Is Creationism Dead?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: hydeman11

is definition of what he considers Creationism was lacking clarity

Iis perfectly clear from my opening post that I am speaking of creationism as a political movement. In what other sense could the post otherwise be understood? Enlighten me, please.

Political movements are highly overrated. Whats the point of debating one false ideology with any other.
& politics aren't like evolution etc. Those are "potentially false ideologies".
Politics are a fools chess, with the dumb and the dim happily lining up to play.

a reply to: Astyanax

Oh, no, I agree. I misunderstood you, and I apologize for making assumptions based on that. I thought you were specifically referring to Creationists who were politically active, as in a person of faith with political agendas on the side, not Creationism itself being a political movement. This is merely my misinterpretation of what you called "political creationists."

I've never actually considered Creationism (as an entity) a political movement, so much as a belief system with figureheads with often self-serving political agendas, but I see what are you saying.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Astyanax

Creationism and Darwinism are probably unified in a good dose presumption and some fantasy. After all, we are a juvenile race still suffering from lack of information nor the technology to acquire it.

Creationism assumes the creation of an entire universe at the snap of one man's finger (a god who happens to look like the creationists), while the scientists rely on understanding the forces of the universe. It seems that the bulk of the conflict is between average people, not between professional scientists and religious scholars as such.

I think the real question is, why are average people so passionate about their own opinions that there would be any elevated discussions about it?

Aesthetic theories with definite emotional overtones may be the result of a human psyche creating its fictional place in the cosmos. I say fictional because we simply don't know. Its an identity crises in which people are seemingly conditioned to choose between two or possibly three options.

What if the universe is a complex organism that continually builds objects from elements and then recycles them into rebirth when they break down? This is the process that science has observed for generations with the help of technology.

What if the universe is also a multilayer medium for a thriving cosmic hierarchy from single cell to immortal beings?

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

This is, at best, reductive, and at worst, disingenuous. Either way, you have taken an extremely complex collection of books and tried to use your disbelief of it as a blunt tool to further a petty argument that stakes no claims nor introduces any level of discourse. Bravo.

If this is your true understanding of the Bible, then you have not spent very much time researching its history, studying the huge amount of evidence that supports its veracity, and you have missed the mountain of critical papers written by both historians and scholars in support of its authenticity.

a reply to: hydeman11

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Eunuchorn

As for the idea of instant gratification, are you seriously suggesting that evolution is not real because humans wouldn't like it?

Regards,
Hydeman

Quite possibly the most spectacular example of paraphrasing I've ever seen.
You hit it on the money, really. The human vessel is (seemingly) highly apt to naturally lean towards "the easy way out"
This could EASILY be the several hundred years of generational DNA afflictions via fluoride & preservatives & what have you, but whatever the cause, the human race is what it is (currently) & without natural(fukushima)/unnatural(fukushima) mass die off, we will eventually be so lazybored, that we will have sporadic random spontaneous evolution, & all the mutants will just end up killing all the nonmutants. A new age of "human" begins. According to many hieroglyphics from around the globe (& a slight adjustment to your own personal status quo), we may have very well been mutants in one of the Hopi's past 6 Worlds, going through some mighty sporadic changes every now & then & in a lot shorter time span than the silly dinosaurs, may they stay on their accursed "haven" of Jupiter.

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: Astyanax
I think the real question is, why are average people so passionate about their own opinions that there would be any elevated discussions about it?
Aesthetic theories with definite emotional overtones may be the result of a human psyche creating its fictional place in the cosmos. I say fictional because we simply don't know. Its an identity crises in which people are seemingly conditioned to choose between two or possibly three options.

Point #1: YES! Passion is the key to personal gain, & the perfect "emotion" to warp, deviate to the ego, & then fully corrupt.
APATHY IS THE WAY TO GO! STOP THE VOTING!

Point #2: A beautiful definition of Duality, if I ever saw one.

Did I mention duality is evil?

originally posted by: Thejaybird

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

This is, at best, reductive, and at worst, disingenuous. Either way, you have taken an extremely complex collection of books and tried to use your disbelief of it as a blunt tool to further a petty argument that stakes no claims nor introduces any level of discourse. Bravo.

