The tip of the ice berg

[driewerf]

The Theory of Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg.

We all know the metaphor of the ice berg. We only see a tiny part emerging from the water, the vast bulk of it is hidden under the water. Creationists deny, ridicule and attack the theory of evolution. But actually, the ToE is but the tip of the ice berg. Belowis there a whole attack on science proper. Nearly all the sciences are under attack by creationists.

1) The ToE is not that important.

One can live a fulfilling life, be a functional citizen without any knowledge of it. The ToE is the big unifying paradigm of biology and other life sciences like biochemistry. So any active scientist in one of those fields should have an thorough understanding of it, but for the average Joe it doesn’t matter. So there is no need to ram it through people’s throat. Not more (actually less) than a good understanding of hygiene, the Holocaust or the dangers of tobacco.

That of course is for the individual. As a society we need

2) So what is the fuss all about?

Anyone reading YEC-material will soon realize that any aspect of any scientific statement that gives credentials to the ToE or that somehow invalidates the YEC position will be immediately seen as antagonistic. If we take the ToE proper out of the picture, there is still the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, the history and archaeology that are in direct contradiction of the Flood, there is the world demography that shows a continuity in contradiction with the Flood myth and so on. So the creationists adopted a new word, or at least gave it a new meaning: evolutionism.

“Evolutionism” is simply everything that either contradict Young Earth Creationism or somehow supports the creationist’s strawman of evolution. Let us take one example: radiometric dating. Since radiometric dating measures ages older than the canonical 600 years it is (for YEC-ists) wrong and hence is part of this nebulous “evolutionism”. Over the years I have seen arguments against

• Astronomy and it’s multiple subdisciplines: like the age of the Universe, the Big Bang theory, the starlight distance problem, star formation, etc;
• The Theory or relativity, that states the constancy of c, and hence the star light problem
• Planetary sciences, like the age of the rings of Saturn, the receding movement of the Moon,
• Demography: the repopulation of the Earth after the Flood is absolutely incompatible with the known populations of ancient civilizations
• Nuclear physics, that somehow ignores the fact that radioactive processes speed up in Flood conditions
• Glaciology, that thinks that collects ice layers of hundreds of thousands of years.
• Plate tectonics: that doesn’t know that the entire Himalaya mountain range formed in the Flood.
• Paleoclimatology, that keeps saying that there were multiple Ice Ages, lasting tens of thousands of years each. While YEC’s pretend that the Flood caused one single Ice Age, that lasted what? – a year?
• Genetics and molecular biology that have provided evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps through ERV's and the fused chromosome n°2

And so on. These aren’t isolated instances. These aren’t innocent positions. In the end all the sciences are labelled as invalid and “evolutionism”. The part of the ice berg below the water becomes visible. All sciences are wrong, according to the YEC’s, and not in some minor minutiae, but at the very foundational core of what they teach.

3) The ice berg grows

In science data is the end all tell all. The observed evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not the authority of the scientist, not the number of letters in front or behind a PhD’s name, only the empirical evidence. This goes against the YEC’s attitude of argumentation based on authority, with of course the bible and god as ultimate authority. The mass of the ice berg becomes suddenly a lot bigger. What is at stake is not the ToE anymore, not the different sciences but the very scientific method itself and hence the possibility of research. Hence the possibility to progress and to tackle humanity’s needs.

Worse, according to this paper

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf

titled “The post modern in of intelligent design” creationists deliberately portray science - all the sciences -as just a story of the elites and the scientific “truths” are just the outcome of a powerplay. Again, the very nature of science is at stake.


Please discuss.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Theory of Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg.

We all know the metaphor of the ice berg. We only see a tiny part emerging from the water, the vast bulk of it is hidden under the water. Creationists deny, ridicule and attack the theory of evolution. But actually, the ToE is but the tip of the ice berg. Belowis there a whole attack on science proper. Nearly all the sciences are under attack by creationists.

1) The ToE is not that important.

One can live a fulfilling life, be a functional citizen without any knowledge of it. The ToE is the big unifying paradigm of biology and other life sciences like biochemistry. So any active scientist in one of those fields should have an thorough understanding of it, but for the average Joe it doesn’t matter. So there is no need to ram it through people’s throat. Not more (actually less) than a good understanding of hygiene, the Holocaust or the dangers of tobacco.

