Creationism - good or bad?

[Paul365]

This is not about if Creationism is right or wrong, but if it's good or bad for society and Christianity.

Creationism, especially YEC, teaches a world view that is in contradiction with mainstream science in order to fit to the Creationist's interpretation of the Bible. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you need to admit that it could have some positive effects:

Positive:

- It might lead people to Christianity who otherwise reject religion because they think it contradicts the laws of nature.
- In describing alternative world views, it promotes an open mind and reminds to always question even well established scientific theories.
- Creationist attempts to let their world view look as 'scientific' as possible, such as the Creation museum, can rise an overall interest in science.

Negative:

- It might scare people away from Christianity because it gives the impression that Christianity is for the uneducated who don't know much about modern science.
- It establishes the supernatural in the world view and thus promotes superstition.
- Homeschooling children in a sole Creationist world view leaves them uneducated in important fields of biology, geology and astronomy.

What do you think?

 

[metherion]

Being both honest and blunt, I think it's bad.

Here are my reasons.

#1. It can retard progress very heavily.

Think about it. What is based on evolutionary biology, at least to a degree? Vaccine development. Genome mapping and comparison. Breeding. Taxonomy. Take such a rigid stance that evolution is wrong and a lot of very beneficial stuff goes out the window.

#2. It borders dangerously close of biblio-idolatry.

Think about it. We have two revelations from God. The universe He made and the book He inspired. We need to use both together. The universe teaches us about science and how it works, while the book teaches us about God Himself and morality and spirituality and whatnot. Trying to bend either one to cover both is folly. And saying that "it couldn't possibly have happened that way because the literal Bible says X" (whatever 'it' happens to be) is putting the Bible above the omnipotent God. It's putting a man-written book above God. THAT is specifically against the first Commandment. Even more than that, it is putting one specific interpretation of a man-written book about God above God Himself, while the universe God created that bears witness to Him according to the Bible says something else.

#3. It uses detestable methods.

Seriously. We're not supposed to bear false witness against our neighbor, and even our bitter, hated enemies are our neighbors. And even assuming that evolution is a bitter and hated enemy (which it isn't), Creationism is still bearing false witness. Groups and individuals like Kent Hovind, AiG, and the Discovery Institute are pumping out so much false information most people who oppose evolution don't even know what they are opposing, which is obvious from some of the posts here, in Crevo down in the open to all section, from other forums, from real life, from Chick Tracts, et cetera. Evolution is now the big enemy, which is solely responsible for everything wrong with the world, which contains everything that could possibly be in any way opposed to what a good, Bible-believing Christian should be (and good, Bible-believing Christians are of course only those who subscribe to the literal view above.) That's not much of an exaggeration, if it is one at all. Here I thought we were supposed to spread an example by showing truth and love, not disinformation, lies, hate, and other vile things.

#4. It's bad theology.

While not all Creationists subscribe to this idea, quite a few do. That idea is that if the Bible is not literally true, then God doesn't exist. This does back up to #2, putting the Bible ahead of God. God can use any device He sees fit. And being all-knowing, He could have chosen a device that would have the same words mean different things to different people in different times and still get the same message across to all of them. The Bible doesn't need to be literal to have God exist. Heck, God existed before the Bible was fully compiled, much less written. God does not depend on the Bible.
That leads into another point. God is not confined by the literal words of the Bible. Creationism seems to push Him into that tiny box. He could only have done what the literal words says and nothing else. Which is extremely untrue. God is God. God is not the Bible.
It also pits God's two revelations against each other. That is bad theology, aside from also being part of points 1 and 2.

#5. It defies a lot of common sense and needs a lot of outlandish claims besides the miracles detailed in the pages of the Bible.

1. It needs all scientists in the relevant areas of: biology, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, cultural anthropology, and several more to be wrong. Not just a little wrong, completely wrong. ALL of them.

2. It needs a huge number of miracles NOT in the Bible to work in the least.

3. All cultures have creation myths. Just because we believe one of the had the right God, everything they said MUST be 100% literally true? That's a little outlandish.

I could go on, but it's 5:30 when I'm writing this part (a.m.) and I don't want to strain my internal editor.

#6. It promotes bad thinking.

The Bible is not either all literally true or completely false.
If everything creationists have labeled as 'evolution' (which is waaaaaayyyyyyy more than just biological evolution) is wrong, Creationism is NOT automatically right. That, however, seems to be the belief.

#7. It drives people away from Christianity

I know several people personally, shenren, and a handful of folks down in crevo who used to be Creationists. A lot of the ones if Crevo and real life are now not even Christian anymore. After dealing with the previous 6 points, if it is found out that they are wrong, the effect on people's faith can be disastrous and drive them away. Since a lot of Creationism today is based around lies and false ideas, that means a lot of people are going to be in for a rude surprise.

