Creationism: How Is It Accurate?

[ConfusedCartman]

I am a non-denominational Christian and I don't understand the ass-backwards thinking of creationism. It takes modern science(which can be proven) and twists it to match what the Bible(which, for all we know, is inaccurate) "tells" you. I want to know how 6,000 years can account for all of the extinct species discovered, how skeletons of Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens do nothing to prove that we were once different. How is it impossible that God made the earth, but creatures changed to fit the earth over time?

One prime example of this is the peppered moths event. This happened recently enough that it is a viable example of species changing to match their environment. Originally the peppered moths were white to enable them to camouflage against the trees they rested on. During the industrial revolution, those white trees were eventually covered in soot, revealing the moths and allowing predators to eat them more easily. It was only the mutated form of the peppered moth, the one that was both white and black, that survived because that enabled it to hide amongst the soot.

In your theory, did that just not happen or did God, in his will to save the moths, reach his hand down and change them to save them from extinction? I really am curious as to how this whole theory is rock-solid and believable.

Don't use faith as an excuse, either. In the times when the Catholic church pretty much ruled over Europe, they preached that "faith"(or blindly following) needed to be strong, and you can't let others, who are driven by the devil, sway you from your beliefs. In all actuality, that was just the Catholic Church's sad attempt at maintaining their regime over Europe by convincing their followers to not ask questions about what they believe. My opinion is that you HAVE to ask questions about your beliefs and what others tell you. Simply believing is the worst thing anyone can do, because it doesn't encourage human advancement and it keeps people in the dark about what is going on around them.

Speaking of in the dark, look at what 2 minutes of searching around your forums found me:

Cross species mutation or evolution is rediculous and there will never be proof of it. Man from monkey.
Bah.

That kind of ignorance is what irritates me. The majority of creationists take an involved and complicated theory, dumb it down to "Man from Monkey" and then dismiss it. I really am curious about what makes people so irritatingly stubborn about Creationism, especially when it has no proof behind it.

 

[Mallon]

You may want to post this question in the Origins Theology forum, ConfusedCartman. Challenging anti-evolutionary creationism isn't allowed here.

 

[Melethiel]

Moved to main board.

 

[shernren]

Well, if you can't agree with them, at least take time to observe, study, and listen to them. You can learn plenty of fascinating things. You sound passionate about the origins debate, and so am I - but have you ever been involved in it in a pastoral sense? Have you ever had to counsel people who wonder about their faith because they're starting to cave in to the data which shows that humans evolved from apes and the universe looks far too old for 6,000 years?

Because a straight-out "why are you being an ignorant idiot? Don't hide behind your faith!" will do absolutely nothing good for a Christian or a seeker in that state. For all the damage creationism does, it brings people to Christ - and that means that in your own lifetime, it is likely that you will sooner or later come across at least one person, if not more, who has been brought to Christ by creationism and is now being confronted by the intellectual bankruptcy of the very thing that converted him. You may be able to pronounce him wrong; can you lead him to the truth that sets him free, and can you do it in such a way that he will not mind following? I have seen this time and time again before in my own churches, Christian fellowships, bible study groups, and generally in the minute portion of Christ's flock which I have the immense privilege of being in contact with one way or another. You can call them idiots - but can you lead them to Christ when they come to think that their crutch that is creationism seems a little wobbly?

Seek to understand them, before you press on to make sure they understand you: Empathise with them. Listen to them. Above all, love them, as you love yourself, as you love all who are called under the same one Spirit to the same one Body which we all constitute by grace through faith. And learn to ask questions to which creationists can actually give reasoned answers that expose what and why they believe. "Why are you people being such blockheads?" doesn't quite work for that purpose. (At least, not most of the time.)

As a bit of self-promotion, one of my favorite threads (being, of course, one that I started myself) is about this: The scientific myth of creationism: http://foru.ms/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html

 

[Smidlee]

That kind of ignorance is what irritates me. The majority of creationists take an involved and complicated theory, dumb it down to "Man from Monkey" and then dismiss it.

That irritates me too... nah, it doesn't. It's not "Man from Monkey " but "Man and monkey from a mythical creature which no one has ever seen and like Big Foot probably never existed except in the mind of man. This mythical creature had two offspring ; one went to Harvard and the other went ape.

 

[Paul365]

Shemren said: Have you ever had to counsel people who wonder about their faith because they're starting to cave in to the data which shows that humans evolved from apes and the universe looks far too old for 6,000 years?

