Are creationism and evolution "beliefs"?

[laptoppop]

Do creationism (YEC, OEC, etc.) and evolution (TE) qualify as "beliefs", or is that term reserved for strictly theological positions without scientific implications/support? If they do, how does the following rule apply to our discussions?

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No. Although I might use the term occasionally as a matter of grammar, I'm terribly uncomfortable using belief-language for much of anything but theological propositions.

 

[Mallon]

Do creationism (YEC, OEC, etc.) and evolution (TE) qualify as "beliefs", or is that term reserved for strictly theological positions without scientific implications/support? If they do, how does the following rule apply to our discussions?

Well, firstly, I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. I would classify TEs as creationists because they, too, believe in a creator. That's why I prefer the term "evolutionary creationist" over "theistic evolutionist."
Moreover, you equate evolution with TE. That's wrong. Evolution is not a faith-based belief. It is a theory rooted in fact. Evolutionary creationism, on the other hand, invokes God in the evolutionary process and is therefore a faith-based belief -- just as all other forms of creationism are.

Having said all that, I will return to your question. If we claim that our conclusions are based on science, then we open ourselves up to criticism. Science does not require belief, only an adherence to verifiable evidence. So if you're going to argue that the facts support an ancient global flood or common ancestry, then you are inviting debate because your claims can be checked against the facts. If, on the other hand, you hold to a particular belief apart from the facts, as vossler or Kurt Wise does, then you are essentially exempting yourself from scrutiny because there is no way that your beliefs can be checked against verifiable reality.
God is not tangible to science, so we should not for a moment question one another's faith in Him. But any claim that invokes the support of science is up for debate.

 

[laptoppop]

I would say there is a HUGE difference between content-based criticism, which can be done in love, respect and helps people grow, and flaming.

 

[crawfish]

I favor theistic evolution; however, I would not classify my feelings on evolution as a "belief" because science does not demand such belief. I feel the evidence, as we know it now, points strongly toward evolutionary theory; however, as any good scientist would admit, my feelings could change dramatically if evidence was presented that put other evolutionary evidence in a different light and made another explanation more satisfactory. I claim no "faith" in either the theory holding up, or new evidence appearing. I also do consider either a factor in my faith in God as creator and Christ as our savior.

Creationism, esp. YEC, MUST be classified as a belief because the preponderance of evidence is against it. There must be faith that God is behind it or the entire case falls apart.

 

[Deamiter]

I favor theistic evolution; however, I would not classify my feelings on evolution as a "belief" because science does not demand such belief. I feel the evidence, as we know it now, points strongly toward evolutionary theory; however, as any good scientist would admit, my feelings could change dramatically if evidence was presented that put other evolutionary evidence in a different light and made another explanation more satisfactory. I claim no "faith" in either the theory holding up, or new evidence appearing. I also do consider either a factor in my faith in God as creator and Christ as our savior.

Creationism, esp. YEC, MUST be classified as a belief because the preponderance of evidence is against it. There must be faith that God is behind it or the entire case falls apart.

I agree, in most cases, creationism is a belief but not because evidence is against it. Scientists also have faith (which is supported by evidence, but it is an assumption nonetheless) that the rules governing the universe will continue to govern the universe.

Anyway, I think that some of the creationists on this board probably couldn't have their position on creation classified as a belief because they do believe strongly that it is a conclusion based on evidence. Of course, it'd be a personal thing -- just because a person believes the evidence leads to a conclusion of creationism does not mean that it isn't a belief, it's more whether the person came to the conclusion based on evidence or because it conveniently fit their belief.

Either way, it's a pretty nonsensical distinction -- it's got more to do with how a person makes conclusions and how they define belief than what they actually believe or conclude.

As for the OP, yes we get it -- insulting creationists is bad and it's been happening way too much lately. In the spirit of moving on, I started a really nice new content-based thread on age inflation in the Bible... care to comment?

 

[billwald]

"Ism" implies a metaphysical belief. Some people think they are adding insult by appending it to words.

The study of history is an art, not a science, thus I never heard of a B.S. in history. Why would the study of pre-history be more "scientific" than the study of history?

Lay people think that any investigation using expensive technical instruments is automatically "science." Technical operators seem to encourage this, I suspect because run of the mill scientists are better paid than run of the mill artists.

 

[Deamiter]

The study of history is an art, not a science, thus I never heard of a B.S. in history.

You might do a quick google on "B.S. History." Seems like there's quite a few people out there with that degree...

 

[Mallon]

The study of history is an art, not a science, thus I never heard of a B.S. in history. Why would the study of pre-history be more "scientific" than the study of history?

