Creationist Revealed

S

Snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
177
Points
63
I have just had, unbidden, a sales pitch for creationism. I see there's been other threads but there's new folk here and the old threads smelled musty...

Taken from the British Centre for Science Education website:

Creationism in the broadest sense is the belief that the existence, nature, or development of the Universe is the result of some kind of purposeful activity by a supernatural being. As a broad philosophical or religious position, this is compatible with the practice of science, which can then be regarded as the study of the manner in which this supernatural being operates. BCSE is neutral on this, as on all religious issues, provided it is not used to deny, replace, or undermine science.
Our concern is with the modern Creationist movement, allied to religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, and often also to specific political agendas. This considers humankind, and different species in general, to have been produced by separate acts of special creation, rejects the historical fact of biological evolution, commonly denies the evidence for the antiquity of the Earth, and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with our entire body of knowledge in the areas of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Creationists in this sense seek to undermine science education, and the public understanding of science. They are active, well funded, and politically organised in the US and increasingly in the UK, as well as in other parts of the world.
We consider Intelligent Design to be part of this Creationist movement, on the basis of overlapping personnel and resources, closely related attempts to undermine established science, and the shared rejection of natural in favour of untestable supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
 
The first question I ask someone that tells me they believe in creationism is, "How old do you think the earth is and why?"
 
IowaGuy said:
The first question I ask someone that tells me they believe in creationism is, "How old do you think the earth is and why?"
Click to expand...

I'm guessing 3000 years. She seems to be a biblical literalist. So if she's told or believes it's 3000 years old she's starting with the answer and will look for 'evidence' that supports it and dismiss or ignore anything that challenges the predetermined answer. We're not talking the scientific method here...:eek:

She came out with various ridiculous claims and explanations which as someone who took geology, chemistry and biology at college could easily refute... if the listener could hear rationality.
 
Okay Snoopy, other than running across yet another case of confirmation bias what was salient about this experience for you? That is to say, was this offensive to you or did you feel put upon by this person?
I would think it would be annoying at best.
 
Paladin said:
That is to say, was this offensive to you or did you feel put upon by this person?
I would think it would be annoying at best.
Click to expand...

There's the topic and there's the person/circumstance.

I have an unambiguous view on what creationism is; not that I was asked for it...probably thankfully!

The person I consider to be an all round good egg so was surpised, shocked and somewhat disappointed that they seem to have bought into this abject nonsense. (although her husband will have something to do with it...)

The circumstance was like being caught on the doorstep by a JW, only worse because this was a friend, at their house, sitting eating cake and drinking tea! I was decidedly put on and I think that is rude. I suggested I knew a little geology, chemisty and biology and that maybe the Earth is a little older than 3,000 years and maybe there was something in what Darwin said. This was dismissed with a smirk.

I decided to let her spout her rubbish on what fossils were and how they were formed and how long ago and accepted the DVD she pressed upon me, without comment. She will ask what I thought of it when she has it back, so how do I maintain friendship? A scintilla of honsesty from me, however sugar-coated is going to be unacceptable to her I fear.

I do not lecture people on stuff that the other person has not expressed an interest in, or seems interested in, or agrees with. It was evangelising. It was prosletysing. Just by a very nice person.
 
Snoopy,

Ask her, "Is it okay with you if I disagree with you?" I have found this one simple question really sets the tone for any further discussion. If she says no, it is not to disagree with her, then you have to tell that you don't want to discuss it with her.

But my experience has been that they don't want to talk about whether it's okay for you to disagree with them, they just want to proselytize. If so, you just have to keep bringing the topic back to, "No, that's not what I want to talk about, I want to know if it's okay with you that I disagree with you."

Or if the friendship is strong enough, simply say, "I disagree, I think creationism is wrong" without justifying it at all, and see how she responds.
 
Snoopy said:
There's the topic and there's the person/circumstance.

I have an unambiguous view on what creationism is; not that I was asked for it...probably thankfully!

The person I consider to be an all round good egg so was surpised, shocked and somewhat disappointed that they seem to have bought into this abject nonsense. (although her husband will have something to do with it...)

The circumstance was like being caught on the doorstep by a JW, only worse because this was a friend, at their house, sitting eating cake and drinking tea! I was decidedly put on and I think that is rude. I suggested I knew a little geology, chemisty and biology and that maybe the Earth is a little older than 3,000 years and maybe there was something in what Darwin said. This was dismissed with a smirk.

