Creationism under fire ... from creationists.

[NulliuSINverba]

Never mind the whole "Evolution Vs. Creationism" debate. It is obvious that each "Theory" of Creation faces its greatest challenge from its rival creationists:

"In the beginning, God created the universe. At first the earth was shapeless and covered in darkness, and God's spirit hovered over the waters. God said, "Let there be light". And there was light. God divided the day from the night, naming them ' day' and 'night'. This was the first day and God saw that it was good. On the second day God made the heavens to separate the water from the earth and on the third day he raised the dry land up from the waters below the heavens and commanded the earth to bring forth all plants. God saw that it was good. God then made the greater light for the day and the lesser light for the night, and he saw hat it was good. This was the fourth day. On the fifth day God commanded the waters to fill with living creatures and the air to fill with birds. And he was pleased with what he saw. On the sixth day God commanded the earth to bring forth all kinds of living creatures and he saw that it was good. God then said " Let us make man in our own image". So God created man and woman in his own likeness and gave them authority over all living things. God looked at everything he had made and was very pleased. On the seventh day, God rested."

When asked for evidence, Christians tend to point to the book wherein this story is recorded. Or they ask you to look at a tree or the sky. However, this version of creationism isn't the only competing "theory."

In the time before time, God was. And when God wants to create something, all he needs to say is "Be", and it becomes. So it was that God created the world and the heavens. He made all the creatures, which walk, swim. Crawl and fly on the face of the earth. He made the angels, and the sun, moon and the stars to dwell in the universe. And consider, as the Qur'an says, how God poured down the rain in torrents, and broke up the soil to bring forth the corm, the grapes and other vegetation; the olive and the palm, the fruit trees and the grass.

Then it was that God ordered the angels to go to the earth, and to bring seven handfuls of soil, all of different colours, from which he could model man. God took the seven kinds of earth and moulded them into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life.

Muslims will often cite the Qur'an as proof that this "theory" of creation is true. It also must be noted that Christian Creationists are unable to refute The Islamic "Theory" of Creation (aside from pointing back to their holy book).

However, these Christian and Muslim creation "theories" face additional competition:

"This is not the first world, nor is it the first universe. There have been and will be many more worlds and universes than there are drops of water in the holy river Ganges. The universes are made by Lord Brahma the Creator, maintained by Lord Vishnu the Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva. Since the universes must be destroyed before they can be recreated, Lord Shiva is called the Destroyer and Re-creator. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.

After each old universe is destroyed nothing is left but a vast ocean. Floating on this ocean, resting on the great snake Ananta, is Lord Vishnu. Some say that a lotus flower springs from his navel and from this comes Lord Brahma. And it is from Lord Brahma that all creation comes.

Christian and Islamic and Hindu Creationists have been unable to reconcile their differing "theories." It may be that this is because they've ignored yet another competing creation "theory" that is equally valid:

"In the beginning, there was nothing in the world but Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, who lived in the Endless Light. And the evil Evil Spirit Ahriman, who lived in the Absolute Darkness. And between these realms was emptiness.

One day, Ahura Mazda decided to make different creations. First he shaped the sky made of metal, shining and bright. Second, he made pure water. Third, he created the earth, flat and round with no mountains or valleys. Fourth he made the plants, moist with no thorns. Fifth, created animals, big and small.

Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Zoroastrian Creationists are all obliged to admit that they've been unable to disprove the Norse "Theory" of Creation:

From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South.
The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds.

Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths.

The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements.

It should go without saying that Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Norse Creationists are all unable to refute the Greek "Theory" of Creation ...

"In the beginning there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared."

Whew! Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Norse, and Greek Creationists are (of course) totally stymied when asked to explain away the Incan "Theory" of Creation:

"... out of a lake called Collasuyu, the god Con Tiqui Viracocha emerged, bringing some human beings with him. Then Con Tiqui created the sun (Inti), the moon and the stars to light the world. It is from Inti that the Sapa Inca, emperor of Tawantin Suyu, is descended. Out of great rocks Con Tiqui fashioned more human beings, including women who were already pregnant.

Then he sent these people off into every corner of the world. He kept a male and female with him at Cusco, the "navel of the world."

Ho hum. Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Norse, Greek, and Inca Creationists have never been able to refute the Comanche "Theory" of Creation ...

"One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Commanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets."

...

And so on and so on and so on. I think you can see a pattern forming here?

Clearly, Creationism is under withering fire from other, rival "theories" of creation and none of them are in a position to claim that their version is any less ridiculous than any of the others.

Teach The Controversy®? Indeed. When it comes to Creationism, there can be no end to the internecine controversies.