#8. It is hypocritical.

Sure the Bible is literally true, just not the parts about a flat earth.
Sure the Bible is literally true, except for the stuff about a solid firmament.
Sure, science is evil and atheistic and gonna bring us all down, but Creationists'll enjoy its benefits right until they die.
Sure, God commanded truthfulness, but it's okay to lie about evolution.
Sure, Jesus preached understand, but it's fine to rail against and insult people for a stance most Creationists don't know anything about.

That is why I think Creationism is bad for Christianity and for Creationists. It's bad theology with a bad mindset, bad methods, erroneous goals, and lots of problems.

While it IS good that it gets people to question established science, the methods it uses, the conclusions it draws, the way it does about it, and its own attempt to dress itself up as science are misleading enough to offset any benefit that might derive from the questioning. Especially since almost all the 'questions' have been answered but are touted as having NOT been answered.

Metherion

Edit: And yes. I know I'm probably going to get blasted about most of these. But I just got done with finals, I'm finally home, and I've got 2 and 1/2 weeks to bicker about this before I gotta go back (assuming I don't pick up WoW.) So, I'm prepared. And I am not specifically referring to anyone in particular on this forum with any particular point except for the one line about shenren. This is an 'in general' posts.

 

[busterdog]

This is not about if Creationism is right or wrong, but if it's good or bad for society and Christianity.

Creationism, especially YEC, teaches a world view that is in contradiction with mainstream science in order to fit to the Creationist's interpretation of the Bible. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you need to admit that it could have some positive effects:

Positive:

- It might lead people to Christianity who otherwise reject religion because they think it contradicts the laws of nature.
- In describing alternative world views, it promotes an open mind and reminds to always question even well established scientific theories.
- Creationist attempts to let their world view look as 'scientific' as possible, such as the Creation museum, can rise an overall interest in science.

Negative:

- It might scare people away from Christianity because it gives the impression that Christianity is for the uneducated who don't know much about modern science.
- It establishes the supernatural in the world view and thus promotes superstition.
- Homeschooling children in a sole Creationist world view leaves them uneducated in important fields of biology, geology and astronomy.

What do you think?

People who want to be "scared" are not really listening in any event. Its like saying the Catholic Church is too "unloving" toward gay people. Yet, the RCC is undisputedly the largest care provider for AIDS patients in NYC at least -- ie, the Church makes people feel bad about their lifestyle, yet they are the ones cleaning the vomit, feces, bed clothes, sores, etc., etc. The latter is love for gay people indeed. Deep love. Yet, they are "scared" of the Catholic Church -- a people they hardly know, until they are desperately sick. So, I think the "fear" that creationism inspires is equally facile.

Supernatural? Well, let's first determine how much the supernatural accounts for what we see. Maybe its a whole lot. Prove me wrong. Then we'll talk.

Homeschooling. I know ALOT of homeschoolers. I don't know any who are not above average in their science knowledge and skills. Most are FAR above average.

 

[Paul365]

People who want to be "scared" are not really listening in any event. Its like saying the Catholic Church is too "unloving" toward gay people. Yet, the RCC is undisputedly the largest care provider for AIDS patients in NYC at least -- ie, the Church makes people feel bad about their lifestyle, yet they are the ones cleaning the vomit, feces, bed clothes, sores, etc., etc. The latter is love for gay people indeed. Deep love. Yet, they are "scared" of the Catholic Church -- a people they hardly know, until they are desperately sick. So, I think the "fear" that creationism inspires is equally facile.

I am not sure what Creationism has to to with the Catholic Church and homosexuality, but maybe it's my wrong wording - I think "drive away" would be better than "scare away".

Supernatural? Well, let's first determine how much the supernatural accounts for what we see. Maybe its a whole lot. Prove me wrong. Then we'll talk.

I was referring to the fact that Creationism requires explaining many scientific observations with supernatural rather than natural causes. For instance, the Distant Starlight Problem requires supernatural explanations, such as a supernatural acceleration of light, or a supernatural creation of images of non-existing stars or supernovae.

 

[metherion]

I woke up this afternoon and I thought up another reason that I think Creationism is bad. Emphasis added to show that this is just my opinion.

#9. It requires a lot of ad hoc-ery.

Why wasn't incest bad early on?
Where did Cain's wife come from?
Which version of varies stories is correct?
Responses to things like Distant Starlight and Radioactive Dating?
The whole idea of 'kinds'?

