Poll for Creationists

[Rational Agnostic]

Didn't vote in your poll as none of the above apply to my thoughts. But yes, I have in my library ,many books in the evolutionary vein of thought. The origin of species, Wonderful Life, Trilobites, by Riccardo Levi Setti, to name a few. I am an avid fossil hunter and have no problem believing in God and aspects of evolution.

Do you believe in speciation via naturalistic processes? Do you believe that humans and chimpanzees share a more recent common ancestor than say, humans and rabbits? Just curious

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, being a pop-science author is better than being a pop-psuedoscience author. As far as so-called creation "science" being too difficult for Dawkins to understand, I will say this: I'd love to see Dawkins challenge the leading pop-creationists and armchair scientists/philosopher wannabes like Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, et. al to an IQ test. But, of course, Dawkins wouldn't do that, because he's too nice, and they wouldn't take him up on the offer anyway because even they know they'd do much worse.

too nice... yes he sounds lovely!

He could start by looking many accomplished scientists in the eye while repeating this

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”


"I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields."
David Raup, Curator of Chicago Field museum

"People who boast about their IQ are losers" Stephen Hawking


I'm not saying Dawkins is not intelligent enough, and he was very well schooled in Darwinian theory in the 1960's and I'm sure could hold his own then

he just lacks the qualifications, experience to cope with the crucial subject matter in the 21st C, as I said he is at least partially aware of this

 

[DaniëlT]

My answer is not in the poll.

 

[Father Heathen]

I wish I could be surprised to see another thread/poll that ignores the existence of theistic evolution.

What difference would that make if creationism rejects evolution, theistic or otherwise?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

too nice... yes he sounds lovely!

He could start by looking many accomplished scientists in the eye while repeating this

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”


"I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields."
David Raup, Curator of Chicago Field museum

"People who boast about their IQ are losers" Stephen Hawking


I'm not saying Dawkins is not intelligent enough, and he was very well schooled in Darwinian theory in the 1960's and I'm sure could hold his own then

he just lacks the qualifications, experience to cope with the crucial subject matter in the 21st C, as I said he is at least partially aware of this

Well, I like your Stephen Hawking quote. He was a truly inspirational man, and I was sad to hear about his passing.

In any case, I think Dawkins is correct in his quote that you bolded. Granted, there are many very accomplished and intelligent people who disbelieve in evolution, however, IMHO, they are ignorant, which is (and this is very important) much different than being stupid or insane, which is why he made the distinction in the quote.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why don't you know if you are a creationist? You believe that the universe was created by a sentient agent rather than formed by blind, naturalistic processes, correct? That's a creationist, right?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought creationism was the notion that god created everything as is instantaneously. Of course the concept of god and the theory of evolution aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution isn't inherently atheistic as deniers tend to claim.

 

[David1967]

Why do none of the above apply to your thoughts? Seems to me that you would be interested in reading the books that I mentioned. Of course, if you are not a creationist, then the poll doesn't apply to you.

I didn't say I wasn't interested in the books you mentioned, I just haven't read them. I am a creationist as I do believe in God. But I also do not discredit the theory of evolution. I've got lots to learn and am enjoying it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I like your Stephen Hawking quote. He was a truly inspirational man, and I was sad to hear about his passing.

In any case, I think Dawkins is correct in his quote that you bolded. Granted, there are many very accomplished and intelligent people who disbelieve in evolution, however, IMHO, they are ignorant, which is (and this is very important) much different than being stupid or insane, which is why he made the distinction in the quote.

Yes, I didn't agree with Hawking on much, but he was inspirational to many in a very positive way, and seemed very respectful to those with differing opinions.

'The wise man knows himself a fool' a contrasting figure to the other Oxford don in question in many ways!


So although being insane and/or wicked is a great complement to us pirates, I appreciate you picking Dawkins' most friendly option for disagreeing with him! But he acknowledges himself that evolutionary biology has become, in many ways, a branch of information technology, - that 'the machine code of DNA is uncannily computer like' and that he is not an accomplished computer programmer.

The crux of the matter today IS very much an information systems problem, without a commensurate level of understanding of these systems... I don't believe one has the necessary tools for the job in the 21st C, and I think that may be partly to blame for the frustration he exhibits when faced with some of the deeper challenges.


So ignorant? yes, but I would never in a million years suggest even as an option, that he or anyone else is stupid, insane, let alone 'wicked' for adhering to Darwinism, that only concedes the emotional component of his beliefs. From his background and education I understand how compelling the theory appears, I only began to see cracks myself from an IT perspective

 

[Seablade the Heretic]

I have read several books on evolution, but sadly I do not have any in my personal library right now. I did give it serious consideration at one time and much thought, but alas, after all the falderal, I fall under the category of "ignorant, stupid or insane," from the aforementioned definition, due to my non-belief in this theory. The reality of this place we call home does have some forms of evolution, but the primary evolutionary cause so espoused by the so-called scientific community is untenable on the best of days.

