What is Creationism?

[CPman2004]

I think we have allowed ourselves to be destroyed and have shown to the non-believing world that even as Christians we squabble over the smallest things such as what a day means. I think it is time for us not to debate whose creation mehtod is right (ie: YEC, OEC, ect.) but if creation really happend! The reason why evolutionists are able to attack us easily is because we are all out their trying to defend OUR version of creation and forgeting what creationism really means. It isn't about how old the earth is, nor how long a day means, but simply put it is a belief in creation. "Creationists is simply a person who believes in the existance of a creator, who brought about the existance of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. Whether the process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relativelly unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint." (Phillp E. Johnsen. From his essay: "What is Darwinism?").

Evolution is NOT the problem, since it can be easyily squashed under phiisophical and scientific evidences (but that doesn't mean it is easily replaced, most evolutionists hold on to it with a religious faith). The problem from what I see is that the Evolutionists have been able to use our own disagreements to further their reasons on why they shouldn't believe in Christ and God as their creator even if their theroy is weak. I think it is time for us to stop worrying about the method of creationism, but start debating evolution with creationism, not YEC, OCE, or the others. I do not think we will win others to the creationist cause if we keep arguing amonst ourselves and then going out to evolutionists to show them that 'my' method of creationism is right. Debate creationism, and if they want to start debating a method of creationism don't allow that to happen. The only goal to reach non-christian evolutionists is to let them see how weak evolution is, and that creationism is not just a silly sunday school belief, but the best possible model to fit the overwhelming evidence. I won't say this is going to be hard, because evolution can be a prsuppostion and you will also have to fight naturalism and materialism all at the same time. However, I think that once we stop debating our personal method of creationism and just debate creationism then I think we can make some ground in the debate aginst athistic naturalistic evolution.

*steps off soapbox

 

[SBG]

I tend to agree with you to a point. Please do not take what I say, following this, as a debate of what you said, or trying to eradicate what you have said. I do agree, but there needs to be an establishment of some things that are in Genesis. We need to be in agreement with the teaches in Genesis, such as the fall of mankind and the consequences of death.

With keeping the Bible in context, it makes no sense to assume there was no real, literal fall of two people that created and progressed sin to all mankind.

Keeping in context still, it makes no sense to assume Adam and Eve did not exist.

Keeping in context still, it makes no sense to assume that physical death was apart of God's creation before the fall of mankind.

There are specific teachings on these in the New Testament that must still be kept as it was then taught. We must continue with what the Apostles taught, not create our own new types of doctrine to teach.

Judging must stop, period. I am very much guilty of this. We must first and always look at ourselves to make sure we are follow Jesus as Jesus and His Apostles taught us to. We can instruct and rebuke, but not judge. If they do not heed what we say, and what we say must be what the Bible teaches, then after two times of trying, we must leave it. We plant the seed, we don't convert. The harvest is for the Lord, not for man.

We must be strict upon our ownselves. Jesus' teachings are not light teachings. His teachings are everywhere in the Bible. We must make sure we are following His teachings in our lives, so that we can be an example to others.

Salvation is not a game, it is not to be taken lightly, less we choose to keep our own lives, thus we will lose them. Salvation is not just believing who Jesus is. It is follow Him and His teachings that have been taught by Him and His Apostles. We are to believe them, for He sent them.

We must see if there is way we can agree with each other, and if we cannot, then we must agree to not bash each other.

In all the debates here, not one person who has been debating has changed their opinion, that I have seen. No concessions are made; each side hardly hears the other; needless accusations are made; personal attacks insue; everyone assumes they are the one who is right. These are all prideful and selfish acts, that no one here is found to be guiltless of. Whether you wrote something or thought something, we are all guilty.

Either we agree or agree to disagree and leave it. I wonder if it is truly possible that all here could leave their pride and just leave the subject on either of the two agreeances and move on.

 

[The Lady Kate]

As a TE, I know I'm normally not welcome here, but I do wish to respond...

I think we have allowed ourselves to be destroyed and have shown to the non-believing world that even as Christians we squabble over the smallest things such as what a day means. I think it is time for us not to debate whose creation mehtod is right (ie: YEC, OEC, ect.)

but if creation really happend!

I don't even think this is the issue. Nobody, Christian or Atheist, is going to argue that Creation really happened... seeing as how we're currently standing on it... but the question of how and by whom.