If this is your true understanding of the Bible, then you have not spent very much time researching its history, studying the huge amount of evidence that supports its veracity, and you have missed the mountain of critical papers written by both historians and scholars in support of its authenticity.

Tell me what is complex about your bible? I spend 40 years as a priest studying the bible and concluded that it was written for (by?) ignorant, infantile minds full of compulsion and superstition. It is purely dogmatic and has no modern application with anything remotely human in behavioral terms, especially relating to mental illness, drug addiction, human rights and marriage.

The entire spirit of the bible, which includes the Torah, involves the contexts of social thinking of the times and does not address the complexity of human knowledge, intellect and psychology of today.

In my opinion, anyone who takes it seriously and lives by it is either burying his head in denial or is just too lazy to exercise is mind.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: Astyanax
I think the real question is, why are average people so passionate about their own opinions that there would be any elevated discussions about it?
Aesthetic theories with definite emotional overtones may be the result of a human psyche creating its fictional place in the cosmos. I say fictional because we simply don't know. Its an identity crises in which people are seemingly conditioned to choose between two or possibly three options.

Point #1: YES! Passion is the key to personal gain, & the perfect "emotion" to warp, deviate to the ego, & then fully corrupt.
APATHY IS THE WAY TO GO! STOP THE VOTING!

Point #2: A beautiful definition of Duality, if I ever saw one.

Did I mention duality is evil?

The perfect duality is that of extreme good and extreme evil (IE god, satan). So, guess I'm assuming by your statement that you're a anarchist.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I define creationism as 'a sociopolitical movement to deny the veracity of scientific theories of biogenesis and evolution and to promote in their place a spurious narrative in which the origins and variety of life on Earth are attributed to a supernatural creator, usually the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic God.'

Just to be clear, I include the 'intelligent design' movement within the larger creationist movement. The details may vary, but the claims and the underlying narrative are no different.

I'm a little puzzled that you are defining Creationism in such a biased manner; it looks rather like circular reasoning, and definitely not conducive to debate. (Sort of like if I was to define evolution as "an evil theory designed to undermine the true spirit of Christian religion" or something like that.) With these sorts of definitions from both sides, no wonder there's no talk going on! Like you say, the discussion is moribund.

I'm also curious what you do with the "ancient aliens" people who believe aliens created us but don't have a Scripture or a particular creation narrative. (Not the New Age types; I'm thinking directed panspermia Francis Crick style.)

I'd also agree that the argument certainly doesn't seem to be grabbing public attention, but I haven't seen much activity from either side. There haven't been court battles or anything like that recently. I know Creationism/ID isn't dead (saw a few top Intelligent Design advocates a couple months back, and they were alive and kicking) but the debate seems to have resulted in both sides settling into their trenches. Like you, I don't remember Creationism scoring any recent victories, but I don't think that means it is dead. Even good (US, EU) science education hasn't eliminated the belief in a Creator of some sort, and as long as that idea lingers about, someone will be a Creationist.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I strongly suggest you take a break from posting until whatever it is that's making you so excited has worn off.

The thread will still be here, waiting for you, when you have recovered.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

There is no bias in my definition unless you take issue with the word 'spurious'. However, it is clear that insofar as creationist claims are scientifically verifiable, they have been shown to be false, so I am justified in using the word.

My defintion is not dissimilar to that found in popular dictionaries and encyclopedias:

Merriam-Webster

Oxford

Wikipedia

The difference is that I am speaking of the political movement or agenda rather than the belief itself. But even in the latter case, it would be hard to find evidence that the number of creationists worldwide is increasing. Even in the United States, creationism is a minority belief.

what you do with the "ancient aliens" people who believe aliens created us

Most of these people believe the aliens created us by modifying already existing terrestrial life-forms, so I would call them believers in alien genetic engineering. They are certainly not creationists.

Fie!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

There is no bias in my definition unless you take issue with the word 'spurious'. However, it is clear that insofar as creationist claims are scientifically verifiable, they have been shown to be false, so I am justified in using the word.

As you imply, most of the problematic claims the Creationists make, as I understand them, are unverifiable (hence the problem.) From what I've seen of Creationism, most of its other arguments are attacks on evolution (which is a good, thing, honestly: someone builds a theory, and scientists test it to make certain it is sound. Part of this process is, or should be, looking for flaws in the theory. Oddly enough, we've seen Creationists/IDers and evolutionists both ignoring this tack and instead attacking each other theories while building their own.) These may be the claims which you are referring to, or perhaps you've picked up a different line of attack I've missed.

