Creationalists?

Gnarly said:

How many Christians are really creationists? Are they the minority, or the majority?

Click to expand...

To be certain we are talking the same thing, how is "creationist" defined?

For example, if I believe a God created the entire known universe does that make me a creationist? If I believe God created the entire known universe and that this creation began about 6,000 years ago does that make me a creationist?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Gnarly said:

Good point, I should have clarified.

When I say creationist, I mean, one believes God created the earth, plants, people and animals. I also assume a creationist would deny evolution.

Click to expand...

It's still unclear. All Christians believe God made the earth, plants, animals - all Christians are creationists in that sense. But only a minority outside the US believe the early chapters of Genesis are a scientific account of that, and that it happened in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. The rest are comfortable that scientific theories like evolution describe how God did the creating.

Creationists are a vocal minority in Christianity, particularly in the US. Most Christians are fine with scientific theories.

Gnarly said:

How many Christians are really creationists? Are they the minority, or the majority?

Click to expand...

Every Christian is a creationist.

Gnarly said:

How many Christians are really creationists? Are they the minority, or the majority?

Click to expand...

I would imagine the majority, "In the beginning, God created..."

Yes, I'm a creationist indeed with a science background. Some macroevolution is true and all microevolution but darwinism evolution is I believe a falsehood.

Gnarly said:

Good point, I should have clarified.

When I say creationist, I mean, one believes God created the earth, plants, people and animals. I also assume a creationist would deny evolution.

Click to expand...

I agree with the other posts that I am a creationist but have no problem with evolution. For me, the how the known universe came to be is not as important as giving credit to God.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I don't think there's any way to measure how many, since people rethink their beliefs all the time.

But as someone pointed out, it's probably the Creationists who are more vocal. Creationists are trying to keep the education system balanced. Science is almost never a closed subject, but certain educators want to teach that we know evolution is correct, when it has only been studied for a hundred years.

Part of the vocal battle is not about teaching a religious standpoint, but keeping the education system accurate and true. The Law of Gravity is a reasonable static, uncontested subject. Photosynthesis has been studied, but scientists recognize there might be more to find.

But creation -- we were not there. We have several good theories going, but none we can unequivocally claim is true. But some teachers are giving test questions as though certain theories were proven. That is unfair for the students, and it is simply bad science.

The problem is that none of the evidence points to creationism, especially young earth creationism. The curriculum will be based off of what the evidence supports.

Dark_Lite said:

The problem is that none of the evidence points to creationism, especially young earth creationism. The curriculum will be based off of what the evidence supports.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this statment, a few years ago I spent a lot of energy studying creationist young earth theories and they are quite sound.

The only thing that I can see that is a problem is many people say well if the geneologies only go back around 6000 years then the whole of creation must be 6000 years old. God is a creative genious; I have had it suggested to me by a person that God is still creating (else where), and I would say was creating before 6000 years ago. So the known universe could be well over 6000 years old, even if earth is only 6000 years old.

As for Christians and creationism Jesus quoted Adam and Eve in the NT, so he obviously believed there were two distinct created beings in the beginning. So should we. We can not believe in the evolution of adam and eve. God created. This should not be a hard concept to grasp. If God through the spoken words of Jesus could heal the sick and raise the dead, then his technologies are far superiour to ours, and his resources infinitely powerful, we can't with our current knowledge heal cancer, nor raise the dead. God can create worlds by his own power, and populate them at his will. Eye has not seen nor has hear heard what God has in store for those who love him.

salida said:

Yes, I'm a creationist indeed with a science background. Some macroevolution is true and all microevolution but darwinism evolution is I believe a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Then why not write a paper since you have a science background. Also how can some "macroevolution" (a term only used by creationist) be true but some isn't? Maybe you mean the stuff we see in the labs today actually evolving into new species really happens but the other doesn't?

heron said:

I don't think there's any way to measure how many, since people rethink their beliefs all the time.

But as someone pointed out, it's probably the Creationists who are more vocal. Creationists are trying to keep the education system balanced. Science is almost never a closed subject, but certain educators want to teach that we know evolution is correct, when it has only been studied for a hundred years.

Click to expand...

So I assume you are just as skeptical about things like the germ theory of disease, computers, cars....you know, things we have only studied for hundreds of years. Creationist are trying to make an end run around the scientific process and introduce the idea of "magic" into the classroom. Magic is fine in history and English but has no place in science or mathematics. Creationist know how the process works, they know you write a paper, get it published and then it is taught in the classroom. The problem they face is that the idea of creationism or ID will never pass peer review since it relies on a "magic" step (as in Step 1: Nothing was around, Step 2: *Magic*, Step 3: there is stuff).

heron said:

Part of the vocal battle is not about teaching a religious standpoint, but keeping the education system accurate and true. The Law of Gravity is a reasonable static, uncontested subject. Photosynthesis has been studied, but scientists recognize there might be more to find.