The reason why evolutionists are able to attack us easily is because we are all out their trying to defend OUR version of creation and forgeting what creationism really means. It isn't about how old the earth is, nor how long a day means, but simply put it is a belief in creation.

again. I've seen too many Creationist debates disintegrate over the translation of a single Biblical word or phrase.

"Creationists is simply a person who believes in the existance of a creator, who brought about the existance of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. Whether the process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relativelly unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint." (Phillp E. Johnsen. From his essay: "What is Darwinism?").

The problem is that this definition calls every Christian (and every Theist) a "creationist."

I've been on these boards long enough to note that even the most hard-core Atheists make a difference between creation and creationISM.

God did create -- to debate that is to debate theism vs. Atheism, not creationism vs. evolution.

If we want to adopt Johnsen's definition of creationism, then we're going to have to be very careful to make distinctions between "Biblical Creationism," "Deistic Creationism," and yes, even "Evolutionary Creationism..."

Evolution is NOT the problem, since it can be easyily squashed under phiisophical and scientific evidences (but that doesn't mean it is easily replaced, most evolutionists hold on to it with a religious faith).

I was about to say, "Then why hasn't it been squashed?" But this is not the time or place to ask...

The problem from what I see is that the Evolutionists have been able to use our own disagreements to further their reasons on why they shouldn't believe in Christ and God as their creator even if their theroy is weak.

What about The TEs?
See, this is the real problem: You're arguing Theism vs. Atheism, not Creation vs. Evolution.

I think it is time for us to stop worrying about the method of creationism, but start debating evolution with creationism, not YEC, OCE, or the others. I do not think we will win others to the creationist cause if we keep arguing amonst ourselves and then going out to evolutionists to show them that 'my' method of creationism is right.

What exactly is "the creationist cause?"
Christianity? Then we shouldn't be debating, but witnessing.

Debate creationism, and if they want to start debating a method of creationism don't allow that to happen. The only goal to reach non-christian evolutionists is to let them see how weak evolution is, and that creationism is not just a silly sunday school belief, but the best possible model to fit the overwhelming evidence.

But not every model of creationism "fits the overwhelming evidence." Sooner or later, the YEC/OEC bickering begins...

Hence the problem.

I won't say this is going to be hard, because evolution can be a prsuppostion and you will also have to fight naturalism and materialism all at the same time. However, I think that once we stop debating our personal method of creationism and just debate creationism then I think we can make some ground in the debate aginst athistic naturalistic evolution.

Again, you're arguing against Atheism, not evolution. What about the TEs?

I do want to say that I do agree with you on this very important point... the time is LONG overdue to stop bickering over the trivial issues and re-focus on what's important.

That God created is no question: how God created is the issue. May none of us lose sight of that important distinction.

 

[Vance]

CPMan, I would agree with the spirit of your post completely, we should be focusing on spreading the word about the Creator, and that He created, not the method or timing of creation. I would just take this approach to it's logical conclusion and say that we should be spreading the word about the Creator, and that that He created, not the method or timing of Creation, even if that included evolution. Then the true focus can come through.

 

[CPman2004]

The reason I did not include TE in my statements is because evolution in whatever form has shown to me to be nothing more then a scientism not unlike naturalism and materialism. Creationism is the only way to make sense of the scientific world. Evolution cannot explain many of the issues and questions that it claims to answer. Evolution has grown far past it's "scientific explaination" and it simply isn't a reliable idea. This is indeed a debate between creation and evolution since both have far reaching metaphysical implications. Evolution for the athist is a way to avoid an creator (well, not totally, nature technically becomes the creator). Creationism leads us to the truth of God's existance, which then holds us accountable to his Word.

I would also like to remind that this is a creationist forum and TEs can't debate here, I thank you for your comments, but please don't try to debate, since that just means extra work for the already busy moderators.

 

[Vance]

But that doesn't explain the millions of Christians who fully accept evolution and have no diminishment of faith or a lessening of their Spirit-filled life. Atheists will use all kinds of things to avoid believing in God, but that does not make the facts of the matter any differently. If a historian learned all kinds of awful, but true, things about the Church in the middle ages, and used that as a reason to disbelieve in God, it would not make those facts about the Church in the middle ages any less true. It is the use of the truth that they are getting wrong, they are simply drawing wrong conclusions from the truth, that is all.

Now, if you have problems with the validity of evolution as a scientific proposition, that is fine. But to equate Christianity with Creationism is a dangerous approach, if you ask me. But I think that is about all I can say on the matter without being accused of debating.

