What does creationism mean to you?

From my brief haunting of this forum, it seems to me that different people have very different definitions of what "creationism" is, and, unable to find a thread that offered people a chance to define it (although, as I am human, there is always room for human error in all of my searches), I decided to create one.

So, without stereotyping the people that you believe would subscribe to creationism as you see it, or those who would not, what do you mean when you talk about creationism?




Just to get things started:

Creationism, to me, is defined as those who believe that the earth and everything upon it was willed into existence, by a deity or deities, in a shorter time than one would expect a planet to form without such divine intervention.

A creationist, in my view, does not believe that organisms currently biologically separate (i.e. incapable of hybridisation) share common ancestry, but rather, each group was created separately by afore-mentioned deity/deities.

Such a creationist often either cites some abiotic origin for fossils, or holds an atypical view of coexistence of extant and extinct species - sometimes that humans and dinosaurs (in the forms typical prior to the cretaceous extinctions, rather than modern avian members of the dinosauria) coexisted prior to some recent (as in within the time scale of written history) extinction event, or that non-human animals all existed simultaneously, only for several major groups to become extinct before the rise of humanity.

A final point defines my view of the creationist, who holds beliefs - as is his right - but is incapable of recognising that beliefs are not appropriate for discussion in the context of science, except when presenting ones own interpretation of evidence, with the qualification that said interpretation is subjective.



I would make a distinction between this viewpoint, which I describe as creationist, that fundamentally relies on a god of the gaps (with the gaps kept open by force when science threatens to close them), and believers in what I would call a Guiding Deity, where the god (or gods) is not apparent or necessary to natural processes, but such processes occur - and have occurred - because he/she/it/they intend them to. (A god that needs no gap).


DISCLAIMER: The descriptions of various theist viewpoints within this thread should not be taken to represent the views of the poster who is, as always, firmly atop the fence.

It makes me feel entertained. I've always enjoyed a little schadefreude.

The people that do not understand why I do feel so is what makes me feel afraid...

For me, it's just a bunch of hypocrite mad people that bully weaklings to get their thesis taught in school then cry to get disciplines out that were there long before.
No wonder the US is growing to be a retarded people in the field of general science.

reply to post by Chrysalis

So, without stereotyping the people that you believe would subscribe to creationism as you see it

was included in the OP for a reason.

I'm not saying I disagree with your categorisation of subscribers to creationism, but it doesn't really help to define quite what creationism is, does it?

reply to post by TheWill


Well, I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes.
For example, if you look at a US success : UFC. There, you have two fighters that are about to beat the crap out of each other. And Jesus is on both sides, they seem genuinly convinced that they've received a special ointment of some sorts.
After the fight, they're both bloodied, but they still both thank the lord for whatever they just did that they feel is deserving.
I don't even wanna know on which side do you think God is. It just doesn't make sense.
Creationismis a mad invention, by mad men, because it takes the spiritual out of the intimate, inner sphere to put it out in the open like a salesman would sell his brand new washing machine.

To me? It means either a complete ignorance of science, a striking level of cognitive dissonance, outright lying to either yourself or to others, or downright insanity.

I'd say most of the 'flock' of creationists on ATS actually belongs in group one, the complete ignorance of science.

At first I was entertained, now I'm just disappointed that the education system is obviously failing so hard. I mean, comon', we have guys saying the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old when we have fossils that are older than 450 MILLION (!!!) years. That's really sad given we live in the 21st century

reply to post by MrXYZ


We have man made structures that are 7000 years old where I live...ok, that's the very oldest thing we have. But still, we have man made structures that should have been submerged by a global flood according to the creationists.

reply to post by MrXYZ


With some of the stuff I hear lately, I half expect a creationist to claim that the world is less than eighty years old, because that's when their bible was printed and they don't know anyone older than eighty.

But that might just be my personal prejudice against people who think the dinosaurs drowned in the flood...

In modern times supporting creationism means complete rejection of reality.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Yes, but I think I misworded the OP.

What do you think they actually believe? Do all people who define themselves as creationists think that the earth is less than, say, 10,000 years old? Do they think that God made everything individually, or do they thing "well, I don't think that beetles and wasps have a common ancestor, but monkeys and apes, hell yeah!" (for example).

I know what I think they think ("God did it. No science. God did it. Science Evil. Darwin = the Devil. Using your brain is a corruption of God's will," etc), but I'm curious as to whether other people think that they think this, and even more curious as to what creationists actually think.