I take issue with "spurious" because it appears to be a gratuitous type of circular reasoning that crimps civil debate and because I don't believe Creationism, by its very nature, can be proven to the negative (that's not an especially good thing as far as a scientific theory goes!) I'm not aware of any central tenets of Creationist theory (or theology, if you prefer) that have been proven false, and therefore calling it Creationism spurious seems inaccurate. If there's specific Creationist theories that have been proven false, they certainly deserve to be called spurious. Calling the whole thing spurious, though, seems like saying the idea of aliens in space is spurious because Billy Meier was a fraud.

However, (unless you made a typo) you list someone who disagrees with abiogenesis as a type of creationist. While a majority of American may believe in evolution, the polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans believe that some Deity created/formed/molded/guided life, which flies in the face of abiogenesis as I understand it. It certainly does not adhere to principles of pure naturalism. The article you posted did not cover abiogenesis, but rather "God created man in his present form less than 10,000 years ago." (They appear to be using a different definition than you are; more specifically, they appear to be focused on Young Earth Creationism &etc.) Obviously Europe is a different ballpark, with atheism being fairly popular; Africa and the Middle East are Muslim, and apparently China is rapidly Christianizing.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Most of (the) arguments (of creationism) are attacks on evolution (which is a good, thing, honestly: someone builds a theory, and scientists test it to make certain it is sound. Part of this process is, or should be, looking for flaws in the theory.

The theory has been more than 150 years a-building. It has been exhaustively tested by scientists. A century and a half of creationist attempts to discredit it have failed, nor is it likely that any future attempts by the scientifically uninformed will succeed. If a viable challenge to evolutionary theory appears, it will come from a scientist, not from people who don't even understand the theory. I have yet to meet a creationist who properly understands evolution.

I'm not aware of any central tenets of Creationist theory (or theology, if you prefer) that have been proven false.

Try these:

1. Plants and animals did not evolve into their present forms, they were created as they now appear.
   
   
2. Human beings did not evolve into their present forms from a primate ancestor, but were created as they now appear.
   
   
3. Human beings are in some essential way different from animals.
   
   
4. Living matter is in some essential way different from inanimate matter.
   
   
5. Microevolution (the evolution of variation within a species) and macroevolution (the evolution of one species into another) are different. The first is possible. The second, never.
   
   
6. Complex organs such as the eye cannot have evolved through natural selection.

You'll find more at this link: Index to Creationist Claims. See if you can find one that is not spurious.

However, (unless you made a typo) you list someone who disagrees with abiogenesis as a type of creationist.

I didn't type 'abiogenesis', I typed 'biogenesis'. Unless you insist on a hair-splitting difference ('or' instead of 'and'), my meaning is clear enough. I'm fully aware that the vast majority of Christians believe God created the universe, and everything in it, including life, but they are happy to accept evolutionary theory as true and have it taught in schools. The narrative of abiogenesis fits equally comfortably into that belief-system: it describes how God might have gone about causing life to occur. These people are not creationists by my definition. Creationists are those who reject science in favour of superstition.

Now, if you'll forgive me, that's quite enough wrangling over terms and definitions. My meaning, I repeat, is clear enough. If you disagree that creationism is dying or dead as a movement, let's talk about that. It's the thread topic.

a reply to: Astyanax

Unless a new Dark Age dawns upon the earth (or perhaps just in the USA), there is very little hope of political creationists and members of the Intelligent-design movement making any further headway in the culture. Without credible science to prove their claims, their cause is hopeless.

This is the element of Creationism that bothers me. Political leaders don't require 'credible science to prove their claims' as they aren't often making claims. Rather, it's their beliefs that inform their political actions.

Simply believing that a creator is responsible for the universe doesn't particularly bother me and it needn't detract from rational political decision-making. However, when such beliefs run hand-in-hand with notions of 'end-times' and native exceptionalism, judgement can become skewed.

I fear that Creationist beliefs often generate ideas of fate which then encourages narcissism and hubris in political leaders who feel they are on the tide of manifest destiny.