What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[pitabread]

When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.

None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.

All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.

Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

 

[Saucy]

I wouldn't say that creationists have made no dent. You constantly have high-end academics going into Christian circles and debating. Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye wasn't that long ago.

I do think the paradigm shifted though. Maybe it's politics that are now taking center stage, the raging debates that are heating up between Christian conservatives and liberals (both Christian liberals and atheist liberals) has take up most of the attention.

And it's not too difficult to look around at the world and see what we consider to be the birth pangs of the end coming as written about in the bible, so as the world continues to get worse, we'll probably remain focused on the end, rather than the beginning.

But, even if it's bunk, according to MANY sides, conservatism is expected to return within the next generation, so I'm willing to bet this debate will continue to rage on.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Well of course it hasnt come to pass because they were saying that they expected evolution to be replaced within a 100 years, not a decade. The reason for this timescale was expected advances in science over a period time were being projected as being sufficient to disprove evolution within that timeframe.

My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory. It is far from proven and a lot of the so called evidence is making something scientists see fit what the scientists want it to fit. If you watch any debates on evolution and creationism 99% of the time you will see the creationist wanting to debate the subject and look at the fact and the evolutionist wanting to shout at and be abusive to the creationist without discussing the facts.

 

[Steve Petersen]

But, even if it's bunk, according to MANY sides, conservatism is expected to return within the next generation, so I'm willing to bet this debate will continue to rage on.

I agree. I was subjected to YEC arguments 50 years ago when I was a teen. These same arguments and citations are STILL being thrown about by YECs today. Indeed, the next generation has just picked up the same old arguments.

 

[pitabread]

I agree. I was subjected to YEC arguments 50 years ago when I was a teen. These same arguments and citations are STILL being thrown about by YECs today. Indeed, the next generation has just picked up the same old arguments.

No argument there. The fundamentals of the debate haven't changed much at all, other than creationists having to react to new developments in science.

 

[Saucy]

I agree. I was subjected to YEC arguments 50 years ago when I was a teen. These same arguments and citations are STILL being thrown about by YECs today. Indeed, the next generation has just picked up the same old arguments.

Yeah I think those arguments are used to disprove evolution and not prove creationism. You can't really prove creationism, so the only thing creationists can do is either:

1) Focus on the existence of God (by talking about prophecy and other such things)
2) Discrediting evolution.

And as GirdYourLoins pointed out, I have no issue with evolution, but I want it taught as a theory, not some absolute fact. Science involves a lot of observation and we have NO observations for what took place all those years ago, whether it was thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.

I found peace with it because I don't know if the two can ever be reconciled. Science simply tries to explain things from a 100% naturalistic perspective. It takes NO account of a supernatural God. I believe that supernatural God exists and, since He exists, He had a hand in everything we see around us. It didn't come about naturally, but supernaturally. I don't expect scientists will ever come forward and say, "yep, there's proof of creation."

There are plenty of scientists who are Christians (and many other faiths), so they must feel confident enough in having faith in a creator AND studying the universe at the same time.

 

[sfs]

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

The actual goal for most creationists probably hasn't changed at all: keep their kids (or their neighbors' kids) from going to Hell. Evolution is a path to disbelief, and if you don't believe you're bound for Hell.

 

[pitabread]

My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory.

My only goal is for creationists to finally learn what a "theory" means in science: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

If you watch any debates on evolution and creationism 99% of the time you will see the creationist wanting to debate the subject and look at the fact and the evolutionist wanting to shout at and be abusive to the creationist without discussing the facts.

This is made up. Generally I find creationist debate is more about populist propaganda to convince the lay public than any sort of real debate.

The two places where debate really matters is in academia and public policy (typically fought in the courts). Creationists are largely AWOL in the former and have a losing history in the latter. And with respect to public opinion, they've been steadily losing support, so they're clearly not winning battles there either.

 

[Steve Petersen]

. Evolution is a path to disbelief, and if you don't believe you're bound for Hell.

Or not.

 

[pitabread]

I wouldn't say that creationists have made no dent. You constantly have high-end academics going into Christian circles and debating. Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye wasn't that long ago

Dunno if I'd consider Nye a high-end academic. He is a legit engineer, but he's more of an entertainer/science popularizer than true academic. I find the real academics largely just ignore creationists as a loony fringe belief. Except when it comes to public policy debates and court battles, mind you.

And it's not too difficult to look around at the world and see what we consider to be the birth pangs of the end coming as written about in the bible, so as the world continues to get worse, we'll probably remain focused on the end, rather than the beginning.

The world isn't really getting worse though. By a lot of metrics, we have it better than we ever have.

There have been far worse periods in history than the 21st century.

 

[sfs]

Well of course it hasnt come to pass because they were saying that they expected evolution to be replaced within a 100 years, not a decade.

Some of the predictions were for evolution to collapse on much shorter timescales than 100 years -- and the predictions have in fact been made for over 100 years. Here is a compilation.