That of course is for the individual. As a society we need

2) So what is the fuss all about?

Anyone reading YEC-material will soon realize that any aspect of any scientific statement that gives credentials to the ToE or that somehow invalidates the YEC position will be immediately seen as antagonistic. If we take the ToE proper out of the picture, there is still the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, the history and archaeology that are in direct contradiction of the Flood, there is the world demography that shows a continuity in contradiction with the Flood myth and so on. So the creationists adopted a new word, or at least gave it a new meaning: evolutionism.

“Evolutionism” is simply everything that either contradict Young Earth Creationism or somehow supports the creationist’s strawman of evolution. Let us take one example: radiometric dating. Since radiometric dating measures ages older than the canonical 600 years it is (for YEC-ists) wrong and hence is part of this nebulous “evolutionism”. Over the years I have seen arguments against

• Astronomy and it’s multiple subdisciplines: like the age of the Universe, the Big Bang theory, the starlight distance problem, star formation, etc;
• The Theory or relativity, that states the constancy of c, and hence the star light problem
• Planetary sciences, like the age of the rings of Saturn, the receding movement of the Moon,
• Demography: the repopulation of the Earth after the Flood is absolutely incompatible with the known populations of ancient civilizations
• Nuclear physics, that somehow ignores the fact that radioactive processes speed up in Flood conditions
• Glaciology, that thinks that collects ice layers of hundreds of thousands of years.
• Plate tectonics: that doesn’t know that the entire Himalaya mountain range formed in the Flood.
• Paleoclimatology, that keeps saying that there were multiple Ice Ages, lasting tens of thousands of years each. While YEC’s pretend that the Flood caused one single Ice Age, that lasted what? – a year?
• Genetics and molecular biology that have provided evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps through ERV's and the fused chromosome n°2

And so on. These aren’t isolated instances. These aren’t innocent positions. In the end all the sciences are labelled as invalid and “evolutionism”. The part of the ice berg below the water becomes visible. All sciences are wrong, according to the YEC’s, and not in some minor minutiae, but at the very foundational core of what they teach.

3) The ice berg grows

In science data is the end all tell all. The observed evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not the authority of the scientist, not the number of letters in front or behind a PhD’s name, only the empirical evidence. This goes against the YEC’s attitude of argumentation based on authority, with of course the bible and god as ultimate authority. The mass of the ice berg becomes suddenly a lot bigger. What is at stake is not the ToE anymore, not the different sciences but the very scientific method itself and hence the possibility of research. Hence the possibility to progress and to tackle humanity’s needs.

Worse, according to this paper

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf

titled “The post modern in of intelligent design” creationists deliberately portray science - all the sciences -as just a story of the elites and the scientific “truths” are just the outcome of a powerplay. Again, the very nature of science is at stake.


Please discuss.

The "Powerplay" comment is accurate. This can be documented back though notes and letters to and from Darwin on that topic. Pick most any topic and the struggle among the elite in the field is prevalent.

 

[driewerf]

The "Powerplay" comment is accurate. This can be documented back though notes and letters to and from Darwin on that topic. Pick most any topic and the struggle among the elite in the field is prevalent.

Thank you for confirming that in the mind of creationists and other science deniers science is not data driven.
You made my point very well.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Theory of Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg.

We all know the metaphor of the ice berg. We only see a tiny part emerging from the water, the vast bulk of it is hidden under the water. Creationists deny, ridicule and attack the theory of evolution. But actually, the ToE is but the tip of the ice berg. Belowis there a whole attack on science proper. Nearly all the sciences are under attack by creationists.

1) The ToE is not that important.

One can live a fulfilling life, be a functional citizen without any knowledge of it. The ToE is the big unifying paradigm of biology and other life sciences like biochemistry. So any active scientist in one of those fields should have an thorough understanding of it, but for the average Joe it doesn’t matter. So there is no need to ram it through people’s throat. Not more (actually less) than a good understanding of hygiene, the Holocaust or the dangers of tobacco.

That of course is for the individual. As a society we need

2) So what is the fuss all about?

