What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[AnotherAtheist]

I'm not sure the OP is really understanding the philosophy of religion and thus creation. The positive evidence of creation is the universe itself (which would include both the natural and the supernatural in a religious world-view) It cannot be proved scientifically because the laws of science are also part of the created order and cannot prove their own origins. It cannot prove or disprove evolution either. Creation just is. Examination of the creation only proves what is already there, but cannot prove any further than that. Even the observations which lead to various theories about universal origins still won't be anywhere near the ballpark for proving or disproving creation- as the theories themselves still only deal with what is there and perhaps its history.

Waste of time.

I see nothing in your paragraph that suggests that I don't understand the philosophy of creation.

You can, if you want, quote the world we see around us as evidence of creation. However, it is also evidence for every single other theory of how the world came to be, all of which end up with the world that we see around us.

However, the world we see around us has properties that argue for and against different theories. E.g. comparing literal Biblical creation to evolution, if all the animals were created in a week about 6000 years ago, then we should see evidence of past animals appearing all at once, not in a sequence from primitive to modern. Evolution predicts the latter. We can look into the world and see if it is consistent with one theory or the other (and other theories not mentioned in this paragraph). The same applies to genetics, vestigal structures, etc. Nothing can be proved, but it is feasible that if creation did actually happen, that we would see objective evidence of it in the world around us.

You can if you want propose a God who deliberately created a world that not only has the appearance of age, but that s/he also deliberately filled the world with clues that the world wasn't created by a God, for whatever reason. In that case, the evidence that would support creation would be evidence that God exists. (And even then it wouldn't conclusively show that any evidenced God actually created the misleading world, rather than just guided its natural development or even just created the physical laws that led to it developing naturally.)

I feel that I do understand the philosophy of religion, it requires faith with only personal, subjective, evidence or faith without evidence at all. But, if we are to have a discussion of creation without circularly assuming the existence of God and creation, then we need objective evidence of creation. Otherwise we have a situation where creationists demand evidence for evolution, but pretend that there is no need for them to supply evidence for their own theory. Special pleading.

In many other threads there are demands for evidence FOR evolution. And usually blank dismissals of evidence, without reasoned argument, no matter how strong the evidence. Why is it not reasonable to ask for evidence FOR creation?

 

[ContraMundum]

I see nothing in your paragraph that suggests that I don't understand the philosophy of creation.

As long as you continue to use the forensic approach to understand something that can't be tested by that method, you don't understand the creation position. It's like trying to clean a window with a hammer. Wrong tool.

You can, if you want, quote the world we see around us as evidence of creation. However, it is also evidence for every single other theory of how the world came to be, all of which end up with the world that we see around us.

Bingo. Hence: a waste of time and an argument only for those bored in life. Go and do good works instead.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

This topic demonstrates the point set out by the OP - there is no evidence for creationism.
We have seen the following arguments:
"Because the bible says so"
"Because we weren't there and can't know"
"Because I don't understand this about evolution"

Quite a lot of the evidence we're seeing seems to fit the pattern:

"There is a world (and living things in it) therefore this is evidence for creation."

With the problems that (a) this supports every theory of how the world came to be, and (b) the details of the world give clues as to how it came to be - the world around us includes the fossil record, genetics of living things, etc. 'The world' could be evidence FOR creation, or evidence AGAINST creation. As it turns out, it's evidence AGAINST creation as (e.g.) all living things

Continuing your analogy of the broken lamp, this view of the evidence is:

"The lamp is broken. That is evidence that God did it."

The problem being that we then find cat footprints on the table, and also a bit of cat fur and blood on the broken lamp shards. An examination of the pattern of shard disturbance and cat traces shows that it's consistent with the cat having jumped off the table and running off, but there is no evidence of the cat having travelled over the shards in both directions, as we'd expect if the cat had arrived after the lamp was already broken. We also find that the cat has small cuts on its paws consistent with having escaped over the shards. Rationalists are saying that the theory that the cat broke the lamp now has strong objective evidence.

Creationists might then claim that God had broken the lamp and deliberately added the cat evidence, including creating the wounds on the cats' paws and the path away from the table over the shards....

