It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism is a 'bad' movement

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Creationism is more than just the faithful beleiving that god and jesus are the creators of the universe. Its a political movement in mainstream politics and science that is very actively attempting to get an ideology, not a science, accepted as science and policy.

Creationism comes in lots of different flavours.
There's YECism (Young Earth Creationism) which states that the earth and universe is something like 6,000 years old, based primarily on a 'geneaology count' of people mentioned in the bible.

There's OECism, (Old Earth Creationism) which basically states that the earth and universe have been around long enough for evolution to operate, but that god created everything anyways and evolution doesn't occur.

There's also Intelligent Design (IDiocy) which is more of a tool than a part of the movement. Generally its primary modern advocates allow that man has evolved from apes, and that organisms in general evolve, but that there is evidence that, essentially, some things that have happened in biological history are immposible to occur naturally. Design in nature as the result of divine plan is not a new idea, and some would say that Paley, the theologist, is the big ID proponent.

Creationism is a problem, outside of it being incorrect scientifically, because it creates an ideology wherein rational thought is rejected, and even pseudo-rational forms are encouraged and accepted. It contributes to what some have called the 'dumbing down' of society; its also generally not a movement that is popular in countries with high educational standards (but lets be clear, one doesn't need to be stupid to be a creationist, and there's a lot of stupid people who aren't creationists, and a lot of very intelligent people who are creationists). Creationism tries to get reality to conform to a literal interpretation of the bible, which is strange, since the most literal readings of the bible are contradictory. Perhaps that is why creationism itself is sometimes contradictory. Creationism, or something like it, is lurking behind the public when the public rejects the latest in health and nutrition information, 'because once milk and eggs were good, and now they give you cancer, and now they are good again'. Creationism, or something like it, nudges people to say, 'well if we know that they've got wmds then the intelligence has to end up supporting it'. The modern world is complex, alien, and volatile. To operate in it, an indivual and a society has to be able to control what I call 'Honest Bias', and has to be able to evaluate situations and propositions objectively. Or at the very least be able to seperate objective and subjective interpretations. Creationism runs counter to that. Its an 'ideological' manifestation of that rejection of rational thought that is involved in all of the above.

Any thoughts, comments, disagreements?




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Christianity and science never had a problem until the last few decades when those who wanted to discount God entered the scientific scene. Christians have never had a problem with science and you'd be surprised if you knew how many scientists you've learned about were Christian. As a matter of fact, they say that King Solomon was the first scientist. I don't think I'd trust his science, though. This is the same guy that figured, "Hey, if one woman is a pain in the butt, maybe having a whole stable of them will be less of a headache, somehow!"


The concept of removing God from the picture is also a relatively new idea, and it was the bad concept. You contend that being totally close-minded and accepting only the possibility of an athiestic viewpoint is the proper route.

I am not sure what you were saying about Creationism in your last paragraph. Something about WMD's, aliens and cancer; I dunno. Your utter fear of another angle being considered seemed to have interfered with your lucid typing!



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

You contend that being totally close-minded and accepting only the possibility of an athiestic viewpoint is the proper route.

I just want to be clear, I don't think science isn't atheistic. Atheism says that 'you can answer the question of whether or not there is a god, and the answer is no, there is no god'. Science is, perhaps, more accuratley defined as'Agnostic', in that, science, as a method of inquiry, can't answer the question 'is there a god' or 'was this a miracle', it can only explain the mechanisms involved.

So one can apply science to nature and say 'ah, animals evolve, via a mechanism of natural selection, and this leads to adaptations', but it can't say 'no, this evolution is not the unraveling of a divine and unknowable 'type'' or "no, these animals have not changed because god willed it". Anyone who is a scientist and says 'god did not do this" is, technically, not being scientific, science can only shrug its shoulders and say 'lets pretend that there is no such thing as god, how would we explain this', etc etc.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
There a things about which I am certain, and there are things about which I know nothing. About these things I am comfortable. For everything else, there's the internet!


You appear to be a scientist of some sort, as you write with such certainty on this subject. Me? I like science, but most is over my head. I know my faith, though, and I know that it does not have a problem with hard science.

Since I don't know all that much about science except in a general sense, or as it applies to my field (avionics), I have to go to what others think. One point is yours. It is obviously biased. Another one is the one I present to you now; and it is biased as well.

www.christianity.ca...