 

[CPman2004]

One point that I would like to make very clear to my TE brothers/sisters. I do not equate TE with non-belief, I do not doubt that real Christians hold on to the TE belief, but I do think they are mistaken in this area.

 

[The Lady Kate]

One point that I would like to make very clear to my TE brothers/sisters. I do not equate TE with non-belief, I do not doubt that real Christians hold on to the TE belief, but I do think they are mistaken in this area.

And the TEs think you are mistaken in this area... but not in your faith. I have never heard a TE accuse or imply that a YEC's faith was anything less than sincere.

Sadly, it doesn't always work as well the other way around...but I digress.

Whatever we believe, let us not forget that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. HE is what's important...the rest are details.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't see creationist fighting each other also I don't see creationism as bad of shape as you seem to think it is. In National geographic realize that 44% of American believe in creation without evolution ( bacteria to man) yet knew that those who believe in the literal interpretion of scripture never get higher than 10% . This means atleast 34% Americans reject evolution because of science and not the issue of religion. NG blamed it on poor articles and education to fail to brainwash.... i meant teach these people. I totally disagree with NG ,IMO people just sees evolution as bad science.
while creationist may have trouble in proving Genesis with science the evolutionist has even a harder time in proving Abiogenesis with science which is why they cry it's not evolution. But it is the heart of their genesis where evolution fail since if it impossible by laws of nature for something dead to come alive then this proves that a supernatural event happened in the past beyond the reach of science. And if the supernatural is involve with our past then there nothing stop a supernatural event (creation) creating each group of animals separate or how often supernatural events happens. So in this case, creation (supernatural events) would be a lot stronger than evolution with the bad odds without an engine. This is why evolutionist will run for aboigenesis since this kills their theory.

 

[Vance]

I don't see creationist fighting each other also I don't see creationism as bad of shape as you seem to think it is. In National geographic realize that 44% of American believe in creation without evolution ( bacteria to man) yet knew that those who believe in the literal interpretion of scripture never get higher than 10% . This means atleast 34% Americans reject evolution because of science and not the issue of religion. NG blamed it on poor articles and education to fail to brainwash.... i meant teach these people. I totally disagree with NG ,IMO people just sees evolution as bad science.

Oh, gosh, Smidlee, that is not right at all. The number of those who "don't believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture" will always be low, since this can be understood to mean taking everything in Scripture literally, including obvious metaphors, allegories, etc. Even among those who read the creation accounts literally, very few would say they take everything in Scripture literally.

So, to say that the difference between those who say they "don't read Scripture literally" and the total who don't accept evolution is made up of people who reject it based on scientific analysis just doesn't hold up.

The bottom line is that VERY, VERY few people reject evolution unless they believe it contradicts their religious convictions. Personally, I have never met one here or elsewhere. Someone placed that challenge to all Creationists in the open forum: find at least 10 people who are on record as having rejected evolution, but who do not believe that evolution contradicts or challenges their religious beliefs. I don't think anyone found more than a few questionable exemplars.

 

[Smidlee]

Or the exact opposide. I read and heard testimonies of those who rejected evolution as science eventually lead to become a christian.
The thing is all atheist seem to be evolutionist. ( are they evolutionist because they are atheist or atheist because they are evolutionist?) So If you can claim everyone who reject evolution is because of their beliefs then I could easily claim that everyone who accepts evolution is because of their unbelief. (saved or not)The sword cuts both ways on this one.

In reality everyone has some kind of religion or belief system which governs their life. The ancient religions was more than just an idol but was based on sex, philosophy, science, music, drunkeness, wealth, and even abortion. (killing the young babies). Example ; Instead of offering one's children up in the name of a god today we do it in the name of women rights. We are no different except some tries to cover up their belief system and claim it's science, human rights,etc.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Or the exact opposide. I read and heard testimonies of those who rejected evolution as science eventually lead to become a christian.

I suppose it does happen, when people believe that evolution=Atheism and Creationism=Christianity.

The thing is all atheist seem to be evolutionist. ( are they evolutionist because they are atheist or atheist because they are evolutionist?)

And all poodles are dogs. That doesn't mean all dogs are poodles.

I mean, think about it, an Atheist, by definition, is not going to believe that a Supreme Being of any kind created the world... they wouoldn't be much of an Atheist if they did.