 

[Skwim]

"

Theory" of Creation faces its greatest challenge from its rival creationists:

While these may be competing versions of creationism, the main enemy of Christian creationism remains evolution. It's the most robust and prominent contender explaining the diversity of life around, and as such challenges the integrity of Biblical interpretation (literal interpretation anyway) more than any other explanation. And this is why creationists continue to wage war against evolution rather than the other versions. It's their numero uno enemy. It tells Christians that the Biblical account is wrong, ergo, read literally, the Bible is not 100% trustworthy, which for 30%* of Christians amounts to heresy.

* source

 

[Riverwolf]

Uh, since when do instances of creation stories automatically indicate creationism? To call all these stories "theories" as if they were regarded by the people who told them around the Firelight in the same way that the scientific community regards the scientific consensus, is to do those people, and the stories themselves, grave disservice. It's still looking upon them from the Creationist mindset, as if that were the only possible way to look at them.

Instead:

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.
-Nasadiya Suktam (Rig Veda 10:129:6-7)

 

[NulliuSINverba]

While these may be competing versions of creationism, the main enemy of Christian creationism remains evolution.

1.) Who's singling out Christian creationism?
2.) Isn't science the adversary of each and every "theory" of creation?

...

The main point of the exercise was to utilize one of the same tactic creationists employ when they're seeking to discredit evolution. It typically goes something like: "There is no universal accord among scientists regarding the details, therefore the entire concept of evolution must be wrong."

Applying that creationist rationale to creationism reveals more than just disagreement over fine details.

It's the most robust and prominent contender explaining the diversity of life around, and as such challenges the integrity of Biblical interpretation (literal interpretation anyway) more than any other explanation.

And yet evolution isn't really seeking to explain much else aside from speciation.

And this is why creationists continue to wage war against evolution rather than the other versions.

Religions have indeed waged war against each other ... but when it's time to stop "burning heretics" and formulate a rational argument to support their belief systems, they're all equally disadvantaged ... because rationality has practically nothing to do with religion.

It's their numero uno enemy.

Really? If you haven't already, make sure you've watched a few Traditional Christian documentaries about the Emergent Church before you make that declaration. It appears that this stuff has 'em in a much more foul mood than evolution ever did.

What can any religion do when faced with a kinder, gentler, more-user-friendly, accommodating version of itself? Aside from offering foam-flecked tirades, I mean.

If there's a real threat to Christian fundamentalism as we know it, it's heresy and not evolution. Given that we already know that many religious types have demonstrated little-to-no regard for evidence, it's very likely that heresy will erode their base of support much faster than science will.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Uh, since when do instances of creation stories automatically indicate creationism?

Please demonstrate that creationism is anything aside from a creation story.

To call all these stories "theories" as if they were regarded by the people who told them around the Firelight in the same way that the scientific community regards the scientific consensus, is to do those people, and the stories themselves, grave disservice.

And to insist that creationism deserves to be treated with the same regard as science is to do the human intellect a grave disservice.

It's still looking upon them from the Creationist mindset, as if that were the only possible way to look at them.

Not really. They all make for entertaining mythology.

 

[Riverwolf]

Please demonstrate that creationism is anything aside from a creation story.

Creationism is the belief in a Created Earth or Cosmos, and typically refers to the school of thought that the universe was Created by an external intelligent Creator. It's often used as a shorthand for Young-Earth Creationism. Creationism refers to creation stories, but is not itself a creation story.

I wonder if, however, you meant the reverse: are you meaning to ask for a demonstration that any instance of a creation story is an indication of anything other than creationist belief? Because I already did that with the passage from the Nasadiya.

And to insist that creationism deserves to be treated with the same regard as science is to do the human intellect a grave disservice.

I agree. I think creationism is silly at best. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but I likewise have the right to hold a negative opinion about what they believe.

Thing is, creationism is also a horrible insult to the creation stories themselves, IMO. It's incredibly shallow and superficial; barely the surface of a deep, deep ocean. It's like when people read Lovecraft's work literally and start believing the Cthulhu Mythos to be reality and the Necronomicon to be a real book, not realizing that the monsters are meant to reflect Lovecraft's own fears and insecurities about the world, shared by so many people.

As I say, remove the hand of God, and the stories' true glory shines forth.

Not really.

It is, when you refer to them "theories", as if the people telling them only regarded them as historical fact.

I'm not saying that's the only way you look at these stories every time you're exposed to them.

 

[Skwim]

1.) Who's singling out Christian creationism?

Admittedly your opening doesn't specifically target Christian creationism, however, posts about creationism in the Creationism Vs Evolution forum invariably refer to Christian creationism. Moreover, I've never seen the word "creationism" capitalized within a sentence (not serving as the initial word), as you have done,

"Clearly, Creationism is under withering fire from other, rival "theories". . . ."
​

that wasn't referring to Christian creationism. That you included Christian creationism in your examples, and as the first among all the others, I took as the reference example: that by which all the other examples were to be compared.

2.) Isn't science the adversary of each and every "theory" of creation?