"In the article, Dr. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture talks about the Cambrian explosion, over 500 million years ago, in which almost all of the basic body plans of animals appeared. Bang! Just like that! And these basic animal types are pretty much what we have today, except for the ones that have gone extinct. So the Cambrian explosion is not good news for Darwinian evolution (Darwinism)."

Dr. Meyer is a geologist, mind you. But I'd think he has a better grasp of this topic than does an avionics tech in South Alabama!



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There a things about which I am certain, and there are things about which I know nothing. About these things I am comfortable. For everything else, there's the internet!

You appear to be a scientist of some sort, as you write with such certainty on this subject. Me? I like science, but most is over my head.

Me like science too, me no think no too much go over me head tho.

Since I don't know all that much about science except in a general sense, or as it applies to my field (avionics), I have to go to what others think.

Flying in air things good.

Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture

ACCCH, I'm melting, meeeelllllttting!



talks about the Cambrian explosion, over 500 million years ago, in which almost all of the basic body plans of animals appeared. Bang! Just like that!

Problem is, they didn't appear just like that. Their appearance doesn't contradict evolutionary theory, and the 'suddenness' of the appearance is relative to geological time, that is to say, not very sudden.


Dr. Meyer is a geologist, mind you. But I'd think he has a better grasp of this topic than does an avionics tech in South Alabama!

And has a phd in the history of science frmo Cambridge no less!

Regardless, here is a critique of Meyer's article, and here is the DISC's rebuttal. The page you cited had a link to the editor of the journal, defending his decision, which I thought was intersting btw.

Here's where the conspiracy tends to work its way back in.
www.pba.edu... (where meyer is a teacher)

o assure the perpetuation of these basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God; that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; that He is the Son of God, our Lord and Savior; that He died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from the grave; that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in Him, by the grace of God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this college shall always be consistent with these principles.



Now, perhaps one can say that this does not mean that they are biblical literalists; indeed, meyer's paper seems to contradict biblical literalism, as does the ID movement in general. But what is disconcerting is that a lot of people invovled in the Creationist movement are part of organizations that have similar, and often far more stringent, restrictions and requirements, such as the ones I originally mentioned. Rather than be completely open to science, wherever it might take them, and rather than have it performed by anyone, they tend to insist that first, they are already divinely correct, and secondly, that only christians can do this work.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
You mean my link to Dr. Meyers' article didn't convince you? Darn. What a hard nut to crack, you are.

Regardless, I still find that you are making bad assumptions, in that you suggest that we believe only Christian scientists can discover the truth. I don't believe that at all. Furthermore, I do not believe that every conclusion a Christian scientist might come to is the Gospel (pardon the pun but I couldn't resist).

Back to the origins of this thread; I do find it interesting that one takes a stand against concepts such as Creationism or Intelligent Design, as if concepts such as Darwinism have always held the day. Take, for example, how the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact in the U.S. public school systems today and the mere mention of God is looked upon as if it is taboo. The recent groundswell to have Creation taught in school, as well as warning labels on science books containing Evolution, is viewed as a new and evil idea, too. Nevermind the fact that it wasn't until a few decades ago that there was any problem with God and Creation in the classroom.

The point of matter I'm trying to get to here is, relax, we are entitled to our viewpoints just as you are, and we believe that your views, as you see ours, are myopic and without hard fact. Look at it this way, if we Creationists are correct, we'll all know the truth in the end. If you are correct, none of us will care when we die.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Thanks for calling a key aspect of mine and many other religions a "bad movement". I could have taken something like "incorrect" or "not supported" but bad? Please.

I firmly am implanted in the Intellegent Design concept (of the IDiocy as you call it, thanks again!) If you evolutionists belive in evolution how can you explain the lack of it, in the respect of other beliefs?

Science and religion went very well together, during the renessance when people began to understand to wonderful world around them, and realated it to a trancendance. This issue has only appeared in the last hundred or so years. I find people use creation as a myth to offend religious folk without looking predudice.

At least launch a debate with some intellgence in it without offending people like me by calling us idiots. Funny how you only mention Christians as the "bad" ones, you forgot about the belifs of others, I have alot of Islamic friends that are creationists too, are they "bad" too because they belive in creation too?

Don't belive me, read:


Islam is creationist. The universe in Islam is a creation of God and is separate from God. The relationship of the world (including humanity) to God is the relationship between created and creator. While God is not present in the world (immanentalism), still the world reflects the nature and guidance of God.