 

[crjmurray]

So lots of assertion that creationism is fact. But no evidence. That's nice.

 

[ContraMundum]

So lots of assertion that creationism is fact. But no evidence. That's nice.

The problem is and always will be this: what would be accepted as evidence? No matter what is given, it is rejected as evidence. Atheists tend to want answers according to their own personal parameters (usually forensic, which is utterly useless on this matter) and theism has a different discipline altogether. Some things in the known universe can not be measured in a test tube or through the scientific method. Creation itself is the evidence in a theistic world-view. End of story. What the atheist is really asking is this: "prove to me there is a God". He then takes us to the science lab and says "use these tools only". As I said before, you may as well trying cleaning a window with a hammer.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

As long as you continue to use the forensic approach to understand something that can't be tested by that method, you don't understand the creation position. It's like trying to clean a window with a hammer. Wrong tool.

Anything that has an observable effect on the world can be tested by science. Biblical creation would leave its mark on the world unless we had a God that deliberately created a world that looked exactly as if it had arisen by natural means over a long period of time, in which case the only testable prediction of that there is that there is a God. Unless God is out to deliberately fool us, there should be evidence of creation.

The problem is and always will be this: what would be accepted as evidence? No matter what is given, it is rejected as evidence. Atheists tend to want answers according to their own personal parameters (usually forensic, which is utterly useless on this matter) and theism has a different discipline altogether. Some things in the known universe can not be measured in a test tube or through the scientific method. Creation itself is the evidence in a theistic world-view. End of story. What the atheist is really asking is this: "prove to me there is a God". He then takes us to the science lab and says "use these tools only". As I said before, you may as well trying cleaning a window with a hammer.

Not so. Evidence is evaluated on its own merits. I've already described examples of evidence that would be strong enough for me, e.g. the word of God written in DNA, evidence of animals and plants all appearing at once. Strong objective evidence for God him/herself. Yes, providing strong objective evidence for God would clearly support creation (though not prove it), what is wrong with that?

In this thread I note that evolutionists (not all of them atheists) have given serious consideration to the evidence provided, and discussed it in depth. The problem is that creationists haven't been able to produce any strong evidence FOR creation.

Now we have special pleading that creation/religion doesn't need evidence. I do not accept this to be the case. If we had a God as described in The Bible, there should be testable evidence.

 

[Armoured]

So lots of assertion that creationism is fact. But no evidence. That's nice.

Well that's 'cos there is none. Best they got is attempting to discredit evolutionary theory, the unspoken assumption being that Biblical Creation and TOE are the only two contenders.

 

[ContraMundum]

Anything that has an observable effect on the world can be tested by science.

OK. So what?

Here's something that is observable but can't be tested by the science.

Two people observe a sunset. One says that it's beautiful and very moving. The other says the same but that they are moved more. The other disagrees. Using hard science, how can we prove who is right?

Biblical creation would leave its mark on the world unless we had a God that deliberately created a world that looked exactly as if it had arisen by natural means over a long period of time, in which case the only testable prediction of that there is that there is a God. Unless God is out to deliberately fool us, there should be evidence of creation.

You still don't where I'm coming from. You are the evidence. The chair you sit on and the brain you use is all evidence that there is a universe. On this we agree, right? How the universe came into being is up for grabs. Science can only tell us what it gleans by observation (and the theories abound, constantly changing and being discarded often shortly after their postulation). It cannot tell us what we cannot see or find. Since theism states that this universe is created by a Creator that deems to withdraw or cloak Himself in order to allow creation to exist no forensic evidence for that Creator is possible. By definition.

Secondly, as I mention above, no proof is acceptable as no evidence that could be given fits the scientific model. The true meaning of proof is "evidence which compels assent". To the theist, the unseen evidence of the experience of conversion, the musings of the heart and mind, assent to the logic of the first cause and so forth is enough evidence to compel assent. To some atheists like yourself perhaps, such things are discarded because they can't be proven using what they regard as the scientific method. But the scientific method was never intended to prove all things. That's an abuse of it. The scientific method cannot measure emotions, the spiritual, the sentient experience and other things which very much form a part of who we are and the universe in which we find ourselves. It can observe some of these things, and their effects, but only from the physical and not from the unseen.

