Creationists critiquing creationism

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

So, just because I'm a creationist, doesn't mean I think every youtube video that pastes on the label "creationist" is correct. So, I'm curious. Are there other creationists out there who think the creationist community, in general, is seriously lacking in critical thinking about the messages they deliver?

YECs are locked into the scenario where the entire bible is infallible, so the earth must be 6000 years old - seems to go against science.

 

[Resha Caner]

YECs are locked into the scenario where the entire bible is infallible, so the earth must be 6000 years old - seems to go against science.

6000 years is not something the Bible explicitly states, but is rather a number extracted based upon assumptions that fail a simple reading of the text and don't use any hermeneutic that can be taken seriously. (That statement won't raise any hackles.)

On the flip side, I've not yet seen a geological method that didn't make me at least a little uncomfortable. (Strike 2)

So, in the end, I don't see any point in locking into a specific age. I don't see the theological point. I don't see the scientific point. I remain a timeless creationist. (Strike 3. I guess I'm out.)

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

So, in the end, I don't see any point in locking into a specific age. I don't see the theological point. I don't see the scientific point. I remain a timeless creationist. (Strike 3. I guess I'm out.)

Uniformitarianism is wrong as well - it is obviously wrong, thought up by Charles Lyell. Most old-earthers go along with it without any thought.

 

[Jamsie]

Yes, I'd think you definitely have that ability, more so than many. And even though I know you and I have some (minor?) differences in how we view God's handiwork in connection with the Genesis account, I wouldn't say that you're any less of a critical thinker than I am. Just different. And I respect that.

I believe that one can vigorously defend their particular point of view or interpretation whilst still approaching the subject with humility. Perhaps it is often the case of not seeing the trees because of the forest... and too “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” H. Ellison

 

[NobleMouse]

So, just because I'm a creationist, doesn't mean I think every youtube video that pastes on the label "creationist" is correct. So, I'm curious. Are there other creationists out there who think the creationist community, in general, is seriously lacking in critical thinking about the messages they deliver?

I would agree - like the secular community there are almost as many variations as there are people... I think there is some consensus in general around major themes within more scholarly sources, but there will always be those who stop short in applying critical thought and broadcast their ideas out there.

I kind of say that last part on critical thought a little bit tongue in cheek in that I have no doubt in my mind that the little old lady/gentleman (or the young child) - smiling away in church - who just simply believes the things of the Bible, is more blessed.

There are some very well-credentialed and experienced individuals who are also creationists, but it can sometimes take a little more effort to find them. I don't see the secular community as having an advantage over the creationist community in terms of the ability to apply critical thinking, but where the secular community does have an obvious leg-up is the volume of research that has been done...

It's kind of a double-edged sword though - everyone seems to turn to scientific conclusions and assumptions as the backbone for their support... as if to immediately concede that the Bible (for unknown reasons) is inadequate as proof? However, as has become apparent to me in my experience here is that purely scientific explanations do not often arrive at the same truth we're told in scripture. Is there a scientific explanation for walking on water, or splitting 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish to feed 5,000 men (not counting women/children), or restoring sight to the blind and raising the dead to life? Yet all of these things happened.

So far God has been right about everything, so I'll just continue to err then that what He has said about things I haven't seen and things I have yet to see will also be true. God bless you for your faith!

 

[Resha Caner]

I have no doubt in my mind that the little old lady/gentleman (or the young child) - smiling away in church - who just simply believes the things of the Bible, is more blessed.

True. Overthinking can be just as much a problem.

I don't see the secular community as having an advantage over the creationist community in terms of the ability to apply critical thinking, but where the secular community does have an obvious leg-up is the volume of research that has been done...

You're probably right about this as well.

 

[Piet Strydom]

I am a creationist.
I know there are creationist websites and you-tube channels that are excellent and others that are not so well in their scientific claims.
The reason for this is that:
1.most Christians do not enter into the science world. Even I am a fool in science, but a master in investigating what is claimed. Many scientists are only there to receive grants, and come up with some real silly claims to keep their funding going for as long as they need. Others are brilliant and contribute to make the world a safer, healthier, and prosperous place. But, Christians are few in comparison and are normally not only pushed out of Universities and governments, but even victimized whenever it is learned that they are religious, or even believing in a creator. This leaves the scientific community free for what I call "Atheist Science" who do not practice science, but also tries their best to destroy any notion of creation.
From the small group of scientists that do believe in creation, they do their utmost best to get anything published, and if they personally publish their works, the whole "atheist scientific community" simply does their best to discredit them.
2. This leaves Christianity with a predicament. They do not have any right to claim anything contrary to what "Atheist science produces". why? Because they do not have the support, authority, and majority as does the "peer pressuring atheist scientists" have.