Not having bothered to read any of the examples I can't say.

The main point of the exercise was to utilize one of the same tactic creationists employ when they're seeking to discredit evolution.

Which creationists are you talking about, Incan, Comanche, or perhaps Norse creationists? Or were you "singling out Christian creationism"?

And yet evolution isn't really seeking to explain much else aside from speciation

Yup. But like a small sliver in one's thumb it can irritate the hell out of a person.

Really? If you haven't already, make sure you've watched a few Traditional Christian documentaries about the Emergent Church before you make that declaration. It appears that this stuff has 'em in a much more foul mood than evolution ever did.

Whoa, not three hours worth or even three minutes, although from what I did hear it seems this church takes a literalistic approach to the Bible and would therefore champion creationism in its usual form.

If there's a real threat to Christian fundamentalism as we know it, it's heresy and not evolution. Given that we already know that many religious types have demonstrated little-to-no regard for evidence, it's very likely that heresy will erode their base of support much faster than science will.

Possibly, but this is another issue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Creationism is a Christian concept. There are countless creation mythos throughout the world and time, but Creationism refers specifically to the idea that Jehova created the earth in 7 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago. And from Creationism we have Intelligent Design, which is why ID proponents blabber on about the same tired-worn out arguments that are a horse that's been beaten to an unrecognizable bloody heap of flesh and bone. Which is how ID proponents could pick up the rubble of Creationism and try at it again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationism is a Christian concept. There are countless creation mythos throughout the world and time, but Creationism refers specifically to the idea that Jehova created the earth in 7 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago. And from Creationism we have Intelligent Design, which is why ID proponents blabber on about the same tired-worn out arguments that are a horse that's been beaten to an unrecognizable bloody heap of flesh and bone. Which is how ID proponents could pick up the rubble of Creationism and try at it again.

There are many versions of ID, and many versions of the world being fluked into existence. I just believe in one less fluke story than you do!

 

[Bunyip]

There are many versions of ID, and many versions of the world being fluked into existence. I just believe in one less fluke story than you do!

ID is just creationism in disguise. There is no theory, or even testable hypothesis.

 

[The Hammer]

Never mind the whole "Evolution Vs. Creationism" debate. It is obvious that each "Theory" of Creation faces its greatest challenge from its rival creationists:



When asked for evidence, Christians tend to point to the book wherein this story is recorded. Or they ask you to look at a tree or the sky. However, this version of creationism isn't the only competing "theory."



Muslims will often cite the Qur'an as proof that this "theory" of creation is true. It also must be noted that Christian Creationists are unable to refute The Islamic "Theory" of Creation (aside from pointing back to their holy book).

However, these Christian and Muslim creation "theories" face additional competition:



Christian and Islamic and Hindu Creationists have been unable to reconcile their differing "theories." It may be that this is because they've ignored yet another competing creation "theory" that is equally valid:



Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Zoroastrian Creationists are all obliged to admit that they've been unable to disprove the Norse "Theory" of Creation:



It should go without saying that Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Norse Creationists are all unable to refute the Greek "Theory" of Creation ...



Whew! Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Norse, and Greek Creationists are (of course) totally stymied when asked to explain away the Incan "Theory" of Creation:



Ho hum. Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Norse, Greek, and Inca Creationists have never been able to refute the Comanche "Theory" of Creation ...



...

And so on and so on and so on. I think you can see a pattern forming here?

Clearly, Creationism is under withering fire from other, rival "theories" of creation and none of them are in a position to claim that their version is any less ridiculous than any of the others.

Teach The Controversy®? Indeed. When it comes to Creationism, there can be no end to the internecine controversies.

This was a mildly entertaining OP. And while I see what you are getting at, I did not know creationist proponents actually bothered with trying to debunk other creation myths.

What would be funny, since I have seen Christians pushing for teaching creationism in schools, is that it should be allowed to be taught, under the caveat that ALL creation myths will be taught and explained (That's at least a year or so of study right?).

 

[idav]

1.) Who's singling out Christian creationism?
2.) Isn't science the adversary of each and every "theory" of creation?

...

The main point of the exercise was to utilize one of the same tactic creationists employ when they're seeking to discredit evolution. It typically goes something like: "There is no universal accord among scientists regarding the details, therefore the entire concept of evolution must be wrong."

Applying that creationist rationale to creationism reveals more than just disagreement over fine details.



And yet evolution isn't really seeking to explain much else aside from speciation.



Religions have indeed waged war against each other ... but when it's time to stop "burning heretics" and formulate a rational argument to support their belief systems, they're all equally disadvantaged ... because rationality has practically nothing to do with religion.



Really? If you haven't already, make sure you've watched a few Traditional Christian documentaries about the Emergent Church before you make that declaration. It appears that this stuff has 'em in a much more foul mood than evolution ever did.