Anyone reading YEC-material will soon realize that any aspect of any scientific statement that gives credentials to the ToE or that somehow invalidates the YEC position will be immediately seen as antagonistic. If we take the ToE proper out of the picture, there is still the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, the history and archaeology that are in direct contradiction of the Flood, there is the world demography that shows a continuity in contradiction with the Flood myth and so on. So the creationists adopted a new word, or at least gave it a new meaning: evolutionism.

“Evolutionism” is simply everything that either contradict Young Earth Creationism or somehow supports the creationist’s strawman of evolution. Let us take one example: radiometric dating. Since radiometric dating measures ages older than the canonical 600 years it is (for YEC-ists) wrong and hence is part of this nebulous “evolutionism”. Over the years I have seen arguments against

• Astronomy and it’s multiple subdisciplines: like the age of the Universe, the Big Bang theory, the starlight distance problem, star formation, etc;
• The Theory or relativity, that states the constancy of c, and hence the star light problem
• Planetary sciences, like the age of the rings of Saturn, the receding movement of the Moon,
• Demography: the repopulation of the Earth after the Flood is absolutely incompatible with the known populations of ancient civilizations
• Nuclear physics, that somehow ignores the fact that radioactive processes speed up in Flood conditions
• Glaciology, that thinks that collects ice layers of hundreds of thousands of years.
• Plate tectonics: that doesn’t know that the entire Himalaya mountain range formed in the Flood.
• Paleoclimatology, that keeps saying that there were multiple Ice Ages, lasting tens of thousands of years each. While YEC’s pretend that the Flood caused one single Ice Age, that lasted what? – a year?
• Genetics and molecular biology that have provided evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps through ERV's and the fused chromosome n°2

And so on. These aren’t isolated instances. These aren’t innocent positions. In the end all the sciences are labelled as invalid and “evolutionism”. The part of the ice berg below the water becomes visible. All sciences are wrong, according to the YEC’s, and not in some minor minutiae, but at the very foundational core of what they teach.

3) The ice berg grows

In science data is the end all tell all. The observed evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not the authority of the scientist, not the number of letters in front or behind a PhD’s name, only the empirical evidence. This goes against the YEC’s attitude of argumentation based on authority, with of course the bible and god as ultimate authority. The mass of the ice berg becomes suddenly a lot bigger. What is at stake is not the ToE anymore, not the different sciences but the very scientific method itself and hence the possibility of research. Hence the possibility to progress and to tackle humanity’s needs.

Worse, according to this paper

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf

titled “The post modern in of intelligent design” creationists deliberately portray science - all the sciences -as just a story of the elites and the scientific “truths” are just the outcome of a powerplay. Again, the very nature of science is at stake.


Please discuss.

Creationists don't necessarily reject science. I don't call myself a Creationist, but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation. I also reject the assertion that evolution is scientific.

To say that rejecting Evolution is to reject the scientific method is absurd. A number of brilliant scientists reject evolution. That does not invalidate their scientific research or make them stupid. How insecure are evolutionary scientists? If their pet theory is so rock solid, why the angst when someone challenges it? It is the same response as every autocratic and dictatorial system. Putin, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Xi, Kim all ruthlessly suppress dissent. What do they fear? That people will find out how phony they are and how much they rip off their ignorant supporters. Evolutionists fear that their house of cards theory will be exposed for what it is - unscientific mumbo jumbo that is racist at the core.

Nature of science is at stake? Baloney. It's careers, tenure, prestige, influence and control that is at stake. The study of evolution serves no useful purpose. It does provide grants, chairs of departments and lucrative career paths. It drains scarce funding that could be used for something that will serve humanity, not the self serving science community.

When the Kingdom of God is installed on the earth, all human wisdom and knowledge, good or evil, will be irrelevant. So will scientists, universities, teachers, professors, researchers and such.

 

[Larniavc]

The Theory of Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg.

We all know the metaphor of the ice berg. We only see a tiny part emerging from the water, the vast bulk of it is hidden under the water. Creationists deny, ridicule and attack the theory of evolution. But actually, the ToE is but the tip of the ice berg. Belowis there a whole attack on science proper. Nearly all the sciences are under attack by creationists.

1) The ToE is not that important.