However, the nice thing about the above situation is that any "Atheist Scientist" working in his field has a serious problem with his explanation on the origins of everything. Just grasp this fact.
Out of all the religious Books on Earth, only the Bible gives a description of a Creator that created everything from nothing, whilst this Creator is not bounded by time, space and matter. He did not form from a snake in an ocean out of a lotus flower, or from smoke, or chaos, but was the creator of matter, time and space.
Science will have to destroy Time, Matter and Space to render the God of the Old Testament false.
This is impossible.
The Bible say there was a point where there was no Time, no Space, and no Matter.
Science sit with Time, Space and Matter, and they need to explain how it came into existence!
If they can not, the Bible is correct in claiming a Creator.

The closest they came to disprove these 3 creations was with Einstein and Time dilution. Well, it still proves that Time can not be changed.
Matter? Well all science can do is to look at what the smallest components of the Atom is comprised off. But creating an atom, this is simply impossible.
Space, can it be created or destroyed?
Well on paper with mathematical calculations some scientists such as Linde and Sakai tries to sell the idea that they can create a universe IF THEY HAVE COSMIC STRINGS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND BECAUSE OUR UNIVERSE STARTED OFF WITH ONLY ONE, AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE THAT ONE IS TO BE FOUND...
NB.
So, dont think Creationism is found as a science with little to explain. Our "Atheist Scientist" have much more problems than simply denying to the creation by a Creator. They have their hands full with Christian scientists explaining our origins much more scientific to the normal God believing Christian.
I would say that our Atheist scientists realize they have very little to offer to counter creationism, and to them it is thousands of times more frustrating listening to their own colleagues' thesis's they can not believe in themself!

Greetings from South Africa

 

[Piet Strydom]

If I may add, which I am doing anyhow.
The Bible describes a Universe and Solar system that can be billions of years old. Neve does it sday it is only 6 000 years old.
Life since Adam is 6 000 years in existance.
Animal life is one day older, and plantlife 2 days older.
The real war against the Bible versus the Atheist is not the age of far distant light travelling 13 billion years, or the radioisotope dating of inorganic matter, no, the real evidence for the truth of the Bible is in the Geological colomn and C14 testing.
Prove evolution wrong, and the Bible is true.
And that's easy!

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure. I call myself a timeless creationist as I am neither YEC nor OEC, yet a creationist still.

What do you think of Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept?

It seems to avoid many of the evidential and theological problems with most creationist doctrines.

 

[Piet Strydom]

What do you think of Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept?

It seems to avoid many of the evidential and theological problems with most creationist doctrines.

Hey!
Thanks for this info.
I did not even know of Aardsma.
very interesting indeed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Prove evolution wrong, and the Bible is true.

Since evolution is directly observed today, that would be really bad for the Bible. Fortunately that is not the case. If evolution is true, some modern revisions of the Bible are not viable.

But that's an entirely different thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

But, Christians are few in comparison and are normally not only pushed out of Universities and governments, but even victimized whenever it is learned that they are religious, or even believing in a creator.

I got my bachelor's degree at a large Midwestern university. The head of the zoology department was a devout Christian who was on the vestry board of his local church. (I took my first course in evolution from him) At the same university, I took my first course in immunology from a tenured professor who was a professed creationist. When I taught, no one minded that I was a practicing Roman Catholic. At least no one treated me any different.

So I'm skeptical of such claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

True. Overthinking can be just as much a problem.

Which is the source of YE creationism. Since the Bible takes no position on the age of the Earth, the phenomenon of evolution, whether the sun orbits the earth, or the globe/flat disk of the Earth, none of these should have any concern at all for Christianity.

They all have practical issues for science and engineering, but they aren't in any way religious issues.

At least not for Christians, they aren't.

Augustine's Razor: "Don't add new doctrines unnecessarily."

St. Francis' Axiom: KISC (Keep it simple, Christians)

 

[Piet Strydom]

I got my bachelor's degree at a large Midwestern university. The head of the zoology department was a devout Christian who was on the vestry board of his local church. (I took my first course in evolution from him) At the same university, I took my first course in immunology from a tenured professor who was a professed creationist. When I taught, no one minded that I was a practicing Roman Catholic. At least no one treated me any different.

So I'm skeptical of such claims.

Ever watched "Expelled"?
or saw stuff like this.
Exposed: Christian Students Rejected, Failed, and Expelled for their Faith by State Colleges and Universities | American Center for Law and Justice
I know it is old stuff now, but I remember another sensus where it showed that out of 9 000 professosr in the US, only about 200 were not socialists and this is the reason why any Christian or Christian knowledge is pushed out of existance.
I think you were educated by the 200 non leftist lecturers.
Anyhow, I like anyone that questions sceptically any claims made, with the use on the grounds of their own experience and other facts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ever watched "Expelled"?

I've spent a lifetime in biology. So some actor making up stories doesn't affect my experience very much.

I think you were educated by the 200 non leftist lecturers.

My advisor was a Nixon republican. I can remember when signed up for classes, and I opted to give one dollar to Earth day, he smiled and said "I don't know why you'd want to do that." He was a pretty good guy, anyway.

On the other hand, my taxonomy instructor was an advisor to the Students for a Democratic Society. It's a lot more mixed than the actor would have you believe. Stein lost my respect forever, when he told a religious shock jock that scientists put his family into the Nazi gas chambers.

Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust
New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Stein has no credibility with anyone interested in the truth.