Click to expand...

Actually it is all about teaching religion and a federal judge agreed in Dover. Remember the part where the pro-science side found out that "Of Pandas". Evolution is far better supported by facts than either gravity or photosynthesis BTW.

heron said:

But creation -- we were not there. We have several good theories going, but none we can unequivocally claim is true. But some teachers are giving test questions as though certain theories were proven. That is unfair for the students, and it is simply bad science.

Click to expand...

What theories do you have? The ONLY one I have ever seen other than "the bible is 100% true (and no other exploitation given)" was Hovind's and he might as well have done it in crayon. I mean a huge thick layer of ice above the atmosphere? Really? If you guys really had anything at all you would be getting published in peer reviewed journals.

Creationist are trying to make an end run around the scientific process and introduce the idea of "magic" into the classroom.

Click to expand...

Some are. And you're right, some use the back-ended approach. I also know teachers who are upset by the textbooks and standards they are expected to use - this opinion about scientific approach comes from them.

Plenty of scientists recognize the possibility of intelligent design. Read the contemporary works of physicists. The intricacies of the systems we live within are so complex, that the odds are very low for them coming together so perfectly. The estimated number of years it would take to develop human physiology would be beyond comprehension.

You seem to be lumping me together with people who are not interested in science at all. I have plenty of science and academic background, and understand the peer review process. I have friends who publish papers in biochemistry, physics, and related fields who believe in intelligent design, and even creationism. They did not happen to write papers in these areas, but they do not scoff at the idea.

Remember that academics who write in journals are sometimes doing so to keep their jobs. Publish or perish. A department has a finger on what their faculty publish, even though they don't come out and say it. Research is commonly based on funding -- a corporation wants a product developed, a new process for doing things, or data to support what they are doing. The academics sometimes follow the needs.

If there were corporations and government departments that needed creation data, then maybe there would be more research. But it would take such a large-scale research project to find conclusive evidence, no amount of funding would be sufficient, no number of years could give closure. Instead, scientists piece together data they have found in various fields, to give informal observations on the possibility of ID.

It reminds me of the SETI project. Imagine all the money and time that went to hire people to sit and stare at computer screens. The likelihood of life out in the universe seems high, but how long will it take to compile sufficient data on findings? Lives of scientists are set aside to these long-term projects, when they could be finding cures for cancer and AIDS/HIV.

The world is driven by need. There is no dire need to find out how the world was formed.

Matthewj1985 said:

Then why not write a paper since you have a science background. Also how can some "macroevolution" (a term only used by creationist) be true but some isn't? Maybe you mean the stuff we see in the labs today actually evolving into new species really happens but the other doesn't?

Click to expand...

I don't think even the most convinced evolutionist would claim to have seen a new species evolving in a lab

I am a creationist, and a scientist. I believe that God created the earth and everything in it. I don't know how... and I don't need to. Science is the investigation of how things work, not why.
I am not convinced totally by the theory of evolution... nor do I believe that the world is only 6000 years old. But if either of those things were to be conclusively proved tomorrow, it would make no difference to my faith.

FutureAndAHope said:

I disagree with this statment, a few years ago I spent a lot of energy studying creationist young earth theories and they are quite sound.

The only thing that I can see that is a problem is many people say well if the geneologies only go back around 6000 years then the whole of creation must be 6000 years old. God is a creative genious; I have had it suggested to me by a person that God is still creating (else where), and I would say was creating before 6000 years ago. So the known universe could be well over 6000 years old, even if earth is only 6000 years old.

As for Christians and creationism Jesus quoted Adam and Eve in the NT, so he obviously believed there were two distinct created beings in the beginning. So should we. We can not believe in the evolution of adam and eve. God created. This should not be a hard concept to grasp. If God through the spoken words of Jesus could heal the sick and raise the dead, then his technologies are far superiour to ours, and his resources infinitely powerful, we can't with our current knowledge heal cancer, nor raise the dead. God can create worlds by his own power, and populate them at his will. Eye has not seen nor has hear heard what God has in store for those who love him.

Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, it is possible the known universe is a patch-work of ages? The earth at 6,000 years old and other parts of the known universe possibly billions of years old?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

salida said:

Yes, I'm a creationist indeed with a science background. Some macroevolution is true and all microevolution but darwinism evolution is I believe a falsehood.

Click to expand...

And your explanation of the million and one facts explained by Darwin's theory would be ...?