So, you're asking us to clean your window and giving us a hammer and a nail to do it with. Can't work and the dialog will never succeed.

 

[crjmurray]

The problem is and always will be this: what would be accepted as evidence? No matter what is given, it is rejected as evidence. Atheists tend to want answers according to their own personal parameters (usually forensic, which is utterly useless on this matter) and theism has a different discipline altogether. Some things in the known universe can not be measured in a test tube or through the scientific method. Creation itself is the evidence in a theistic world-view. End of story. What the atheist is really asking is this: "prove to me there is a God". He then takes us to the science lab and says "use these tools only". As I said before, you may as well trying cleaning a window with a hammer.

Uh I'm not an atheist.

No one is asking for evidence of God. Just creationism.

You are saying there is no evidence. Great.

 

[ContraMundum]

Uh I'm not an atheist.

I wasn't only responding to you, and you didn't get what I was saying if you think I said there was no evidence. There is- but not the kind of evidence this other guy wants. None that I know of anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. So what?

Here's something that is observable but can't be tested by the science.

Two people observe a sunset. One says that it's beautiful and very moving. The other says the same but that they are moved more. The other disagrees. Using hard science, how can we prove who is right?



You still don't where I'm coming from. You are the evidence. The chair you sit on and the brain you use is all evidence that there is a universe. On this we agree, right? How the universe came into being is up for grabs. Science can only tell us what it gleans by observation (and the theories abound, constantly changing and being discarded often shortly after their postulation). It cannot tell us what we cannot see or find. Since theism states that this universe is created by a Creator that deems to withdraw or cloak Himself in order to allow creation to exist no forensic evidence for that Creator is possible. By definition.

Secondly, as I mention above, no proof is acceptable as no evidence that could be given fits the scientific model. The true meaning of proof is "evidence which compels assent". To the theist, the unseen evidence of the experience of conversion, the musings of the heart and mind, assent to the logic of the first cause and so forth is enough evidence to compel assent. To some atheists like yourself perhaps, such things are discarded because they can't be proven using what they regard as the scientific method. But the scientific method was never intended to prove all things. That's an abuse of it. The scientific method cannot measure emotions, the spiritual, the sentient experience and other things which very much form a part of who we are and the universe in which we find ourselves. It can observe some of these things, and their effects, but only from the physical and not from the unseen.

So, you're asking us to clean your window and giving us a hammer and a nail to do it with. Can't work and the dialog will never succeed.

You are making false accusations against atheists. Atheists would be the first to accept evidence if it was given. You do not understand why people become atheists in the first place. Also you are using "proof" incorrectly. Evidence comes first. That is why the request was for evidence. So far you are big on excuses and short on action. Do you have any evidence at all? Perhaps you need to learn what evidence is.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OK. So what?

Here's something that is observable but can't be tested by the science.

Two people observe a sunset. One says that it's beautiful and very moving. The other says the same but that they are moved more. The other disagrees. Using hard science, how can we prove who is right?

You haven't said what they disagree about. Is it exactly how much they are moved? You also haven't defined what it is to be 'right' or wrong. So, you haven't defined a question. I am. The question is whether or not the world was created by a God.

We could do scientific experiments with these two, e.g. measuring their responses to sunsets over time and creating theories about what causes them to be describing the sunsets as 'moving' or not. This would allow us to create theories concerning exactly how they form their subjective opinions. Or we could do scientific experiments on people in general, seeing what leads to what subjective experiences.

You still don't where I'm coming from. You are the evidence. The chair you sit on and the brain you use is all evidence that there is a universe. On this we agree, right? How the universe came into being is up for grabs. Science can only tell us what it gleans by observation (and the theories abound, constantly changing and being discarded often shortly after their postulation). It cannot tell us what we cannot see or find. Since theism states that this universe is created by a Creator that deems to withdraw or cloak Himself in order to allow creation to exist no forensic evidence for that Creator is possible. By definition.

I understand your point, but disagree with you. I'm pointing out that what we see does not specifically support the theory of creation.