 

[coffee4u]

To be a creationist means you believe God created in 6 days. There may be other things we differ on but that part is crucial.

 

[Piet Strydom]

I've spent a lifetime in biology. So some actor making up stories doesn't affect my experience very much.


Stein has no credibility with anyone interested in the truth.

It is true that just as there are creationists who does use propaganda to further their argument, there are also atheists, Christians, Muslims, leftists, socialists, and who knows who that does the same.
And you are correct.
Stein did connect Hitler with Darwin.
Hitler connected many ideologies with Natzism, he even said Islam is the prefect religion for the arian race, because their ideologies is the same.
It will not be true if I now discard say all muslims because Hitler liked Jihad.
on the contrary, I will have to eliminate those utterances, and judge Islam by Islamic claims, and Natzism with its.
Taking Stein's statement away from the holocaust, the scientists who came forward in this film does prove the fact that the US Universities are anti God, creationist, religion, conservatist.
To such an extend that they opress fellow scientists because of their views.
I agree, discard Stein if he did wrong, but discard these institutional discarimination for what they are too.

Anyway, it is a fact today that currently the US universities are totally socialist and even communist.
Charley Kirk does great work in unmasking this cancer that is growing in educational institutions in the US.

 

[The Barbarian]

To be a creationist means you believe God created in 6 days. There may be other things we differ on but that part is crucial.

No. There are more old Earth Creationists than YE creationists. Indeed, before the 7th Day Adventists introduced their doctrines into evangelical Christianity, evangelicals were OE creationists. That was the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes Trial, for example. The great Baptist evangelist, Spurgeon, believed in millions of years of Earth history.

YE creationism evolved very recently, in the 20th century.

 

[The Barbarian]

Taking Stein's statement away from the holocaust, the scientists who came forward in this film does prove the fact that the US Universities are anti God, creationist, religion, conservatist.
To such an extend that they opress fellow scientists because of their views.
I agree, discard Stein if he did wrong, but discard these institutional discarimination for what they are too.

My experience as an undergraduate, a grad student, and a teacher, refutes Stein's ideas. But of course, Stein had no such experience, and was only gathering what others told him. My creationist professor who taught my first immunology course would have laughed at him; he had no problem getting tenure. I learned about evolution from a zoology prof who was a devout Episcopalian, and the department chair.

This all at a large state university.

Stephen Gould, perhaps the foremost proponent of evolution in the public eye, willingly took on a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. As he wrote in Wonderful Life "all that really matters is ability."

What you're describing is, I think, more common on the humanities side of universities, than in the sciences. The tension between the two was most notably marked by the "Sokol Hoax", meant to show the intellectual shortcomings of postmodernism. It's quite a funny story.

The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy
In May 1996 physicist Alan Sokal published an essay in the fashionable academic journal Social Text. The essay quoted hip theorists like Jacques Lacan, Donna Haraway, and Gilles Deleuze. The prose was thick with the jargon of poststructuralism. And the point the essay tried to make was counterintuitive: gravity, Sokal argued, was a fiction that society had agreed upon, and science needed to be liberated from its ideological blinders. When Sokal revealed in the pages of Lingua Franca that he had written the article as a parody, the story hit the front page of the New York Times. It set off a national debate still raging today: Are scholars in the humanities trapped in a jargon-ridden Wonderland? Are scientists deluded in thinking their work is objective? Are literature professors suffering from science envy? Was Sokal's joke funny? Was the Enlightenment such a bad thing after all? And isn't it a little bit true that the meaning of gravity is contingent upon your cultural perspective?
https://www.amazon.com/Sokal-Hoax-Sham-Shook-Academy/dp/0803279957

 

[Lord Vega]

So, just because I'm a creationist, doesn't mean I think every youtube video that pastes on the label "creationist" is correct. So, I'm curious. Are there other creationists out there who think the creationist community, in general, is seriously lacking in critical thinking about the messages they deliver?

I am a Christian who believes creationism, whether it’s the old earth or young earth variety, isn’t true. Our planet was formed about 4.5 billion years ago when gravity from the sun pulled gas and dust together to create a new world. Which is to say, Earth came about from natural processes; it wasn’t magically created by a deity. Nor do I believe that evolution was God’s tool for creating humans and all life on earth. The idea of God engaging in selective breeding by manipulating which homo erectus breeds with certain other homo erectus (based on knowing their genetic mutations and potential to evolve into a higher species) is ridiculous. Also, if God created all life on earth, that would mean he created mosquitoes, vermin, and parasitic species. There isn’t a reason to do that.

As for your question regarding if I think creationists lack critical thinking, I think they all do because their thinking isn't evidence based. We know the ancient Roman Empire existed because there is evidence that it once existed. For example, the Colosseum they built still exists today. There are artifacts such as pottery and tools that were made by people living in ancient Rome. But there isn’t any evidence that God created the earth and humans with supernatural powers. For this reason, I don’t think creationists engage in any sort of critical thinking. They seem to read the Book of Genesis and accept that it’s true without searching for legitimate evidence that it’s true.