 

[sfs]

Or not.

That's what they believe, though.

 

[pitabread]

The actual goal for most creationists probably hasn't changed at all: keep their kids (or their neighbors' kids) from going to Hell. Evolution is a path to disbelief, and if you don't believe you're bound for Hell.

True enough the end goal is just protecting their belief structure from perceived harmful influence. It just feels like creationists have largely given up on the idea of overturning science they don't like.

 

[Ophiolite]

My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory.

I am an evolutionist. I do not simply admit it. I celebrate it and am ready to shout it from the rooftops. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. There is no higher accolade can be given to a concept in science than to call it a theory. Why? Because theory is reserved only for those ideas which are based upon solid foundations, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, have been rigorously and vigorously analysed, examined, tested, scrutinised, challenged, questioned, debated, dissected and extensively validated.

In science it just doesn't get any better than the solidity of a theory. And out of all the theories out there the Theory of Evolution is at or near the top of the tree in terms of solidity.

But I think you already knew this, so my questions is, why would you use the tired old "it's only a theory"? It can't be because you think evolutionists are fools. So, who is the audience you hope to confuse with the implicit lie?

 

[keith99]

Dunno if I'd consider Nye a high-end academic. He is a legit engineer, but he's more of an entertainer/science popularizer than true academic. I find the real academics largely just ignore creationists as a loony fringe belief. Except when it comes to public policy debates and court battles, mind you.
.....

Perhaps it is that he just seems like a true academic in comparison.

 

[SkyWriting]

The actual goal for most creationists probably hasn't changed at all: keep their kids (or their neighbors' kids) from going to Hell. Evolution is a path to disbelief, and if you don't believe you're bound for Hell.

I moved from the YEC position becasue when I began to
argue that nothing in nature is random, I realized that
pointed more toward the Creator than away from Him.

Biology is moving away from the position that anything is random.

 

[pitabread]

Biology is moving away from the position that anything is random.

What specifically are you referring to?

 

[Halbhh]

The actual goal for most creationists probably hasn't changed at all: keep their kids (or their neighbors' kids) from going to Hell. Evolution is a path to disbelief, and if you don't believe you're bound for Hell.

Here's the key to whether faith endures or fails from Christ Himself --

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Do as He says, and you will endure. Don't, and you won't. This is the only sure and certain reality about how we can endure.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I wouldn't say that creationists have made no dent. You constantly have high-end academics going into Christian circles and debating. Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye wasn't that long ago.

I do think the paradigm shifted though. Maybe it's politics that are now taking center stage, the raging debates that are heating up between Christian conservatives and liberals (both Christian liberals and atheist liberals) has take up most of the attention.

And it's not too difficult to look around at the world and see what we consider to be the birth pangs of the end coming as written about in the bible, so as the world continues to get worse, we'll probably remain focused on the end, rather than the beginning.

But, even if it's bunk, according to MANY sides, conservatism is expected to return within the next generation, so I'm willing to bet this debate will continue to rage on.

Many of these debates are for the hearts and minds of future generations, not for the legitimacy of the science (which is uncontested) - the problem that creationism carries is that future would-be scientists are set at a HUGE Disadvantage if they ever intend to turn to a career in science and research, a forefront industry that dictates the future economic success of a nation. Creationism and other anti-science efforts are an impediment to that future.

Also, we live in the best, safest and enjoy the least amount of conflict the human race has ever enjoyed in recorded history, so what's with this "as the world continues to get worse" business? We have the richest & most enjoyable average lifestyle that any human has ever enjoyed... Ever. Every metric by which we could measure this is demonstrably better than at any other point we have records of.

And as GirdYourLoins pointed out, I have no issue with evolution, but I want it taught as a theory, not some absolute fact. Science involves a lot of observation and we have NO observations for what took place all those years ago, whether it was thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.

LOL! Except of course we do... Also, you should probably not wax on too much about theories as they relate to science either - until you can work out what a scientific theory is.

that said though, Evolution is both a fact and a theory...

I found peace with it because I don't know if the two can ever be reconciled. Science simply tries to explain things from a 100% naturalistic perspective. It takes NO account of a supernatural God. I believe that supernatural God exists and, since He exists, He had a hand in everything we see around us. It didn't come about naturally, but supernaturally. I don't expect scientists will ever come forward and say, "yep, there's proof of creation."

There are plenty of scientists who are Christians (and many other faiths), so they must feel confident enough in having faith in a creator AND studying the universe at the same time.

I see you noted there that not only Christians, but people of all faiths (and for that matter, even people of no faith) have all centered on these sciences including the Theory of Evolution without issue. This doesn't tell you anything?

 

[Ophiolite]

We have the richest & most enjoyable average lifestyle that any human has ever enjoyed... Ever.

Are you asserting this to be true globally? If so would you provide some support for it.