I decided to let her spout her rubbish on what fossils were and how they were formed and how long ago and accepted the DVD she pressed upon me, without comment. She will ask what I thought of it when she has it back, so how do I maintain friendship? A scintilla of honsesty from me, however sugar-coated is going to be unacceptable to her I fear.

I do not lecture people on stuff that the other person has not expressed an interest in, or seems interested in, or agrees with. It was evangelising. It was prosletysing. Just by a very nice person.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that, it must have been hard for you to take, and a little confusing too. I think Nick has a good suggestion, but maybe it would help to get a little clarity on your own thinking around this? Maybe take it into meditation for a bit to come up with a skillful way to respond?
 
Do you get to create your response, or is your response predetermined? Maybe just try random responses to see how well the conversation evolves? Does the fate of science seriously hang in the balance here?!
 
CreationISM adherents typically say the earth is 6,000... i've even heard them refer to fossils as "jesus toothpicks"... though i'm not entirely sure what that means.

they may argue that God just made the earth to seem as if was billions of years old but it actually isn't.

ah... who doesn't love being the privileged of God?

metta,

~v
 
Snoopy said:
I have just had, unbidden, a sales pitch for creationism. I see there's been other threads but there's new folk here and the old threads smelled musty...

Taken from the British Centre for Science Education website:

Creationism in the broadest sense is the belief that the existence, nature, or development of the Universe is the result of some kind of purposeful activity by a supernatural being. As a broad philosophical or religious position, this is compatible with the practice of science, which can then be regarded as the study of the manner in which this supernatural being operates. BCSE is neutral on this, as on all religious issues, provided it is not used to deny, replace, or undermine science.
Our concern is with the modern Creationist movement, allied to religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, and often also to specific political agendas. This considers humankind, and different species in general, to have been produced by separate acts of special creation, rejects the historical fact of biological evolution, commonly denies the evidence for the antiquity of the Earth, and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with our entire body of knowledge in the areas of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Creationists in this sense seek to undermine science education, and the public understanding of science. They are active, well funded, and politically organised in the US and increasingly in the UK, as well as in other parts of the world.
We consider Intelligent Design to be part of this Creationist movement, on the basis of overlapping personnel and resources, closely related attempts to undermine established science, and the shared rejection of natural in favour of untestable supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
Click to expand...

I like the way it makes the important distinction between the philosophical position and the modern fundamentalist movement - not all do, so it's refreshing to see this being made clear.
 
Snoopy said:
I do not lecture people on stuff that the other person has not expressed an interest in, or seems interested in, or agrees with.
Click to expand...
I am going to have to frame that. All of those years of math, bio, chem, and physics, are... optional?

Snoopy said:
You mean I'm being ungrateful? :confused::eek:
Click to expand...
I imagine your parents lectured you on stuff that you did not express an interest in, seem interested in, or agree with. Maybe ask them?
 
Science has already stated that something cannot be created from nothing. This is a good basis for intelligent design saying that an intelligence(s) existed which created the universe. They need to teach this in schools instead of feeding kids evolution theories.
 
Look up loop quantum gravity and cosmology. I am rather afraid that a significant portion of quantum cosmologists out there would really disagree with "something cannot be created from nothing". It did.

Creatio ex nihilo sure worked well enough for Philo, St. Augustine, Muhammed, Heisenberg, Wheeler, and Isham -- count me in their corner.

I will sue my school distict (as should every other reasonable person) if they quit teaching evolution and substitute "creation science".

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
 
donnann said:
Science has already stated that something cannot be created from nothing. This is a good basis for intelligent design saying that an intelligence(s) existed which created the universe. They need to teach this in schools instead of feeding kids evolution theories.
Click to expand...

What is the intelligent design in the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale?
 
I believe that each planet was like an unfertilized egg and that the planet earth was created last being the center. I believe say earth for example was created by mieosis like when an egg and sperm unite to create a life.
 
From the original hebrew the text didnt say GOD is said Creator(s) which was singular and plural. I believe just like human reproduction that the female half created the earth and the male half fertilized it causing the development of the earth just like when a child is conceived. So the planet earth was done by the female counterpart and then god fertilzed it causing meiosis which was creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top