From - www.wsu.edu:8080...

Apparently you are against the teachings of Isalm and Christianity. What about Judaism? Last time I checked they belive in the same stuff too.





[edit on 6/28/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Nygdan,
Good link on your opening post

Thing is that not all Creationist beileifs than what you have listed.
We have discussed this one way or another previously but I will restate for clarification for all new readers:
Intelligent Design actually is different from the (definition) that you have presented. Intelligent Design actually agrees with the Big Bang theory and the Old Earth theory. It does not state that Life just suddenly sprang up during the Cambrian age.
What Intelligent Design, attempts to put forth is that God under whatever name you wish to put forth, created life. It does not mean that he / she took a bunch of mud, molded it, blew on it. and abra cadabra, alakazam, presto chango you now have life and man.
What it does put forth, I am going to paraphrase here, "That God created MAN in his own image". Now if you were to take that literaly (as I know many do) then we all should look exactly the same. Same hair, same color, same number of toes. What ID puts forth is that When God Created MAN in his own image, it is refering to the soul, spirit, or to put it into terms of science, the ID (Freud).
If that be the case, then the creation of the soul would not deny the evolutionary theory since the evolutionary theory only deals with the "package" the body and shape of all creatures including man.
The major problem that I see here is that you have two extremes. Both are adamant to deny the other's validity to the point where, niether can even agree to disagree.
Science attempts to explain the "HOW" while religion attempts to explore the "WHY" of everything. One argument that I love to have with physics majors ( work with one everyday) Try to answer why anything works like it does in accordance with scientific fact or law. Example, Why does heat disapate? Science ultimately can only explain the way that this occurs, but when it comes right down to it, the ultimate answer that sciencce provides, 'Just because it does". Religion, on the other-hand says that it is God's will. What is the difference?
And Thomas Crowne, you are correct in that the denial of a supreme being is only a recent push and one that I also feel that it is a bad concept.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Actually, atheism comes in two basic forms -

Weak atheists passively lack belief in a "God", while strong atheists actively deny that there is a "God." The misunderstanding of atheism is usually a key force behind the "zenshin" drive of Christian apologetics.

There are three trends in the world today that might or might not relate to each other, but all of them definitely relate to earlier posts in this thread. You decide if they're related.

1. The average IQ is increasing.

2. Christianity is decreasing in economically developed countries. I have also read that Christianity is declining, per capita, period, but I cannot immediately find a source.

3. Scientific breakthroughs define modern man.

Zip

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Furthermore, the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic is that while an agnostic says "we cannot know for sure if there is a God," a weak atheist might say "I don't know for sure that there is a God." Or the weak atheist might say "I don't think there's a God." Or the weak atheist could say "Meh. Beats me."

The difference, of course, is the activity - an agnostic says that it is impossible to know if there is a God, but a weak atheist may not feel so strongly.

Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
What kind of atheist would say, "If there is a God, I don't like how he's handled things, and reject him"?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Technically, if he's rejecting God, he's a theist. If he says "I don't believe in a God because of all this crap in the world," he'd be a weak atheist. If he said "there is no God - look at all this crap in the world," he'd be a strong atheist.

Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Creationist is not a bad movement per say, if you take in consideration that it worked for the early church along with the bible teachings and laws.

But then again is a matter of faith you can not be faithful and not take everything including Creationism as face value.

Like somebody said already, as people became more educated and knowledgeable the creation belief became just like a fairy tale, still good but not that important for the faithful anymore.

Like Thomas said, it was not issue until the recent years, but with a twist of my own, when some new groups that wants to bring the old ways of religious believes back started to make and issue.

The true is that the same people that advocate for the undeniable beliefs of bible stories are the same that has spice up the atheist and agnostics to bring their own point of views and contradict them.

This just my opinion.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Like Thomas said, it was not issue until the recent years, but with a twist of my own, when some new groups that wants to bring the old ways of religious believes back started to make and issue.


Hehe, yep.


Originally posted by marg6043
The true is that the same people that advocate for the undeniable beliefs of bible stories are the same that has spice up the atheist and agnostics to bring their own point of views and contradict them.


I agree. Atheists tend not to be very evangelistic, but when it comes to the very defense of an intelligent future, I've got to stand up. If I can't trust the public school system to teach my neighbours' kids about reality (evolution), then my taxes are not being spent correctly. Christians everywhere agree that if their religion is to continue influencing people, the church will have to massively modernize their teachings, but the problem is, any new acknowledgements by "the church" (of course there is no central authority, arguably even among Catholics), will fail to enlighten outlying fundamentalist groups.

