I don't understand the point of creationism

[d taylor]

I have no reason not to.

Why do you always address the ken ham (and others) version of the Bibles creation account. Is it because it is the most popular among creationist.

 

[pitabread]

Why do you always address the ken ham (and others) version of the Bibles creation account. Is it because it is the most popular among creationist.

I view creationists as anyone who rejects aspects of science in favor of some religious view instead (particularly those based on the Bible).

I'm aware there is a continuum of creationists ranging from Flat Earthers to YECs to OECs to ID and variations in between. All tend to involve some level of science-denial.

 

[pitabread]

Massive inference and guessing... not some sort of fact that the Sun has stated not even a record of it in nature. Rather "inference" by extrapolating back without anything to confirm the inference but more "inference".

How is solar age specifically determined? [Staff Edit]

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know of any creationist who teaches that.

All the creationists I know say "19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Gen 2:19

Right. The birds and animals popped out of the ground.

Now if when you see them make that claim you substitute in the term "rock" where you see them say "God" -- then you might have walked away with that idea that "rocks did it not God"...
Are you saying that is what you did??

No, I substituted your term "rock" for the Bible's term "ground."

Because I would not have guessed that you would do that. What exactly are you saying??

That it is clear from scripture that "rock popped out horses" (to put the exact same spin on what the Bible says as you put on what science says.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm going to sound contradictory here, but here goes: I'm a VERY black and white (binary) thinker and consider it a positive attribute in most ways, especially in my career - computer software. However, for it to work I have to understand that gray areas are only gray because they have not yet been broken down to their "black and white components" - kinda like the gray areas in an old newspaper photo are actually black dots on white paper.

And that is how I see this. There is no way I can take Genesis, as translated into English bibles, literally. Or, more precisely, the interpretations of it. e.g. in Genesis 1:3 we begin and end the first day. But how much time passed in Genesis 1: 1-2? Nobody knows. It doesn't say. So anyone who insists it DOES say is selling something.

And then there is that part about the "pillars of the earth". IBSS - The Bible - Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3: Pillars of the Earth

Of course, we interpret it now as a "figure of speech". But I have little doubt that the culture contemporaneous with the "publishing' of that verse, saw it literally. It worked with their view of the earth and its relationship with heaven. And at that time, that was good enough. Again, the bible is not a science book.

I suspect those early oral cultures didn't think in terms of the rigid binary split between facts and fiction we find so compelling today. They learnt from and were entertained by stories from which they gleaned ideas and meanings that were relevant to them. The story was there to hold their attention, but it was the message that counted.

Just speculatin'.

 

[Speedwell]

I suspect those early oral cultures didn't think in terms of the rigid binary split between facts and fiction we find so compelling today. They learnt from and were entertained by stories from which they gleaned ideas and meanings that were relevant to them. The story was there to hold their attention, but it was the message that counted.

Just speculatin'.

A "speculation" rather like the ToE in that there is considerable evidence for it.

One of the difficulties with biblical literalism is a tendency to project a modernist interpretation of historical narrative onto ancient biblical texts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A "speculation" rather like the ToE in that there is considerable evidence for it.

Such as the bible?

 

[Ophiolite]

I suspect those early oral cultures didn't think in terms of the rigid binary split between facts and fiction we find so compelling today. They learnt from and were entertained by stories from which they gleaned ideas and meanings that were relevant to them. The story was there to hold their attention, but it was the message that counted.

Just speculatin'.

I would argue that all good fiction has a two fold function: offer a good story; deliver a message. (Or perhaps as expressed as the goal of the BBC - to educate, inform and entertain.) And a story can be fictional, but nevertheless True in a fundamental sense, which is what you are saying. It is sad that literalists cannot see that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... a story can be fictional, but nevertheless True in a fundamental sense, which is what you are saying.

I don't think we can say - or agree on - what "true in a fundamental sense" means, so I'd replace it with "have an educational message".

 

[Astrophile]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

I suspect that this question goes to the heart of religion, and that the ultimate purpose of religion is to frighten people into unquestioning obedience to the authorities by threatening them with punishment by a god (a sort of supernatural 'Big Brother') if they venture to think for themselves.

If people are allowed to question the literal truth of the creation stories in Genesis, they may start questioning other parts of the Bible, for example, those parts that say that kings and queens are appointed by God and that those who resist the Lord's anointed (such as King George III) are damned, or that women are inferior to men and therefore shouldn't have votes, or that people who work on Sunday, for example by contributing to Internet forums, should be put to death. If people start asking such questions, who knows where we shall end up.

 

[dlamberth]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

People need creation stories. The Biblical creation story worked well for many years for a particular group of people, that is until science started opening up the window into a different creation story for us to gather around. Some, as we are all aware, are still hanging onto the old story as the new story takes shape. My sense is that it's because some people are so invested in the old story they are unable to see beyond it.