One can live a fulfilling life, be a functional citizen without any knowledge of it. The ToE is the big unifying paradigm of biology and other life sciences like biochemistry. So any active scientist in one of those fields should have an thorough understanding of it, but for the average Joe it doesn’t matter. So there is no need to ram it through people’s throat. Not more (actually less) than a good understanding of hygiene, the Holocaust or the dangers of tobacco.

That of course is for the individual. As a society we need

2) So what is the fuss all about?

Anyone reading YEC-material will soon realize that any aspect of any scientific statement that gives credentials to the ToE or that somehow invalidates the YEC position will be immediately seen as antagonistic. If we take the ToE proper out of the picture, there is still the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, the history and archaeology that are in direct contradiction of the Flood, there is the world demography that shows a continuity in contradiction with the Flood myth and so on. So the creationists adopted a new word, or at least gave it a new meaning: evolutionism.

“Evolutionism” is simply everything that either contradict Young Earth Creationism or somehow supports the creationist’s strawman of evolution. Let us take one example: radiometric dating. Since radiometric dating measures ages older than the canonical 600 years it is (for YEC-ists) wrong and hence is part of this nebulous “evolutionism”. Over the years I have seen arguments against

• Astronomy and it’s multiple subdisciplines: like the age of the Universe, the Big Bang theory, the starlight distance problem, star formation, etc;
• The Theory or relativity, that states the constancy of c, and hence the star light problem
• Planetary sciences, like the age of the rings of Saturn, the receding movement of the Moon,
• Demography: the repopulation of the Earth after the Flood is absolutely incompatible with the known populations of ancient civilizations
• Nuclear physics, that somehow ignores the fact that radioactive processes speed up in Flood conditions
• Glaciology, that thinks that collects ice layers of hundreds of thousands of years.
• Plate tectonics: that doesn’t know that the entire Himalaya mountain range formed in the Flood.
• Paleoclimatology, that keeps saying that there were multiple Ice Ages, lasting tens of thousands of years each. While YEC’s pretend that the Flood caused one single Ice Age, that lasted what? – a year?
• Genetics and molecular biology that have provided evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps through ERV's and the fused chromosome n°2

And so on. These aren’t isolated instances. These aren’t innocent positions. In the end all the sciences are labelled as invalid and “evolutionism”. The part of the ice berg below the water becomes visible. All sciences are wrong, according to the YEC’s, and not in some minor minutiae, but at the very foundational core of what they teach.

3) The ice berg grows

In science data is the end all tell all. The observed evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not the authority of the scientist, not the number of letters in front or behind a PhD’s name, only the empirical evidence. This goes against the YEC’s attitude of argumentation based on authority, with of course the bible and god as ultimate authority. The mass of the ice berg becomes suddenly a lot bigger. What is at stake is not the ToE anymore, not the different sciences but the very scientific method itself and hence the possibility of research. Hence the possibility to progress and to tackle humanity’s needs.

Worse, according to this paper

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf

titled “The post modern in of intelligent design” creationists deliberately portray science - all the sciences -as just a story of the elites and the scientific “truths” are just the outcome of a powerplay. Again, the very nature of science is at stake.


Please discuss.

Pretty much. I have never seen someone deny that evolution happens who is not doing it for religious reasons. I have also never seen some deny evolution who does not also conflate it with abiogenesis.

Ever.

 

[ottawak]

Creationists don't necessarily reject science. I don't call myself a Creationist, but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation.

How do you see yourself as differing from other believers in the Genesis account of reation who do call themselves creationists?

I also reject the assertion that evolution is scientific.

How does evolutionary biology differ from othe other branches of science?

To say that rejecting Evolution is to reject the scientific method is absurd. A number of brilliant scientists reject evolution.

Can you name any? Explain your standard for judging a scientist "brilliant?"

How insecure are evolutionary scientists? If their pet theory is so rock solid, why the angst when someone challenges it?

What "angst?" Contempt is a more ususal reaction.

Nature of science is at stake? Baloney. It's careers, tenure, prestige, influence and control that is at stake. The study of evolution serves no useful purpose. It does provide grants, chairs of departments and lucrative career paths. It drains scarce funding that could be used for something that will serve humanity, not the self serving science community.

You have been misinformed. Evolutionary biology is not generally regarded as being an especially lucrative career path.

 

[Larniavc]

but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation.