There will always be people who take the Bible at face value. They cannot admit its fallacies and want milk and honey so badly that they will make themselves ignorant in its post-mortem pursuit.

Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by marg6043
Like Thomas said, it was not issue until the recent years, but with a twist of my own, when some new groups that wants to bring the old ways of religious believes back started to make and issue.


Hehe, yep.


Originally posted by marg6043
The true is that the same people that advocate for the undeniable beliefs of bible stories are the same that has spice up the atheist and agnostics to bring their own point of views and contradict them.


I agree. Atheists tend not to be very evangelistic, but when it comes to the very defense of an intelligent future, I've got to stand up. If I can't trust the public school system to teach my neighbours' kids about reality (evolution), then my taxes are not being spent correctly. Christians everywhere agree that if their religion is to continue influencing people, the church will have to massively modernize their teachings, but the problem is, any new acknowledgements by "the church" (of course there is no central authority, arguably even among Catholics), will fail to enlighten outlying fundamentalist groups.


Wait a second here, are you saying that Christians are the problem in the world? It is our fault that humanity is not up to par? We are the problem keeping you from an intelligent future? What about other creation based religions including Islam and Judaism, why aren't they mentioned. I don't think this is a matter of evolution but more of a prejudice against a religious group. That's an image that I am getting from your post. Correct me if Im wrong.

I choose to be a Christian, and I don't push it upon others. I have Islamic friends that seem no different to me because we share the same beliefs. My religion does not influence my decisions or logic. If you have an atheist belief fine that's your choice, you still are human being like the rest of us, you seem to be really intellegent, but you must understand that you live with religious people on this planet and you must accept them. Don't say that we are keeping you from an intelligent future, because in the end we are all in it together.

[edit on 6/28/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Don't say that we are keeping you from an intelligent future, because in the end we are all in it together.

But if a segment of Christianity organizes to exclude the teaching of science from public schools, then indeed, an intelligent future is denied.

The issue is not about the positive (or negative) attributes of any given faith, but of one segment's effort to diminish the quality of science education.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle

Originally posted by Zipdot
I agree. Atheists tend not to be very evangelistic, but when it comes to the very defense of an intelligent future, I've got to stand up. If I can't trust the public school system to teach my neighbours' kids about reality (evolution), then my taxes are not being spent correctly. Christians everywhere agree that if their religion is to continue influencing people, the church will have to massively modernize their teachings, but the problem is, any new acknowledgements by "the church" (of course there is no central authority, arguably even among Catholics), will fail to enlighten outlying fundamentalist groups.


Wait a second here, are you saying that Christians are the problem in the world?


Absolutely not!


Originally posted by GoldEagle
It is our fault that humanity is not up to par?


I believe that humanity is prepared to face the challenges that we face now and those that we will face in the future, regardless of religion. I think that a large part of our preparedness is due to scientific advances and education.


Originally posted by GoldEagle
We are the problem keeping you from an intelligent future? What about other creation based religions including Islam, why aren't they mentioned. I don't think this is a matter of evolution but more of a prejudice against a religious group.


I'm sorry if I made it appear that way, I certainly do not mean to focus on a specific religion, but I was referring to the Christian interest groups here in America that are trying to change the way that science classes are taught.

I feel the same way about any unyielding motion to overthrow reason - I could care less if it's by Christians or Muslims or Scientologists. I beg you to understand that I am not against Christianity at all - I am against the restructuring of our education system to fit better with creationism and fit less with reason.

I believe that creationist and other philosophical education has its place outside of the public school system, and I really don't believe that the teaching of evolution theory in any way belittles, imposes upon, or otherwise interferes with Christianity, except perhaps some fundamentalist flavours. As for them, I, and many Christians, agree that interpretations including "young earth" teaching and whatnot are not conducive to a successful future for fundamentalism.

Zip

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I don't think that's what's going on in the majority of cases though Skeptic. This issue is different.


Creationism: Lawsuit by parents in Pennsylvania public school district, where the school officials require that science courses present "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. Critics say "Intelligent Design" is a form of creationism that entangles church and state.

www.kansas.com...