Looking at me, my genetics, my vestigal organs, my common familial relationships with all life, I am much better evidence for evolution than I am for creation. Looking at me, we find exactly what we would expect if evolution is true, and not what we would find if any version of creation had occurred other than a creator who deliberately filled the world up with evidence for evolution.

If you propose a 'Creator that deems to withdraw or cloak Himself' are you suggesting a Creator who created a world that looks exactly like a world without a creator? Why would a God deliberately mislead us in this way? Is there any need to propose the existence of a God in that worldview?

Secondly, as I mention above, no proof is acceptable as no evidence that could be given fits the scientific model. The true meaning of proof is "evidence which compels assent". To the theist, the unseen evidence of the experience of conversion, the musings of the heart and mind, assent to the logic of the first cause and so forth is enough evidence to compel assent. To some atheists like yourself perhaps, such things are discarded because they can't be proven using what they regard as the scientific method. But the scientific method was never intended to prove all things. That's an abuse of it. The scientific method cannot measure emotions, the spiritual, the sentient experience and other things which very much form a part of who we are and the universe in which we find ourselves. It can observe some of these things, and their effects, but only from the physical and not from the unseen.

We're talking about evidence, not proof. There is plenty of potential evidence for creation, I've given examples, it's just that we don't find it in the real world.

The scientific method can measure emotions. We can ask people to rate their emotional responses on a Likert scale. Our ability to measure emotions through (e.g.) EEG is improving all the time, and is limited by our technology, not the
scientific method itself. You're trying to artificially reduce the scope of applicability of the scientific method.

So, you're asking us to clean your window and giving us a hammer and a nail to do it with. Can't work and the dialog will never succeed.

I'm asking you to clean a window and giving you exactly the same cloth and warm soapy water as I give everyone else. Others are able to clean the window, you can't.

 

[crjmurray]

I wasn't only responding to you, and you didn't get what I was saying if you think I said there was no evidence. There is- but not the kind of evidence this other guy wants. None that I know of anyway.

Well there's one kind of evidence. Real evidence. Are you saying you have no real evidence?

 

[ContraMundum]

You are making false accusations against atheists.

I said "some" and "perhaps". "...To some atheists like yourself perhaps.."

Atheists would be the first to accept evidence if it was given.

I think they're looking in the wrong place for the wrong evidence.

You do not understand why people become atheists in the first place.

Lots of differing reasons I would imagine.

Also you are using "proof" incorrectly. Evidence comes first.

Didn't I just say that? "Proof is evidence that compels assent"

That is why the request was for evidence. So far you are big on excuses and short on action. Do you have any evidence at all? Perhaps you need to learn what evidence is.

I know what evidence is, and explained it. However, you have not shown me that you contemplated what was written and perhaps you are closed to other world-views anyway?

Well, you obviously are posting emotively and didn't read what I actually said, so rather than lecture me on what you erroneously consider ignorance, try to think and ponder before you respond.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well there's one kind of evidence. Real evidence. Are you saying you have no real evidence?

Define "real".

 

[ContraMundum]

I think a better question would be how consciousness arose from inanimate matter, people should be allowed to think whatever until that gets solved. Not just Christianity but any other view point...as long as it doesn't contradict the science so far of this age

Pretty good point.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I think a better question would be how consciousness arose from inanimate matter, people should be allowed to think whatever until that gets solved. Not just Christianity but any other view point...as long as it doesn't contradict the science so far of this age

People are allowed to think whatever they like. What we're asking here is what evidence there is for creation. As we're not just allowing people to think whatever they like, we're interested in whether the theories that people propose for the world (including creationism) are more or less likely to be true. Each theory in itself is evaluated in terms of evidence. It makes no sense to create your own set of goal posts and suggest that we shouldn't evaluate theories unti we pass your arbitrary goalposts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said "some" and "perhaps". "...To some atheists like yourself perhaps.."



I think they're looking in the wrong place for the wrong evidence.



Lots of differing reasons I would imagine.



Didn't I just say that? "Proof is evidence that compels assent"



I know what evidence is, and explained it. However, you have not shown me that you contemplated what was written and perhaps you are closed to other world-views anyway?