The list could go on for a while, and requires a LOT of mental gymnastics. The energy could be much better spent showing the Light of Christ to people than figuring out how to defend doctrine with so many problems.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

I am not sure what Creationism has to to with the Catholic Church and homosexuality, but maybe it's my wrong wording - I think "drive away" would be better than "scare away".

I am confused. Wasn't it clear that this was a simile?

I was referring to the fact that Creationism requires explaining many scientific observations with supernatural rather than natural causes. For instance, the Distant Starlight Problem requires supernatural explanations, such as a supernatural acceleration of light, or a supernatural creation of images of non-existing stars or supernovae.

Are you going to answer question? Are we proving that supernatural activity does not explain most of what there is? (Eg, is there a sentient force of evil that frustrates man, is there war between the angels, can't some sickness be explained demonically, weren't people like Hitler controlled by an evil force, etc., etc.)

 

[gluadys]

Are you going to answer question? Are we proving that supernatural activity does not explain most of what there is? (Eg, is there a sentient force of evil that frustrates man, is there war between the angels, can't some sickness be explained demonically, weren't people like Hitler controlled by an evil force, etc., etc.)

Possibly. But with the possible exception of sickness (and I note you say only "some" sickness), none of these have scientific repercussions. Distant starlight does. Why invoke supernatural causes instead of natural causes simply to get around the scientific implications of the natural causes?

 

[busterdog]

Possibly. But with the possible exception of sickness (and I note you say only "some" sickness), none of these have scientific repercussions. Distant starlight does. Why invoke supernatural causes instead of natural causes simply to get around the scientific implications of the natural causes?

Well, lets get back to the OP.

Is being superstitious a problem? That is the question, not whether our physics is off.

Hitler was irrationally and demonstrably moved by a force described Biblically: antisemitism. How about Stalin? Atheist. Mao? How about all the human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico? Overtly satanic. Did "Christians" kill the Indian and Africans in the slave trade? Non sequitor. Demonstrably supernatural forces have enormous impact on human history.

The simple question is whether emphasizing the supernatural is a problem in and of itself. I ask whether it is under-emphasized.

Must one respond to the OP with creationist science that supports supernatural forces in creation? Obviously framing the question determines your conclusion, or your worldview.

If supernatural forces are capable of accounting for the murder of hundreds of millions and changing history so radically, do you think it fair to presume that you have a clear picture of where it operates and where it does not?

 

[Paul365]

#9. It requires a lot of ad hoc-ery.

Why wasn't incest bad early on?
Where did Cain's wife come from?
Which version of varies stories is correct?
Responses to things like Distant Starlight and Radioactive Dating?
The whole idea of 'kinds'?

That would be a reason why Creationism is wrong, but not necessarily why it is bad.

Is being superstitious a problem? That is the question, not whether our physics is off.

Hitler was irrationally and demonstrably moved by a force described Biblically: antisemitism. How about Stalin? Atheist. Mao? How about all the human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico? Overtly satanic. Did "Christians" kill the Indian and Africans in the slave trade? Non sequitor. Demonstrably supernatural forces have enormous impact on human history.

The simple question is whether emphasizing the supernatural is a problem in and of itself. I ask whether it is under-emphasized.

Must one respond to the OP with creationist science that supports supernatural forces in creation? Obviously framing the question determines your conclusion, or your worldview.

If supernatural forces are capable of accounting for the murder of hundreds of millions and changing history so radically, do you think it fair to presume that you have a clear picture of where it operates and where it does not?

This is an interesting question. However, if there are evil forces then they are obviously using superstition as their tool. So I would answer the question whether superstition is bad with "yes".

Hitler, Stalin and the Aztecs killed for superstitious and irrational reasons. Hitler believed in the "Vorsehung", Stalin believed in enemies and spies all around him and the Aztecs believed in supernatural rewards for sacrificing people.

Thus superstition is not the solution but a big part of the problem. Rejecting any form of superstition could held the evil forces in our minds at bay. Religious fanatism or belief in the supernatural helps the evil.

 

[artybloke]

- It might lead people to Christianity who otherwise reject religion because they think it contradicts the laws of nature.

Creationism is more likely to do the opposite of this: they will reject religion when they find out that the facts of the world that God created do not fit with the false scientistic/literalistic interpretation of scripture that creationists peddle.

The fact that the Bible's creation narratives were never intended to be a scientific account of creation; but are in fact a mytho-poetic exploration of the meaning of Creation, is far less injurious to faith. It means that I don't have to pretend, or lie to myself, that the world is different from what is in fact the case.

 

[metherion]

That would be a reason why Creationism is wrong, but not necessarily why it is bad.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The reason I thought that was bad is the next line down.