So If you can claim everyone who reject evolution is because of their beliefs then I could easily claim that everyone who accepts evolution is because of their unbelief. (saved or not)The sword cuts both ways on this one.

Because you say so?

I never said anything about everyone. I was speaking generally based on personal observations and experience.

In reality everyone has some kind of religion or belief system which governs their life. The ancient religions was more than just an idol but was based on sex, philosophy, science, music, drunkeness, wealth, and even abortion. (killing the young babies). Example ; Instead of offering one's children up in the name of a god today we do it in the name of women rights. We are no different except some tries to cover up their belief system and claim it's science, human rights,etc.

Some science is disguised religious beliefs... and some of it really is science.

 

[Smidlee]

I mean, think about it, an Atheist, by definition, is not going to believe that a Supreme Being of any kind created the world... they wouoldn't be much of an Atheist if they did.

Because you say so?

I never said anything about everyone. I was speaking generally based on personal observations and experience.

Yet it works both ways. Not all who rejects evolution are christians. So anyone who reject evolution will naturally going to believe in some kind of creator. As atheist who reject a creator will naturally accept evolution. So if you claim to know the motive of those who reject evolution because of their belief then It also cuts both ways to say because of unbelief someone accept evolution. I don't claim I know the motive of why someone accept or reject evolution. Yet if you claim I reject evolution because of my belief then I can say you accept evolution because of your unbelief. Yes I do have a strong belief in God but I like science also yet I honestly see evolution as bad science and doesn't add up.

Also I get a kick watching scientists who has a PHD come up with some lame stuff. I been reading some lately about the black hole in the center of our galaxy but you can't see it then another scientist claim he can almost prove that black holes doesn't exist (which how hard is that since we made them up on a charkboard) but now it's dark energy. So we now know invisible black holes doesn't exist but the invisible dark energy is in the center of our galaxy. Now I believe it's not a black hole or dark energy but Dark Vader using the dark side of the force to hold the galaxy together.

 

[Vance]

BTW, I just posted the type of challenge I was discussing on the C&E Forum.

 

[Smidlee]

So Vance you want people believe that you accept evolution because of science and yet it has nothing to do with unbelief as a christian but having a hard time believing a christian can look at the same evidence and reject evolution because of science and not solely just their on beliefs. You really can't believe someone can reject evolution solely by science can you?

Because of my beliefs in the scriptures then I have no trouble in rejecting evolution solely because of science. Yet a atheist doesn't have this chioce unlike a christian, he must accept evolution no matter how bad the facts are.

 

[Vance]

So Vance you want people believe that you accept evolution because of science and yet it has nothing to do with unbelief as a christian but having a hard time believing a christian can look at the same evidence and reject evolution because of science and not solely just their on beliefs. You really can't believe someone can reject evolution solely by science can you?

Well, no, my acceptance of evolution has nothing at all to do with any unbelief as a Christian. I am not sure what type of unbelief you would be referring to.

And, I think it is possible, but highly unlikely, that any Christian who grew up being indoctrinated with YEC interpretations and the idea that evolution equals atheism would reject evolution based primarily on the science. And the proof of this is simply that almost no one who studies the evidence for and against evolution rejects it if they also do not have a religious opposition to it as well.

If it was common for people to reject evolution based on the science alone, then people would reject it in dramatically greater numbers even among those who have no religious beliefs. If the theory of evolution was not a solid and well-supported theory, then even atheists would reject it and seek a better explanation for the current state of the diversity of species. This happens all the time in science. Weak theories are not clung to just because they are there and convenient. If they don't work, they don't work. Even among atheistic scientists, the idea of overturning the theory of evolution (the way Einstien overturned Newtonian concepts) is highly attractive. A Nobel Prize awaits the person who could do it.

The bottom line is that if it was not a good theory, then you would see a very large percentage of non-religiously motivated people, especially scientists, indicating that it is not a solid theory. As it is, 99.98% of scientists in the relevant fields (which obviously includes the vast majority of Christian scientists in those fields), accept evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

So CPman2004'
it obvious atleast to me why evolution seems so powerful ; they tries to hold a monopoly on what is "science". It be pointed out to me if anyone rejects evolution = rejects science. We live in a materialistic age which even christians are effected.( in the same way as money. money is something everybody has to deal with) Today people pretty much believe anything the scientist or doctors tells them where in the past people trusted their pastor or priest in this way.
Also evolution helps builds up man's ego especially someone with an high IQ. This is because it teaches man is improving which came from an ape-like ancestor instead man is a fallen creature. We like to think we are superior than our ancestors in the past.
ID is a big threat to TOE which many creationist support this even though they are not really creationist. ID uses the science that evolutionist is holding on to to help support their dogma and using it againest them. Evolution weakest point is science itself which why they try to make anyone who opposes them claim to be because of their religion not because of the facts. I rejected evolution as science a long time before I knew much about ID or YEC; I assumed all scientist was evolutionist yet I knew even they were having trouble making the evidence fit their theory. I'm gald someone else actually saw the emperor naked since i was starting to wonder.