 

[Direct Driver]

I suspect that this question goes to the heart of religion, and that the ultimate purpose of religion is to frighten people into unquestioning obedience to the authorities by threatening them with punishment by a god (a sort of supernatural 'Big Brother') if they venture to think for themselves.

If people are allowed to question the literal truth of the creation stories in Genesis, they may start questioning other parts of the Bible, for example, those parts that say that kings and queens are appointed by God and that those who resist the Lord's anointed (such as King George III) are damned, or that women are inferior to men and therefore shouldn't have votes, or that people who work on Sunday, for example by contributing to Internet forums, should be put to death. If people start asking such questions, who knows where we shall end up.

Most of the problem is that it is not the bible that we are fighting against (the "literal truth"), but other people's translations. I like to ask folks how much time passed between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3. And that is just the conversation starter.

 

[Charmy]

Most of the problem is that it is not the bible that we are fighting against (the "literal truth"), but other people's translations. I like to ask folks how much time passed between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3. And that is just the conversation starter.

I believe in the fact that we have the freedom to choose. But God knows when we are born and when we die.... And every choice we are going to make. So our destiny is set out for us?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe in the fact that we have the freedom to choose. But God knows when we are born and when we die.... And every choice we are going to make. So our destiny is set out for us?

So we're free to choose as long as we choose what God already knows we'll choose...

Reminds me of what Henry Ford told his salesmen, ‘Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.’

 

[Tree of Life]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

I don't think that creationists believe in creationism because they perceive some advantage in accepting it. I think that creationism is a consequence of their beliefs about Scripture and their hermeneutics. It's a spandrel.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think that creationists believe in creationism because they perceive some advantage in accepting it. I think that creationism is a consequence of their beliefs about Scripture and their hermeneutics. It's a spandrel.

That prompts an interesting way to think about religious beliefs - i.e. that they attempt to achieve a common objective with varying architectures... the question then becomes which spandrels are weight-bearing and which merely decorative. I suspect opinions will vary!

 

[Tree of Life]

That prompts an interesting way to think about religious beliefs - i.e. that they attempt to achieve a common objective with varying architectures... the question then becomes which spandrels are weight-bearing and which merely decorative. I suspect opinions will vary!

Creationism has really only been relevant in church history when other ideas have emerged that have explicitly contradicted it. Evolution is one example but there were also ancient ideas about eternally existing matter, dualism, and others.

 

[Speedwell]

Creationism has really only been relevant in church history when other ideas have emerged that have explicitly contradicted it. Evolution is one example but there were also ancient ideas about eternally existing matter, dualism, and others.

Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been considered adequate support for Christian doctrine by many authorities, church Fathers, etc. So the question becomes, why choose a literalist hermeneutic? It didn't make any difference in the early Church because Genesis was the only information to be had on the subject and most people took it for granted. But a figurative interpretation wasn't that big a deal if a church Father as respected as Origen, say, could get away with it. So why is it now? Yes, evolution poses difficulties for creationism, so it is opposed. But it doesn't answer the question; why cling to that hermeneutic? What's at stake? Traditional Christians don't, and I can't see that it has cost us any essential Christian doctrines.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been considered adequate support for Christian doctrine by many authorities, church Fathers, etc. So the question becomes, why choose a literalist hermeneutic? It didn't make any difference in the early Church because Genesis was the only information to be had on the subject and most people took it for granted. But a figurative interpretation wasn't that big a deal if a church Father as respected as Origen, say, could get away with it. So why is it now? Yes, evolution poses difficulties for creationism, so it is opposed. But it doesn't answer the question; why cling to that hermeneutic? What's at stake? Traditional Christians don't, and I can't see that it has cost us any essential Christian doctrines.

It was during the Reformation that the principle of historical-grammatical interpretation became developed. It was developed to try to curb the excesses of allegorical interpretation that was so popular among the ECFs and scholastics. Part of HG interpretation is that we ought to interpret a text according to what the author intended. I stick to a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2 because it seems to me to be most plausibly what the author intended. If it can be demonstrated otherwise - that the author really intended to be writing allegory instead of history - then I would gladly abandon that interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

It was during the Reformation that the principle of historical-grammatical interpretation became developed. It was developed to try to curb the excesses of allegorical interpretation that was so popular among the ECFs and scholastics. Part of HG interpretation is that we ought to interpret a text according to what the author intended. I stick to a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2 because it seems to me to be most plausibly what the author intended. If it can be demonstrated otherwise - that the author really intended to be writing allegory instead of history - then I would gladly abandon that interpretation.

Which doesn't answer my question. What excesses?