But to do this IS to reject the scientific method. Revelation is not same as empirical evidence.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Pretty much. I have never seen someone deny that evolution happens who is not doing it for religious reasons. I have also never seen some deny evolution who does not also conflate it with abiogenesis.

Ever.

Since it is impossible to learn about anything but evolution in the education system, people have little option but to believe it. I was fortunate to be taught both creation and evolution at the same time. I was not a Christian. My father was an atheist who tried to instill evolution into me. As a child, I visited the London Natural History museum several times. It was (is?) a showcase of evolutionary thought. Evolution made no sense to me then and it makes even less sense to me now.

When I was taught evolution, abiogenesis was an integral part. If life did form spontaneously, then evolution is the only way that life could have progressed.

I believe that God created all things because it is true. How do I know? God said so. I believe in Jesus dying and rising from the dead because it is true. It's history. I don't expect you to agree, but please don't imagine that i reject evolution on religious grounds. I rejected it long before I accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

 

[Larniavc]

When I was taught evolution, abiogenesis was an integral part. If life did form spontaneously, then evolution is the only way that life could have progressed.

Either you have misremembered or you were taught by an idiot. Or you simple do not yet understand it because your use of ‘evolution is the only way that life could have progressed’ clearly indicates that you don’t.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But to do this IS to reject the scientific method. Revelation is not same as empirical evidence.

Truth is truth. Scientific method can arrive at false conclusions as well as correct. I've been following some of the debate over quantum physics. It's so open to conjecture that now no one can be sure that we even exist. Others have decided that everything is totally predetermined. No one has free will according to that theory. Which rather fits the ultimate logic of evolution.

 

[driewerf]

Creationists don't necessarily reject science.

As written above, a young earth creation model conflicts with a lot of sciences, like astronomy, glaciology, population genetics, sedimentology, nuclear physics and so on. YEC's do deny all these sciences, just because it conflicts withtheir world view. Yes in they end up denying close to all sciences.

I don't call myself a Creationist, but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation.

That makes you a creationist.

I also reject the assertion that evolution is scientific.

On what ground? Any empirical evidence? Or just because it conflicts with the bible. Think before you answer.

To say that rejecting Evolution is to reject the scientific method is absurd.

It is not absurd, it is above all what I didn't say. I said, they reject it because it conflicts wuth the bible, that they see as ultimate authority. And rejecting scientific conclusion that is in agreement with the empirical evidence, IS rejecting the scientific method, and hence all of science.
Young Earth creationists say themselves they will take the bible as unquestionable truth:

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Ultimately, the creation of mankind by the supernatural God of the universe as recorded in Genesis cannot be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself refers to Genesis chapter one. We trust the Bible as truth—creation to salvation
We need to be equipped to teach people to see and draw connections between the Bible and the world around us. The Bible is the foundation for our understanding of the real world. It can be trusted and is the ultimate authority no matter what it speaks on—from biology to salvation.

A number of brilliant scientists reject evolution. That does not invalidate their scientific research or make them stupid.

No, that makes you using an argument from authority. And these brilliant scientists are unnamed and of unknown qualifications, yet i have to take your word for it?

How insecure are evolutionary scientists? If their pet theory is so rock solid, why the angst when someone challenges it?

Not insecure at all. But we see creationists electing school board members, harass museum staff, preach in churches and in the streets, everywhere, except in the scientific arena. The insecured ones are the creationists.

What do they fear?

A generation of scientifically illiterate citizens, not able to manage society. Or to compete with countries that do take the teaching of STEM seriously.
https://www.hoover.org/research/scientifically-illiterate-america

That people will find out how phony they are and how much they rip off their ignorant supporters. Evolutionists fear that their house of cards theory will be exposed for what it is - unscientific mumbo jumbo that is racist at the core.

As written in the OP and repeated here it is not about the ToE. It is all of science - and STEM - that is at stake.

Nature of science is at stake? Baloney. It's careers, tenure, prestige, influence and control that is at stake. The study of evolution serves no useful purpose. It does provide grants, chairs of departments and lucrative career paths. It drains scarce funding that could be used for something that will serve humanity, not the self serving science community.