I think creationism is a lifestyle choice.

Most people believe some god made the world, but few are creationists except in the most technical sense of the word. The vast majority will negotiate some compromise between their religious beliefs and the discoveries of science--that is, if they bother to think about the matter at all.

A full-dress creationist, however, is one who has chosen deliberately and publicly to reject scientific knowledge and theory in favour of some creation myth or the other, usually as an act of defiance against the ambient culture.

Creationsts, that is to say, are a kind of fundamentalist. I think it's a safe guess that all members of Al-Qaeda are creationists.

reply to post by TheWill

What do you think they actually believe?

I imagine that varies from creationist to creationist. Here on ATS we have young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists, both claiming to be hewing to revealed truth as presented in the Bible. I'm sure there are other, subtler variations--some Yekkies believe dinosaurs went out with the Flood, other Yekkies think God put the bones in the stones to test our faith.

Why don't some creationists come on here and tell us what they believe? Where's that Comic Artifact when we need him?

reply to post by TheWill


I believe in creation, but I'm not a creationist.

A creationist is someone who believes in duality. One who believes a god who is separate from and infinitely superior to themselves built this universe as a home to his great work, human beings.

I believe we are god, that our separateness is an illusion. I believe we together created the physical dimension, in which a universe could develop and life evolve. There was no need for this life to be intelligent bipeds. We are here for the experience, and the experience of being moths or gooey tenticled gobblewoggles floating around in green vapour clouds could be just as entertaining as the experience being human.

You have to admit, TheWill, if you were a god, or an all-powerful Will, it would make sense to create a "sandbox" to play in.

It is in our DNA, the ability to spontaneously express in a myriad of lifeforms. Something from across the Galaxy blasts us with Life-Giving Forces in such a manner that as each passing event the expressing seems to have an inherent need to know itself. Yes, we had soup in the beginning, but now we have meatballs!

We are a creation but from those times to these we haven't touched yet on what happens when we all spontaneously recreate into our next expression. I believe it is like a giant wave that will strike us all at one moment and between us and God Almighty we will express again, this time we will become co-creators if we choose.

If you live in a world that is 9-5, and you plot out your life based on the hold of mankind, then I venture to guess that any expression beyond that will be obsolete. What other kinds of expressions or worlds do we want to co-create in, and how would we like to appear to others around us? We simply do it right now, time will catch up with itself and there will be a great rearranging. Best not get caught in the triviality's of man otherwise you might be in this existence for a very long time.

Originally posted by Greensage
Something from across the Galaxy blasts us with Life-Giving Forces...

I hope you see why this is a BELIEF and not true knowledge...

reply to post by Kailassa


That's very... samsara of you.

And thanks for being about the second person to actually answer the question! Despite the way the words betrayed me and seem to have said something other than I intended (I'd make an awful deity... although I reckon I'd make a fairly epic tortoise).

Starred.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I reckon I'd make a fairly epic tortoise.

One of my favourite people, Wilbur, is an epic tortoise.
I visit him every time I go o the melbourne zoo. He seems so wise and anciently enigmatic.

i believe the theory of creation still lacks any evidence of whom the creator is.. be it aliens, god, or big bang... just fill in the blank and your creation theory will work. you can even say natural selection is the creator cant ya? if not, why?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


I would hesitate to refer to processes which are not necessarily conscious as "creators", because a creator implies a creative entity, rather than a generative[creative] process. Natural selection, like the water cycle, is a process, which I would say generates rather than creates.

Generation, leading to occurrence, makes no assumption about a creative entity, and so in itself cannot really be considered the creator. Especially since each generative process is rather limited in what it generates (big bang generates the universe, evolution generates diversity, natural selection generates adaptation... and so on).

reply to post by Kailassa


Being that time is an illusion (and lunchtime double so - as per Ford Prefect), I suspect that Wilbur is me in a future incarnation.

Seeing as I am hoping to emigrate to Australia, and Melbourne in particular, I shall have to visit Wilbur at some point and have an in-depth conversation about lettuce, cabbages and snails that venture too close...

Thanks for letting me know about future me.


On a less chelonian note, the most appealing concept of an afterlife, to me, is reincarnation, and memory of the different incarnations, even if not actually during them, would be wonderful. While I do agree that any deity would be considered an extension of, rather than separate to, life, the universe, and everything, the Jury's still out on whether I actually believe in reincarnation.

I want to, though, which has to be a start.