I'd be willing to lay down money that if all the energy AiG and the DI had been funneled into missionary work or other ways of spreading the Good News we'd have much more of the globe converted by now. Instead, so much money, time, and effort is poured into an idea that uses vile tactics and has a bad foundation (the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, mostly) at its base.

THAT is why I think all the ad hoc-ery is bad. Because it takes time and effort away from what Christianity truly should be and funnels it into venom machines.

Metherion

 

[crawfish]

I said it in another thread, and I'll reiterate it here: Creationism as a theology is a device used by Satan to cast doubt . It is a brilliant tool because it divides the Christian faith on false lines.

While the vast majority of Creationists are good Christians with the best of intentions, The big lie right now is that there is a battle between Creationism and evolution; that battle is as decided as the war between heaven and hell. The winner, as always, is the truth: evolution has got it right. There is no doubt that Creationism will eventually die; the only question is, how much damage will it be allowed to do to the faith before it does?

 

[busterdog]

That would be a reason why Creationism is wrong, but not necessarily why it is bad.



This is an interesting question. However, if there are evil forces then they are obviously using superstition as their tool. So I would answer the question whether superstition is bad with "yes".

Hitler, Stalin and the Aztecs killed for superstitious and irrational reasons. Hitler believed in the "Vorsehung", Stalin believed in enemies and spies all around him and the Aztecs believed in supernatural rewards for sacrificing people.

Thus superstition is not the solution but a big part of the problem. Rejecting any form of superstition could held the evil forces in our minds at bay. Religious fanatism or belief in the supernatural helps the evil.

You do realize that being bad and invoking supersitious practices does not disprove that the supernatural forces exist?

Can we focus for a minute on whether the supernatural exists or doesn't?

Are supernatural forces having a big impact on human life?

I think you are avoiding the issue with the "vorsehung." Lets be clear. Antisemitism is clearly associated with supernatural forces. Witness the intervention of Michael the archangel.

Can you prove that Hitler was not assisted by a malevolent "god" through the Vorsehung? After all, Jesus said Satan was the "god of this world." As Jesus said, not all those who cry "Lord, Lord" were those whom he ever even knew.

Let me anticipate how how some "disprove" something. Either 1. Jews are irrationally motivated by zionism or national pride, leading to nationalistic verses like Daniel 10, or 2. someone somewhere has invoked angels to no avail for for a bad purpose. This is not proof. You must prove the negative: "We are not influenced hugely by supernatural forces." Please proceed. You are scientists. Prove it scientifically. Your sample is European history, to start with.



Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

 

[busterdog]

I said it in another thread, and I'll reiterate it here: Creationism as a theology is a device used by Satan to cast doubt . It is a brilliant tool because it divides the Christian faith on false lines.

While the vast majority of Creationists are good Christians with the best of intentions, The big lie right now is that there is a battle between Creationism and evolution; that battle is as decided as the war between heaven and hell. The winner, as always, is the truth: evolution has got it right. There is no doubt that Creationism will eventually die; the only question is, how much damage will it be allowed to do to the faith before it does?

Evolution as the "origin o species" is evil. I have said that before too.

 

[crawfish]

Evolution as the "origin o species" is evil. I have said that before too.

God's truth cannot be evil.

Common ancestry is all but proven. It's predictive ability is impressive; more and more evidence (and thus, fewer holes for Creationists to pick at) is being discovered everyday. Much of the biological sciences are based off the idea; current discoveries in genetics would NOT have happened if not for the guiding hand of Darwinism.

I, and most other TE's, do not deny the existence of the supernatural. What we deny is that God's value is exclusively, or even primarily, seen through the supernatural. In fact, I would argue that the wonder of the natural world is far more evidence of God's glory than His ability to interrupt that world for a miraculous event.

Giving credit to God's supernatural interference for things we do not yet understand is dangerous. What happens when or if we discover a "natural" cause for said phenomenon? Is our faith shaken because we can no longer pin it on God? For the TE, it is inconsequential; the natural belongs to God every bit as much as the supernatural, and shows God's glory every bit as much. They are alternate and equal methods that God uses to accomplish His goals. It boggles my mind that YEC's would never claim such a thing, yet they imply it greatly through their theology.

 

[gluadys]

Well, lets get back to the OP.

Is being superstitious a problem? That is the question, not whether our physics is off.

Hitler was irrationally and demonstrably moved by a force described Biblically: antisemitism. How about Stalin? Atheist. Mao? How about all the human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico? Overtly satanic. Did "Christians" kill the Indian and Africans in the slave trade? Non sequitor. Demonstrably supernatural forces have enormous impact on human history.

