spawned it, it was intellectually stillborn with no real future.

a reply to: Haxsaw

Yet your reply demonstrates that you have no idea what your talking about. Refer back to my original statement for a refresher.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Creationism is not dead. It's an idea from a book and it will not die. We still have the Flat Earth Society, remember. It's simply a thought, a story.

That's the problem all of this comes from a book that is unverifiable in any way, shape or form. Even an elementary school level book report requires you to cite more than one source. Yet people want to base their whole lives on an antiquated, disjointed narrative about a god that based upon his own rules should be considered evil. A book that is supposedly the divinely inspired word of god, but proves that Shakespeare, a mere mortal is so much better in terms of basic writing skill than the almighty. Paper thin believability at its finest.

Let's not believe something changes over long periods of time and instead believe in magical sky men who impregnate virgins against their will.

a reply to: Astyanax

How are you defining creationism? Creations of life, or the universe? (Evolution is a separate theory from the cosmological theories.)

Anyway, no, I don't think it's dead. You, interestingly, view history as a story of progress (at least, it seems rather clear to me that is the case based on your "dying out" projections.)

I think if you step back, you'll realize there have pretty much always been different and competing theories about the origins of life and the universe. One side says it was done by some vast supernatural force, the other insists on naturalistic processes. There is a natural ebb and flow in this, of course, as religious beliefs rise and then fall in popularity, corresponding with the popularity of skepticism and the numbers and vocal inclinations of the adherents on both sides. Exact beliefs might change, but the ebb and flow will remain the same. For instance, I would not be surprised if Young Earth Creationism decreased in apparent popularity while Intelligent Design increased in apparent popularity. The outspoken YECers and New Atheists are going to die off soon, and I rather think the next generation of movers and shakers that take their places will be neither. That's a guess of course.

Ultimately, I suspect philosophical presuppositions will drive the beliefs, as they usually do. Some see no evidence of a higher power, others may fear and hate the idea (and thus wish to use science to destroy it.) Perhaps some want or need a higher power to help them sleep at night and some believe in one because they simply cannot see the world without seeing the fingerprint of a designer.

Ultimately, I've observed that humans are hardwired for religious belief. There are a number of ideas as to why this came about: evolution, a supernatural higher power, oneness with all things, etc. But whatever the reason, it seems innate to humanity, and as long as humans believe in a Creator, there will be Creationists.

I suspect we won't be able to rid humanity of the belief in the supernatural without getting rid of humans.

originally posted by: Osiris1953

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Creationism is not dead. It's an idea from a book and it will not die. We still have the Flat Earth Society, remember. It's simply a thought, a story.

That's the problem all of this comes from a book that is unverifiable in any way, shape or form. Even an elementary school level book report requires you to cite more than one source. Yet people want to base their whole lives on an antiquated, disjointed narrative about a god that based upon his own rules should be considered evil. A book that is supposedly the divinely inspired word of god, but proves that Shakespeare, a mere mortal is so much be

tter in terms of basic writing skill than the almighty. Paper thin believability at its finest.

Let's not believe something changes over long periods of time and instead believe in magical sky men who impregnate virgins against their will.

If u guys think all the creation myths of the planet come from the bible

Then you have much more studying to do

Much more

Evolution is a fact of the universe.
However, to believe that it came from God or that it all happened by itself is a matter of faith only.

In my mind, it almost useless to debate since we will probably never know anyway.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
If u guys think all the creation myths of the planet come from the bible

Then you have much more studying to do

Really? Where does it come from besides the bible?

a reply to: theMediator

Howdy,

I certainly agree with you on this. It is pointless to debate whether or not a higher power was involved in any of the phenomena we (humanity) have observed over our short time on this planet. I do however disagree that the debate between Creationsim (as in creation devoid of evolution) and evolution is meaningless. Modeling out the natural processes by which life likely diverged (as is the true nature of evolutionary biology) is perhaps the most important thing mankind can do.

Consider that much of modern medicine depends upon genetic knowledge and is tested on life with similar genetic material. Certainly it seems that the evidence is clearly in support of naturalistic processes (as naturalistic processes can in theory produce all that we observe), but it is true that one cannot disprove the idea of a higher power guiding those processes.

Perhaps the distinction (over whether there is a meaningful use to debate this topic) comes when one group asserts that a specific deity is in control of those processes and that those processes differ from the observable facts. Does the fact that these claims differ from what is observable invalidate the claims? Not at all, but in science one must go where the evidence leads one, and models that consistently predict behavior are better than those that are inconsistent.

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Vedic texts, Mesopotamian Epics, Hindu Epics, Buddhist writings, Egyptian texts, One of the most modern and most complex (media and tv shows) , Inner circle documents. These are all (technically) creationism myths.

You indeed do have much more studying to do.
Creationism is indeed nowhere near dead.
The reason why: Dat Alien Theorism Do

From a from a five second google search


www.creationmyths.org...

Deny ignorance

Eta we also have new creation myths like simulation hypothesis

Humans just cant seem to stop