I invite you and the other readers to read this assay, already linked to in the OP. This passage (and Skywritings answer) fit this description perfectly.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf

When the Kingdom of God is installed on the earth, all human wisdom and knowledge, good or evil, will be irrelevant. So will scientists, universities, teachers, professors, researchers and such.

But in the mean time, I prefer bridges to be well designed by qualified engineers. I want crops to be improved by well trained genticists. I want my surgeon to know what he is doing.

I want a good robust and wide spread STEM education.

 

[Larniavc]

No one has free will according to that theory.

This is the opposite of what the uncertainty of the various quantum theories predict.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How do you see yourself as differing from other believers in the Genesis account of reation who do call themselves creationists? How does evolutionary biology differ from othe other branches of science?

Can you name any? Explain your standard for judging a scientist "brilliant?" What "angst?" Contempt is a more ususal reaction.

You have been misinformed. Evolutionary biology is not generally regarded as being an especially lucrative career path.

If you are not an evolutionist you generally can say goodbye to a career in science. There are rare facilities that are tolerant of those who reject evolution. Mostly, you have to worship the god of Darwinism before you can get anywhere.

I am a Christian. I do not subscribe to "isms" or "ists" of any kind. God is way too big to put in some neat pigeonhole. I take God at His word.

I do not accept the young earth creation idea. I subscribe to what is known as gap theory, or my preference, pre-Adamic creation. I am, I believe, in the minority.

Evolutionary science differs in that it cannot be demonstrated, repeated or proven in any meaningful way. And I reject adaptation as evidence of macro evolution. They are not the same thing.

 

[Aussie Pete]

This is the opposite of what the uncertainty of the various quantum theories predict.

That depends entirely on what theory is wafting around cyberspace on any given day.

 

[ottawak]

If you are not an evolutionist you generally can say goodbye to a career in science. There are rare facilities that are tolerant of those who reject evolution. Mostly, you have to worship the god of Darwinism before you can get anywhere.

That's because the theory of evolution is at present the only theory of the development of life from its origin which meets the standards of scientific epistemology. If you reject the theory of evolution for any other reason not based on scientific epistemology then you can't really be trusted to do science in any field.

I am a Christian. I do not subscribe to "isms" or "ists" of any kind. God is way too big to put in some neat pigeonhole. I take God at His word.

In other words, you put God in the "pigeonhole" of your interpretation of Scripture.

Evolutionary science differs in that it cannot be demonstrated, repeated or proven in any meaningful way. And I reject adaptation as evidence of macro evolution. They are not the same thing.

That may be what you believe, but it betrays very little understanding about how science actually works.

 

[Larniavc]

That depends entirely on what theory is wafting around cyberspace on any given day.

Pete, this video clearly states that Superdeteriminsim does not rule out free will in people. Did you watch it or just do a quick title search? Because this video does not say what you think it means.

 

[JSRG]

Creationists don't necessarily reject science. I don't call myself a Creationist, but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation. I also reject the assertion that evolution is scientific.

I do not accept the young earth creation idea. I subscribe to what is known as gap theory, or my preference, pre-Adamic creation. I am, I believe, in the minority

Evolutionary science differs in that it cannot be demonstrated, repeated or proven in any meaningful way. And I reject adaptation as evidence of macro evolution. They are not the same thing.

This still makes you a creationist, just an old earth one rather than a young earth one.

To be fair, the topic post is going after young earth creationists, not old earth. But based on what what you've expressed here, you are absolutely a creationist, albeit not of the young earth variety.

 

[eleos1954]

Pretty much. I have never seen someone deny that evolution happens who is not doing it for religious reasons. I have also never seen some deny evolution who does not also conflate it with abiogenesis.

Ever.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun

1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
   "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Science has no clue what things could have been like "billions" of years ago. It can only be theorized.

 

[Larniavc]

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun

1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
   "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Science has no clue what things could have been like "billions" of years ago. It can only be theorized.

That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Having to use a dictionary to define a scientific term is super cringe brah.

Science has a very good clue about what Earth was like back then. Did you not get taught that in school?

Finally, thanks for providing great evidence that my previous assertion is bang on.

 

[ottawak]

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun

1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
   "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Science has no clue what things could have been like "billions" of years ago. It can only be theorized.

No, it cannot be theorized without evidence. If you say there is no evidence, the best you can hope for is an hypothesis.