 

[Vance]

Then take me up on my challenge in the other forum, if there are so many non-religous scientists who are rejecting evolution based solely on the science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yet it works both ways. Not all who rejects evolution are christians.

And I never said they were. There are Islamic Creationists, Buddhist Creationists, Hindu Creationists... But for this discussion, I think it's just simpler to focus on Christian Creationists.

So anyone who reject evolution will naturally going to believe in some kind of creator.

Perhaps, but that's skirting dangerously close to an evolution=Atheism comparison...

As atheist who reject a creator will naturally accept evolution.

For lack of other options, yes.

So if you claim to know the motive of those who reject evolution because of their belief then It also cuts both ways to say because of unbelief someone accept evolution.

As I said before, I never said I know the motive of everyone who rejects evolution.... I can only speak from personal experience. The the majority of people I know who reject evolution do so based, at least in part, on religious conviction.

At no point did I ever say this was always the case.

I don't claim I know the motive of why someone accept or reject evolution. Yet if you claim I reject evolution because of my belief then I can say you accept evolution because of your unbelief.

1: I never said anything specifically about you and your beliefs. There is no cause to make this personal...

2: If you are questioning my faith in God...

Yes I do have a strong belief in God but I like science also yet I honestly see evolution as bad science and doesn't add up.

Then I look forward to seeing you answer Vance's challenge over in the C&E open forum...eventually.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1665338-challenge-to-creationists.html

Also I get a kick watching scientists who has a PHD come up with some lame stuff. I been reading some lately about the black hole in the center of our galaxy but you can't see it then another scientist claim he can almost prove that black holes doesn't exist (which how hard is that since we made them up on a charkboard) but now it's dark energy. So we now know invisible black holes doesn't exist but the invisible dark energy is in the center of our galaxy.

Old ideas are discarded...new ideas are adopted. How else are we supposed to learn?

Now I believe it's not a black hole or dark energy but Dark Vader using the dark side of the force to hold the galaxy together.

And you think scientists come up with lame stuff?

 

[CPman2004]

So CPman2004'
it obvious atleast to me why evolution seems so powerful ; they tries to hold a monopoly on what is "science". It be pointed out to me if anyone rejects evolution = rejects science. We live in a materialistic age which even christians are effected.( in the same way as money. money is something everybody has to deal with) Today people pretty much believe anything the scientist or doctors tells them where in the past people trusted their pastor or priest in this way.
Also evolution helps builds up man's ego especially someone with an high IQ. This is because it teaches man is improving which came from an ape-like ancestor instead man is a fallen creature. We like to think we are superior than our ancestors in the past.
ID is a big threat to TOE which many creationist support this even though they are not really creationist. ID uses the science that evolutionist is holding on to to help support their dogma and using it againest them. Evolution weakest point is science itself which why they try to make anyone who opposes them claim to be because of their religion not because of the facts. I rejected evolution as science a long time before I knew much about ID or YEC; I assumed all scientist was evolutionist yet I knew even they were having trouble making the evidence fit their theory. I'm gald someone else actually saw the emperor naked since i was starting to wonder.

You are begining to see that Evolution is not just a "scientific" theory. It is something that people hold onto with religious faith, and why it needs to be seen as a presuppostion and a worldview by which they judge all things. They have to hold onto evolution by faith since as scientific theories go it is lacking, the claims of evolution is really far feched (intelligence from non-intelligence; morality from non moral; order from disorder; ect...), but it is a way to hide from the one true God and they will hang on to that for dear life. Evolution is much more then simple science. It is a umbrella underwhich people can try to hide from the Creator, it is a thing that people hold onto by faith, and it becomes the worldview by which they judge the world's evidences. God has clearly reveled himself in nature, and Darwin wouldn't be the first one to try to produce a theory by which they can deny that God is the Creator.