What can any religion do when faced with a kinder, gentler, more-user-friendly, accommodating version of itself? Aside from offering foam-flecked tirades, I mean.

If there's a real threat to Christian fundamentalism as we know it, it's heresy and not evolution. Given that we already know that many religious types have demonstrated little-to-no regard for evidence, it's very likely that heresy will erode their base of support much faster than science will.

Evolution is the biggest opponent for scriptural literalists as well as the liberals within their religion who take to science and evolution with no issues with evolution.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What would be funny, since I have seen Christians pushing for teaching creationism in schools, is that it should be allowed to be taught, under the caveat that ALL creation myths will be taught and explained (That's at least a year or so of study right?).

When creationists spout their "Teach The Controversy" nonsense, that's exactly what I think of.

...

And it'd have to include all of 'em. For instance, you cannot discount the Ainu creation myth. It is every bit as plausible as the Christian one.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Creationism is a Christian concept.

The fact that the Christian Creation "theory" is the Jewish Creation "theory" tends to mop the floor with that assertion.

Got anything better?

There are countless creation mythos throughout the world and time, but Creationism refers specifically to the idea that Jehova created the earth in 7 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

Isn't the claim that Jehovah created the earth in seven 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago merely the Judeo-Christian creation mythos?

Please explain (without resorting to special pleading) why one totally unsubstantiated creation "theory" tradition should be elevated above any of the other unsubstantiated "theories" traditions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no theory, or even testable hypothesis.

For the universe being fluked into existence

 

[Skwim]

[There is no theory, or even testable hypothesis.] For the universe being fluked into existence

Assuming your "fluked" indicates by some means other than "god created," sure there are.
From an article from The Stephen Hawking Centre for Theoretical Cosmology: University of Cambridge.

"The Big Bang model makes accurate and scientifically testable hypotheses in each of these areas and the remarkable agreement with the observational data gives us considerable confidence in the model."
source and much more​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"The Big Bang model makes accurate and scientifically testable hypotheses in each of these areas and the remarkable agreement with the observational data gives us considerable confidence in the model."

The priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was validated, despite being reviled and mocked by atheists at the time as 'big bang' for it's theistic implications.
They all preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator), and they still do- attempting to work the big bang into them, all have failed where testable. The only remaining ones are untestable- atheism of the gaps?

 

[Skwim]

The priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was validated, despite being reviled and mocked by atheists at the time as 'big bang' for it's theistic implications.

Scientists--not atheists *snicker*--disregarded his theory because he couldn't produce any evidence for it. Would you seriously consider the claim that fairies lived in your house, without evidence? And while he did propose the universe was expanding, he wasn't the first to do so. Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently a few years earlier. And, like a lot of unsupported "theories," some are validated and some are not. His and that of Friedmann happened to be. No biggie, really.

They all preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator),

Hardly. As I point out above, not all of them preferred a stationary universe. But those who did had good reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with such craziness as " no creation = no creator" but because there was evidence pointing to it.

and they still do- attempting to work the big bang into them, all have failed where testable.

I'm going to assume you're serious here, which is makes this all the more shameful.

The only remaining ones are untestable- atheism of the gaps?

I don't believe you yourself know what you're talking about here. And chucking out silly blurbs about atheism and science hardly improves your reputation. But you are what you are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Scientists--not atheists *snicker*--disregarded his theory because he couldn't produce any evidence for it. Would you seriously consider the claim that fairies lived in your house, without evidence? And while he did propose the universe was expanding, he wasn't the first to do so. Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently a few years earlier. And, like a lot of unsupported "theories," some are validated and some are not. His and that of Friedmann happened to be. No biggie, really.

Hardly. As I point out above, not all of them preferred a stationary universe. But those who did had good reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with such craziness as " no creation = no creator" but because there was evidence pointing to it.

I'm going to assume you're serious here, which is makes this all the more shameful.

I don't believe you yourself know what you're talking about here. And chucking out silly blurbs about atheism and science hardly improves your reputation. But you are what you are.

You'd have to argue your point with the atheists who rejected the primeval atom based on what they themselves stated as theistic implications- their opinions not mine.

(wiki) Hoyle found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be psuedoscience resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

Hawking also explicitly presented the Big Crunch as making God redundant (again his words not mine)- because it was a cyclical model which removed a specific creation event and hence.... well craziness as you put it.... until scientific observation made this theory redundant also.

Don't take my word for this, it's hardly controversial.

 

[David M]

Creationism is a Christian concept. There are countless creation mythos throughout the world and time, but Creationism refers specifically to the idea that Jehova created the earth in 7 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago..

Except that "Creationism" doesn't refer to that. Christian Creationism has long been split into Young and Old Earth Creationism (and OEC also has its differing interpretations). In the past decades there has also been a rise in Islamic Creationism (e.g. Harun Yahya).