And although some school districts in the country, and even Montana, have adopted elements of creationism and intelligent design into their science curriculums, in Billings it has been a tough sell.

www.billingsgazette.com... =1&display=rednews/2005/06/22/build/state/25-evolution.inc




The battle in public schools across the country to teach what is missing from the curriculum continues. It’s also occurring in other nations such as the Netherlands where there’s a move on to teach creationism in their schools.

June 9 -- Three members of the Kansas State Board of Education endorsed proposed changes to the science standards which included most of what the evolution critics suggested and what Intelligent Design scientists testified to during earlier hearings. A final decision on standards is expected from the 10-member board later this summer.

www.opinioneditorials.com...

I just wanted to show a small note that the US isn't unique in it's discussion of creationism in school.

I don't think biblical creationism should be taught in science classes.

I do think it is healthy though for accurate criticism of the evolutionary theory in the presense of alternative explanations for empirical evidence. In addition, I think intelligent design theory should be taught alongside evolution since it endeavors to provide experimentation, empirical evidence, and a mathematical analysis on data.

Like I've said in other threads, I'm not sure who you are speaking of when you say people want to exclude evolutionary theory from schools. I've tried looking, perhaps you could provide some links.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle

Wait a second here, are you saying that Christians are the problem in the world? It is our fault that humanity is not up to par? We are the problem keeping you from an intelligent future?


No . . . no Christianity or Islam neither Judaism, but religion itself. Taken in consideration the much hoopla that the issue of evolution and creationist is doing in our school system after so many years of evolution been in the classroom, I wonder about the intelligent future of our children and their choice to choose what to believe.



I don't think this is a matter of evolution but more of a prejudice against a religious group. That's an image that I am getting from your post. Correct me if Im wrong.


Well I am sorry you feel this way but taking in consideration that this is the US and a "Christian nation" I guess is not targeting a group but actually the only group making an issue of what is been teach in schools. Right?




I choose to be a Christian, and I don't push it upon others.


Well that is very nice.



My religion does not influence my decisions or logic.


And you are right nobody here argue the contrary but you are right.




If you have an atheist belief fine that's your choice, you still are human being like the rest of us, you seem to be really intelligent, but you must understand that you live with religious people on this planet and you must accept them.


I am not an atheist, mind you, and I don't think Zipdot is either. . . and thanks for the intelligent remark, and hey I live in the south "bible belt"





Don't say that we are keeping you from an intelligent future, because in the end we are all in it together.


If you refer to zipdot last part of his post, I think he mean that literally, due to the fact that the evolution issue brought in and debated by religious groups is going to affect the way school is teaching science.

I personally like the evolution theory and I don't mind the "creationist" either, but if we are to teach science lets keep on science and if religion is to be brought into the classroom then it can not be as a science and to make things fair it should be "religion as a comparative subject" meaning the views of all religions and what they stand for.

That will make our students more "intelligent" aware that Christianity is not the only believe in the world.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

I'm sorry if I made it appear that way, I certainly do not mean to focus on a specific religion, but I was referring to the Christian interest groups here in America that are trying to change the way that science classes are taught.

I feel the same way about any unyielding motion to overthrow reason - I could care less if it's by Christians or Muslims or Scientologists. I beg you to understand that I am not against Christianity at all - I am against the restructuring of our education system to fit better with creationism and fit less with reason.

I believe that creationist and other philosophical education has its place outside of the public school system, and I really don't believe that the teaching of evolution theory in any way belittles, imposes upon, or otherwise interferes with Christianity, except perhaps some fundamentalist flavours. As for them, I, and many Christians, agree that interpretations including "young earth" teaching and whatnot are not conducive to a successful future for fundamentalism.

Zip

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]


You could have just said that instead of that other stuff! It's okay, don't worry about it, I'm just sick and tired of people always attacking other groups of people. That evidendtly seemed to be an attack on my belief system and others. Now you do make a good point, those Christian interest groups are a problem. I don't like how they manipulate people and force our religion on others. That is not the right Christian thing to do. We must respect other's beliefs as long as the are not a threat to us, Islam has the same principal. Evolution should be tought in schools, it's up to the youth to chose their own path.


I am not an atheist, mind you, and I don't think Zipdot is either. . . and thanks for the intelligent remark, and hey I live in the south "bible belt"
Oh man, you didn't metion that you live in Jesusland! No wonder you are sick and tired of that stuff, I would be too. Sorry you have to go through with that.

[edit on 6/28/2005 by GoldEagle]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join