The Harm of Creationism

[JSynon]

Hi everybody,

I just got done reading some of lucaspa's "Everyone welcome" thread and I must admit that it is good to know that people understand that this topic should not divide the Church. I am posting this not to argue for either side or to debate anybody, but to learn. I have two questions.

First, I am wondering, why do many here believe that Creationism is harmful to Christianity? I know one obvious reason is that to unbelievers who accept evolution it may make Christianity seem ignorant to them, therefore putting the rest of Christianity's claims out the window for them. Are there any more reasons?

Second, why do many here believe that Creationism is inconsistent with Scripture?

Thanks and shalom.

 

[Ave Maria]

Are you referring to Young Earth Creationism? I am assuming that's what you're referring to and that is how I will address your post.

First of all, I don't really see YEC as "harmful" per se to Christianity. The main problem I see is that it is a rejection of a well-founded scientific theory. I believe that science and Christianity get along just fine. Many if not most YECs will say that Young Earth Creationism is also scientific. However, there are many flaws in Young Earth Creationism that makes it not scientific. I am not certain exactly how to explain this right now but I will get back to you on that. I'll post my response later.

I believe that Young Earth Creationism is inconsistent with scripture because Genesis 1 is obviously an allegory. The idea that there was a talking serpent or snake is indicitive of this.

There is also at least one problem with Young Earth Creationist's interpretation of Genesis 1. For example, light was created on the 1st day but the primary source of that light (the sun and stars) was not created until the 4th day.

 

[JSynon]

Are you referring to Young Earth Creationism?

Yes. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the response. I will be waiting for more.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Much of Genesis is myth and legend; midrash if you will. It isn't necessarily literally true, but it is chuck-full of religious and moral Truth in it.
2. A person brought up all his/her life as a literalist Christian goes to college as a biology major. This person learns that everything he/she has been taught his/her own life in terms of evolution is a lie. The person then abandons his/her faith. This happens way too often in real life.

 

[LondonsBurning]

I believe that Young Earth Creationism is inconsistent with scripture because Genesis 1 is obviously an allegory.

When most of the fundamentalist movement disagrees, it must not be "OBVIOUS".

People with multiple Ph.D.'s disagree with you.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the response. I will be waiting for more.

Ok, I'll post more later!

When most of the fundamentalist movement disagrees, it must not be "OBVIOUS".

People with multiple Ph.D.'s disagree with you.

Well, it's obvious to me and many others. There are also even more people with Ph.D's who agree with me that Genesis is not literal! Did you know that only 5% of scientists believe that God created man pretty much in his present form within the past 10,000 years? Also, 40% believe in Theistic Evolution while 55% believe in Naturalistic Evolution.

 

[PaladinValer]

London, actually, it is the fields of biology and geology that really matter in terms of evolution. Any scientist or any PhD can say what they want of evolution, but only experts in those fields would have any authority. Thus, Fallacy of Appealing to (False) Authority
So in reality, only .05% actually hold to YEC beliefs, mainly because they got their degrees from unaccredited private Christian colleges. So basically, finding one is like finding a Roc's tooth.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the response. I will be waiting for more.

Ok, I went to another forum and asked the question and this is what I got:

It isn't scientific because science involves formulating and testing explanatory theories on the basis of physical evidence while young earth creationism involves promoting the face-value scriptural account of creation as written regardless of physical evidence. A scientific theory has to be able to be tested and potentially falsified against physical evidence, whereas the biblical account of creation is taken by YECs to be nonnegotiable Truth and any evidence contradicting it is dismissed as false on the basis of scriptural Truth.

Other problems with young earth creationism is that its proponents support it almost exclusively by attacking evolution (by "evolution" they tend to mean any branch of science that addresses anything in the Genesis account of creation) and by misquoting and misrepresenting scientists in an attempt to make it appear that scientists don't really accept evolution but are having to cling to it because the alternative is to believe in God, and it's a well-known fact (in creationist circles) that all "evolutionists" are atheists.

Hope this helps!

 

[JSynon]

Thanks again Holly.

So the idea is pretty much that YEC's try to make physical evidence conform to their presuppositions? Could the same thing be said about OEC's or evolutionists (atheist or not)?

 

[Singing Bush]

So the idea is pretty much that YEC's try to make physical evidence conform to their presuppositions? Could the same thing be said about OEC's or evolutionists (atheist or not)?

While it's certainly possible that evidence that is somewhat ambiguous can be conformed to a particular scientist's preconceived ideas, they can only do this w/ data that is in fact ambiguous and limited. Once more data comes out or if the data itself is more clearly contradictory to his/her ideas then they wont have a leg to stand on. Other scientists will be more than happy to tear them a new one. Scientific creationism doesn't look at the one or two bits of unclear information about life's development on Earth and say well here's what possibly happened thereby providing a testable theory. Instead it looks at the mountains of clear and unequivocal evidence about life's development and comes up w/ an untestable concept that is completely contradictory to everything they have just seen.

Long story short: any prejudices that develop in evolutionary theory will likely not last long, if indeed they can at all, simply because every aspect of a scientific theory must be testable and thus falsifiable. Thus theory is always purified by experimentation in time.

 

[The Lady Kate]

First of all, I don't really see YEC as "harmful" per se to Christianity. The main problem I see is that it is a rejection of a well-founded scientific theory. I believe that science and Christianity get along just fine. Many if not most YECs will say that Young Earth Creationism is also scientific. However, there are many flaws in Young Earth Creationism that makes it not scientific. I am not certain exactly how to explain this right now but I will get back to you on that. I'll post my response later.

What makes it worse are the YEC "ministries" who insist that YEC is not only scientific, but a necessary belief for the faith. When an unbeliever puts YEC to the test -- and it fails -- they may end up believing that the whole of Christianity is equally flawed.

But that's not so much a problem with YEC as with how it's presented.