Well, you obviously are posting emotively and didn't read what I actually said, so rather than lecture me on what you erroneously consider ignorance, try to think and ponder before you respond.

Please, when a person that is ignorant tries to claim others are ignorant it only makes me laugh.

You do not seem to understand the nature of evidence. Most creationists don't want to. Evidence is a two edged sword. It can both cut for you and against you. To have evidence you need to risk the chance that it could cut against you.

Scientists base their beliefs upon scientific evidence. To have scientific evidence one needs a testable hypothesis and part of that would be a statement of what evidence would show that you are wrong. Scientists don't want to be wrong, but they are brave enough to find tests that would show that they are wrong. That is why they have scientific evidence that supports their beliefs. I have yet to find a creationist that is not afraid of being wrong. They will not state their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. That is one of the number one reasons that there is no evidence for creationism.

 

[ContraMundum]

You haven't said what they disagree about. Is it exactly how much they are moved? You also haven't defined what it is to be 'right' or wrong. So, you haven't defined a question. I am. The question is whether or not the world was created by a God.

I thought I did define a question...but anyway...we move on then.

We could do scientific experiments with these two, e.g. measuring their responses to sunsets over time and creating theories about what causes them to be describing the sunsets as 'moving' or not. This would allow us to create theories concerning exactly how they form their subjective opinions. Or we could do scientific experiments on people in general, seeing what leads to what subjective experiences.

Yep. All observable things. Still nothing more than what psychologists are trying to do and as yet no one has been able to prove something that is eternally subjective.

I understand your point, but disagree with you. I'm pointing out that what we see does not specifically support the theory of creation.

Looking at me, my genetics, my vestigal organs, my common familial relationships with all life, I am much better evidence for evolution than I am for creation. Looking at me, we find exactly what we would expect if evolution is true, and not what we would find if any version of creation had occurred other than a creator who deliberately filled the world up with evidence for evolution.

All those observable things could equally be cited as evidence for creation too. It's a matter of perspective.

If you propose a 'Creator that deems to withdraw or cloak Himself' are you suggesting a Creator who created a world that looks exactly like a world without a creator? Why would a God deliberately mislead us in this way? Is there any need to propose the existence of a God in that worldview?

1) Yep.
2) Not misleading by God, but necessary for Creation to exist. Difficult to explain on this forum, but essentially I cannot exist within a painting I made without destroying the painting itself. If God's intent was to make a universe with sentient free will and laws of physics which govern the it, the physical existence of an entirely holy being of Divine essence within that created order would contradict those laws.
3) No, there is no need to propose the existence of God in this world-view. Well spotted. Hence, it can't be a mere proposition.

We're talking about evidence, not proof. There is plenty of potential evidence for creation, I've given examples, it's just that we don't find it in the real world.

Well stated.

The scientific method can measure emotions. We can ask people to rate their emotional responses on a Likert scale. Our ability to measure emotions through (e.g.) EEG is improving all the time, and is limited by our technology, not the scientific method itself. You're trying to artificially reduce the scope of applicability of the scientific method.

I think I allowed for that in my previous post, and I believe the science on that matter currently rather unsatisfying and insufficient.

I'm asking you to clean a window and giving you exactly the same cloth and warm soapy water as I give everyone else. Others are able to clean the window, you can't.

Perhaps you missed my point then. OK, we move on.

 

[ContraMundum]

Please, when a person that is ignorant tries to claim others are ignorant it only makes me laugh.

Then why did you assume I was ignorant? I never said you were.

You do not seem to understand the nature of evidence. Most creationists don't want to. Evidence is a two edged sword. It can both cut for you and against you. To have evidence you need to risk the chance that it could cut against you.

OK then...whatever.

Scientists base their beliefs upon scientific evidence. To have scientific evidence one needs a testable hypothesis and part of that would be a statement of what evidence would show that you are wrong. Scientists don't want to be wrong, but they are brave enough to find tests that would show that they are wrong. That is why they have scientific evidence that supports their beliefs. I have yet to find a creationist that is not afraid of being wrong. They will not state their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. That is one of the number one reasons that there is no evidence for creationism.

OK...so you understand High School science. Don't we all?

Next!