If these are examples of superstition, then certainly, superstition is bad.

My problem with the OP is that it links belief in the supernatural with superstition, a point I do not agree with.

The simple question is whether emphasizing the supernatural is a problem in and of itself.

No, I don't think so. Here you and I agree. My question to you had a different base.

If supernatural forces are capable of accounting for the murder of hundreds of millions and changing history so radically, do you think it fair to presume that you have a clear picture of where it operates and where it does not?

Overall? In every case? Of course not. And you should know that no such claim is made.

But in specific cases, where natural causes are clearly sufficient to explain natural phenomena, then why turn to supernatural causes only because you want to avoid the implications of the natural explanation in respect of your beliefs?

You seem to be suggesting that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. I suggest we do know something.

 

[gluadys]

Giving credit to God's supernatural interference for things we do not yet understand is dangerous. What happens when or if we discover a "natural" cause for said phenomenon?

And what of the example being used in this thread? Light from distant stars is not even a phenomenon we do not understand yet. It is perfectly explicable under natural causation.

So the YEcreationist is not only demanding supernatural interference to explain what we do not understand yet, but to disown what we do understand and place that also in the realm of the inexplicable.

I would argue that the wonder of the natural world is far more evidence of God's glory than His ability to interrupt that world for a miraculous event.

Absolutely! The heavens declared the glory of God to the Psalmist who knew only of the visible stars. How much more so to the astronomer who has the breathtaking vision of galaxy after galaxy after galaxy.

What I do not understand about nature puzzles me. What I do understand glorifies God.

 

[busterdog]

If these are examples of superstition, then certainly, superstition is bad.

That doesn't follow at all. Superstition means believing in the supernatural. Obviously there is good and bad.

My problem with the OP is that it links belief in the supernatural with superstition, a point I do not agree with.

The OP argument is that creationism promotes too much use of the supernatural.

Overall? In every case? Of course not. And you should know that no such claim is made.

Exactly. Then the OP cannot use promoting "superstition" or the supernatural as a reason to reject creationism. Because, in theory every thing we see (arguably) has an immediate and supernatural cause -- to a far greater degree than any natural cause we can account for.

But in specific cases, where natural causes are clearly sufficient to explain natural phenomena, then why turn to supernatural causes only because you want to avoid the implications of the natural explanation in respect of your beliefs?

How are they sufficient? How could they be?

Simple question: Why aren't you and I both in hell right now?

Either we reject the idea of hell and show that we are simply have no interested in being biblical at all or we acknowledge that there is no sufficient reason we know of for why we are not in hell. One can say grace. Well, grace is an enormously supernatural force that has an awful lot to do with why things are as they are.

The OP is not confined to a specific field, like physics. Lets just look at what is around us right now. Why isn't it hell?

You seem to be suggesting that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. I suggest we do know something.

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I simply wanted to establish that recognition that mystery is real is a reason to embrace creationism. I am comfortable with the idea of having half the picture, though I suggest it is far less. The idea that we can eliminate mystery is hopeful at best, pretentious at worst and the OP is an example of one or the other.

But, your suggestion is really not a bad idea. If you know half of the reasons why you can draw breath this morning, what do you really know? You can say its because you weren't hit by a bus yesterday, but what does that really tell you? If you can't exclude or account for the supernatural, you don't really know why you are here today.

 

[busterdog]

Giving credit to God's supernatural interference for things we do not yet understand is dangerous.

So? Why does logic make any difference? Your logic is based on what would make the most sense assuming your presuppositions are correct.
Why are we not looking at fact first? Why not first prove that the interference doesn't exist? Why not prove that the tens of millions did not die due to demonic influence upon Nazi Germany?

 

[Paul365]

Are supernatural forces having a big impact on human life?

I think you are avoiding the issue with the "vorsehung." Lets be clear. Antisemitism is clearly associated with supernatural forces. Witness the intervention of Michael the archangel.

Can you prove that Hitler was not assisted by a malevolent "god" through the Vorsehung? After all, Jesus said Satan was the "god of this world." As Jesus said, not all those who cry "Lord, Lord" were those whom he ever even knew.

Let me anticipate how how some "disprove" something. Either 1. Jews are irrationally motivated by zionism or national pride, leading to nationalistic verses like Daniel 10, or 2. someone somewhere has invoked angels to no avail for for a bad purpose. This is not proof. You must prove the negative: "We are not influenced hugely by supernatural forces." Please proceed. You are scientists. Prove it scientifically. Your sample is European history, to start with.

Just to be sure what "proof" you need: Can you tell me how you would know the difference between an evil Hitler, and a not-evil Hitler controlled by an evil supernatural force?