I guess that depends on how one goes about studying history. If all you are doing to earn your degree is summarizing a bunch of books and diaries you have read, then I would agree: it's not science.
But if you are using the scientific method in conjunction with reasoning then, yes, that is science, and the study of prehistory (palaeontology) offers much in that regard.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sometimes evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. What some circles conclude others don't based on the exact same evidence. This is especially true in geology. I have some friends who are geologists who are atheistic and some who are christians. I am in the oil business and I use the christian geologists at times to help me find oil. BTW, they use the same tools to interpret the possible location of oil.

Anyway, I think Mallon has said most of the posters here are Christian so how would the Christian's here who refuse to believe in a global flood interpret Luke 17:26?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[chaoschristian]

Do you really want to go that far Laptoppop?

If we opened 2.1 even further than it already is, to incorporate the concept that creationism (small c) and TE/EC as beliefs, we'll set a precedent that will shut down all discussion across CF on any issue over which there is disagreement?

Infant baptism or believers baptism? Sorry, no can do.

Symbolic communion or transubstantiation of the host? Sorry, no can do.

Evangelism or social action? Sorry, no can do.

Etc, etc, etc.

Our baseline beliefs for purposes of CF rest in the Nicene Creed. Whether you are YEC, OEC, TE/EC or other, if you are posting here, you believe God is the Father Creator.

Our discussions and debates cover a very narrow topic, the particulars of how God created, one that is not even mentioned by the Creed itself.

Rule 2.1 is specifically and narrowly worded to allow the types of discussions and debates that occur here in general and across CF in general, but at the same time provide a bright line for specific instances of going too far.

Going too far is using derogatory language that is aimed at the member.

Challenging each other's beliefs and the reasoning for those beliefs is not going too far. It's not a flame.

There's a differnce between saying 'You're stupid because you're YEC.' and 'I think YEC is stupid because . . . '

One is a direct insult and therefore a 2.1 violation. The other is a challenge. A poorly worded one perhaps, but not one that enter into 2.1 territory.

If is the nature of CF and internet discussion boards that we are going to be challenged in our beliefs if we are also going to be as free and open about participation as we can. That's the trade off. We can limit challenges by restricting participation. Such has been done for us in the sub-forums. But when we open up participation, as in the general forum, then challenge is to be expected, if not necessarily accepted or welcomed.

Do creationism (YEC, OEC, etc.) and evolution (TE) qualify as "beliefs", or is that term reserved for strictly theological positions without scientific implications/support? If they do, how does the following rule apply to our discussions?

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

 

[crawfish]

I agree, in most cases, creationism is a belief but not because evidence is against it. Scientists also have faith (which is supported by evidence, but it is an assumption nonetheless) that the rules governing the universe will continue to govern the universe.

Anyway, I think that some of the creationists on this board probably couldn't have their position on creation classified as a belief because they do believe strongly that it is a conclusion based on evidence. Of course, it'd be a personal thing -- just because a person believes the evidence leads to a conclusion of creationism does not mean that it isn't a belief, it's more whether the person came to the conclusion based on evidence or because it conveniently fit their belief.

Either way, it's a pretty nonsensical distinction -- it's got more to do with how a person makes conclusions and how they define belief than what they actually believe or conclude.

There is a difference. I place no faith that evolution will continue to hold up as a theory - I simply feel that the evidence is piled up significantly in its favor right now. A true scientist must leave the "how's" open for future discovery. This is difficult for Creationists, as they have the answer written down for them, and must make backwards leaps to fit that answer with new discoveries. That closing of options moves it from "theory" to "belief".

For the record, I hold one fact indisputable: God created the heavens and the earth. How he did it is up to us to find out, though science.

As for the OP, yes we get it -- insulting creationists is bad and it's been happening way too much lately. In the spirit of moving on, I started a really nice new content-based thread on age inflation in the Bible... care to comment?

I mean no disrespect. I don't particularly like Creationism, primarily because I view it as a losing proposition that can only hurt the faith of seekers as knowledge continues to preclude a purely literal understanding of the creation account. But I do love its proponents like I do all who are in Christ.

 

[Mallon]

Sometimes evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.

Agreed. But we can distinguish between good interpretations and bad interpretations by noting which can explain the most evidence. There is a reason why evolution is called the unifying theory of biology. Without evolution, the natural sciences dissociate into unrelated subfields.

I have some friends who are geologists who are atheistic and some who are christians.

And do they base their religion (or lack thereof) on science or on metaphysical precepts? A Christian whose faith hinges on the status of rock science is a dangerous thing, indeed.