Because a straight-out "why are you being an ignorant idiot? Don't hide behind your faith!" will do absolutely nothing good for a Christian or a seeker in that state. For all the damage creationism does, it brings people to Christ...

I am not sure about this. Yes, creationism brings some people to Christ, but it drives away many others who accept the mainstream scientific world view. If you reduce it to a battle between science and faith, you could force them to choose science and abandon faith.

 

[gluadys]

Shemren said:

Have you ever had to counsel people who wonder about their faith because they're starting to cave in to the data which shows that humans evolved from apes and the universe looks far too old for 6,000 years?

Because a straight-out "why are you being an ignorant idiot? Don't hide behind your faith!" will do absolutely nothing good for a Christian or a seeker in that state. For all the damage creationism does, it brings people to Christ

...

I am not sure about this. Yes, creationism brings some people to Christ, but it drives away many others who accept the mainstream scientific world view. If you reduce it to a battle between science and faith, you could force them to choose science and abandon faith.

I think it would be more accurate to say that creationists bring people to Christ. But when those who bring you to Christ are creationists, creationism seems to be part of the package. And that is where the problem lies, because then it does become a battle between science and faith. A battle that faith often loses as the evidence mounts up in favour of evolution.

 

[shernren]

I agree with both Paul and gluadys. The "battle" between science and faith, if there really even is one, is not what drives people away from Christianity: it is the battle between scientism and a conciliatory approach to the world.

 

[juvenissun]

I think it would be more accurate to say that creationists bring people to Christ. But when those who bring you to Christ are creationists, creationism seems to be part of the package.

Not really.
For example, in my church, 90%+ congregation are anti-evolution. However, they do not talk about creation-evolution in most of the conversations. Only when someone opened the box, then you start to hear some creation advocation.

 

[gluadys]

Not really.
For example, in my church, 90%+ congregation are anti-evolution. However, they do not talk about creation-evolution in most of the conversations. Only when someone opened the box, then you start to hear some creation advocation.

That is basically what I mean. People brought to Christ by members of your congregation were not likely brought in by creationism, because that is not much talked about.

So it was creationists, not creationism, that won them over to Christ.

But when, as you say, the box is opened, then creationism seems to be part of the faith.

 

[juvenissun]

That is basically what I mean. People brought to Christ by members of your congregation were not likely brought in by creationism, because that is not much talked about.

So it was creationists, not creationism, that won them over to Christ.

But when, as you say, the box is opened, then creationism seems to be part of the faith.

Of course. They do not like evolution, and there is no other alternatives. So they accept creationism. At least it gives glory to God, not to a few smart apes.

Creationism is not scientific at its core, but it gives a much better attitude in scientific work than that by evolution.

 

[Tinker Grey]

At least it gives glory to God, not to a few smart apes.

It's rather disturbing that no matter how many time you are told that you are discussing (for the most part) this topic with Christians, that no matter how times you are told that we worship God, the creator ... you spew this coprolite.

The fact that you cannot figure out how Evolutionary Creationists can accept evolution and love God simultaneously says more about you than it does about the subject.

Creationism is not scientific at its core, but it gives a much better attitude in scientific work than that by evolution.

Hogwash. Theism is what gives the proper attitude, not creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

It's rather disturbing that no matter how many time you are told that you are discussing (for the most part) this topic with Christians, that no matter how times you are told that we worship God, the creator ... you spew this coprolite.

The fact that you cannot figure out how Evolutionary Creationists can accept evolution and love God simultaneously says more about you than it does about the subject.



Hogwash. Theism is what gives the proper attitude, not creationism.

I may have less problem with TE, but not the congregation in my church. They think TE is phony, or even a cult.

Be frankly, whenever I am involved in the situation, I usually defend TE for the sake of T and their ignorance of E.

Sorry, I am just saying a statistics as I know it.

 

[gluadys]

I may have less problem with TE, but not the congregation in my church. They think TE is phony, or even a cult.

Be frankly, whenever I am involved in the situation, I usually defend TE for the sake of T and their ignorance of E.

The real question is whether you seek ways of lessening their ignorance of evolution. Do you help them identify false beliefs about evolution e.g. that "evolution is a deduction from naturalism" (Sarfati) or that "evolution glorifies smart apes" (juvenissun).

 

[The Lady Kate]

Of course. They do not like evolution, and there is no other alternatives. So they accept creationism. At least it gives glory to God, not to a few smart apes.

Is glory more important than truth?

Creationism is not scientific at its core, but it gives a much better attitude in scientific work than that by evolution.

Would you consider "attitude" to be more important than evidence?