Anyway, I think Mallon has said most of the posters here are Christian so how would the Christian's here who refuse to believe in a global flood interpret Luke 17:26?

Whether or not the Flood was global doesn't change the point of the message being delivered here.

 

[random_guy]

I really dislike the idea that because I'm a TEist, it makes evolution a belief. I'm also a gravist, does that also make gravity just a belief. It's one of the reason I dislike the TEist, label. A more accurate label would be, a person that accepts science.


That said, I think the creationism and evolution can be beliefs. I think a lot of people believe in evolution, but still don't understand it. However, to scientists, evolution is a science, not a belief. Science is backed by evidence, something that evolution has a whole lot of. The opposite can be said of Creationism, as there's very little scientific evidence backing the position (which is expected because supernatural events can leave no evidence to verify the event occurred).

 

[chaoschristian]

I would say there is a HUGE difference between content-based criticism, which can be done in love, respect and helps people grow, and flaming.

I agree. But if we assign special 'belief' status to creationism and TE/EC via 2.1 we render content-based criticism impossible.

What we need to discipline ourselves to is to address the idea, not the person. And to keep in mind that we are challenging specific propositions our beliefs, not the veracity of our faith.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Agreed. But we can distinguish between good interpretations and bad interpretations by noting which can explain the most evidence. There is a reason why evolution is called the unifying theory of biology. Without evolution, the natural sciences dissociate into unrelated subfields.

I disagree, I think evolution confuses the actual truth behind what science should be all about. Real science does not exclude a creator God or His Holy word we call the Bible. Some of the greatest scientist in the world have lately embraced intelligent design. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires an alpha oberver that stands outside of time and space at the beginning of all waves and their collapsed reality.

And do they base their religion (or lack thereof) on science or on metaphysical precepts? A Christian whose faith hinges on the status of rock science is a dangerous thing, indeed.

I agree but that doesn't mean there are aren't a lot of them who see many areas of rock science that can be fit into the Biblical story of creation, the flood etc.

Whether or not the Flood was global doesn't change the point of the message being delivered here.

To me defining oneself to be Christian is significant in several ways. One you have faith in the man who was Jesus Christ. You have faith that He was indeed the Son of God who gave His life a ransom for sins in the world. If you accept all of that then you will of neccessity believe what He has said in the Bible. Jesus Christ made specific mention of the days of Noah and the global flood. So, you either have to believe the Bible as the truth or the mainstream paradigm that disputes it.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

I disagree, I think evolution confuses the actual truth behind what science should be all about. Real science does not exclude a creator God or His Holy word we call the Bible.

So would you argue that any theory that does not invoke God as part of the explanation is not science? You went through university, Jim. Did you learn any science there?

Some of the greatest scientist in the world have lately embraced intelligent design.

Like who? And what makes them among the greatest scientists in the world?

I agree but that doesn't mean there are aren't a lot of them who see many areas of rock science that can be fit into the Biblical story of creation, the flood etc.

... And yet they are sooo reluctant to actually specify which strata were deposited by said flood.

And I kindly disagree with the rest of your post in which you insist that truth = history. But we've covered that topic here ad nauseum.

 

[chaoschristian]

To me defining oneself to be Christian is significant in several ways. One you have faith in the man who was Jesus Christ. You have faith that He was indeed the Son of God who gave His life a ransom for sins in the world. If you accept all of that then you will of neccessity believe what He has said in the Bible. Jesus Christ made specific mention of the days of Noah and the global flood. So, you either have to believe the Bible as the truth or the mainstream paradigm that disputes it.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Emphasis mine.

The unspoken assumption is that faith in Christ necessarily means acceptance of a particular view and interpretation of scripture.

This is in fact on of the propositions that is fundemental to the discussions of not only OT, but many other forums at CF as well.

This is also another area where the Creed is silent, and another reason why we must be cautious and prudent in our application to Rule 2.1.

 

[shernren]

In fact, the above emphasized words would be interpreted by some (including me) as saying that accepting evolution logically entails heresy, which would violate rule 2.1 under the standards stated. Does any creationist here really want to lose the freedom to get away with claiming that evolutionists are less Biblical than they are?

 

[Dannager]

Sometimes evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.

Yes, but there is still only one correct interpretation, and that lies with the interpretation that explains the most observations and evidence.

I disagree, I think evolution confuses the actual truth behind what science should be all about. Real science does not exclude a creator God or His Holy word we call the Bible.

Real science must remain neutral with respect to the supernatural. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and to throw that out means throwing out every single conclusion science has come to over the years.

Some of the greatest scientist in the world have lately embraced intelligent design.

No, they haven't.