The answers to these questions we have are literally out our back doors, but we cannot see because we are blind.

 

[MansFriend]

You are missing a question option. You needed an option to say:

No, I have no problem with the scientific Theory of Evolution, in the main.
That which the God of the Bible creates isn't the physical cosmos, but is rather something else that is loosely patterned after the physical cosmos.

 

[MansFriend]

Sure, I'm fine with that definition for myself

But in my experience most people who identify as, or use the term 'creationist' are referring to the Genesis creation story- i.e. a fairly literal interpretation of it

I'm just a common or garden 'theist' I guess!

A literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 and 2 is a correct manner, because it explicitly tells you that the 7 days of creation and all of the things in it are a metaphor of something other than the physical cosmos. Just after the 7 days are described, Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations...", which means all of the aforementioned things pertain to generations. And, the Hebrew meaning beneath that word generations ties it exclusively to generations of people.

Therefore, all of what is in the Genesis creation account should be taken as a metaphor that the Bible explicitly lays out where all of it pertains to people.

So, for example, the "greater light to rule the day" mentioned in day 4 isn't talking about our physical sun, it is taking about the person who, in the 4th millennia from the Bible's beginning, referred to himself as "the light and life of the world". Genesis is a blueprint for a 7 millennia "eternity" or "age" or "era" that repeats in cycles. As one cycle is coming to a close, there is a new foundation of a new creation laid and the pattern repeats all over again. All of this pertains to one specific and quite powerful tribe of people on this planet. The Bible Creation pertains to the activities of a local or regional tribal deity that is basically the collective progenitors of a very specific, patriarchal, way of life.

Scientific evolution happily goes along its course, as does this subset of humanity endeavoring to progress its development in cycles as well.

 

[Apologetics]

I am interested in how many creationists have actually researched the evidence for evolution, and I figured this would be an easy way to find out though the sample size will be pretty small. Also, if you are a creationist who has read a book or books on evolution, I would be interested in knowing which books. If you're looking for book recommendations, I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Most creationists know about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and are turned off by him. I will actually agree that The God Delusion is a somewhat poorly written book, however, Dawkins' other books on evolutionary biology are very, very good.

Evolution is a theory. A toxic delusion. A blatant disregard of the obvious. Science will never be able to understand the truth of the universe because science seeks for what can be proved only by touching ,feeling,hearing and observing. And that,s the very parameters that limits science from discovering the truth of the universe.

The basic definition of science is by experimentation and observation the universe can be explained.

There is a being greater than man. He is the Maker. He exist outside of what man calls the physical universe.

All of observational science is fixated on where did all this come from. Science tries to solve that problem through the natural processes and current activities of the earth and universe. All that does is tell them how it currently works and thats all. They then apply those current natural process to determine the origins of life in the past.

Thinking that If it natural processes work this way today then thats how they worked in the past. But thats a theory. The big bank is a theory. Because observers of the local universe discovered that stars and galaxies are moving away from each other, they concluded that there must of been an explosion at a central focal point that became the universe. And the explosion contained all the elements of our universe and then life sprang from that. Thats a theory.

No scientist when asked where did the central focal point of the explosion come from has an answer. Our inherent intelligence dictates that that central focal point had to be placed there by someone. That is something that scientific parameters of touching ,feeling,hearing and observing can not discover.

It is also an insult to our inherent intelligence to concluded that from this explosion,without any guidance, without any direction,without any code to follow that the highly complex human body came to be. Thats absurd.

Start your car put it in gear and get out of the car and watch what happens to it when there is no one behind the wheel to give it direction. Nothing but calamity.

Science has to overcome their unbelieving heart in a Maker !!!!

When science concludes that their is a being greater than man. Then they will be able to find the truth to the answers to the origins of life.

 

[David1967]

Do you believe in speciation via naturalistic processes? Do you believe that humans and chimpanzees share a more recent common ancestor than say, humans and rabbits? Just curious

I do believe that primates such as humans and chimps are more closely related than human and rabbit. Past that you know doubt have put more study into that than I have.

 

[Axe Elf]

I never stated my definition, and your assumption is incorrect. I don't exclude theistic evolutionists who believe God started life, and then let it evolve naturally.

I would stand corrected, if you had included that option in your poll. As it is, I think you stand corrected, but thanks for recognizing your omission. I would actually add another option for God not only starting life, but being the author of all the evolution thereafter as well.

 

[james bond]

I am interested in how many creationists have actually researched the evidence for evolution, and I figured this would be an easy way to find out though the sample size will be pretty small. Also, if you are a creationist who has read a book or books on evolution, I would be interested in knowing which books. If you're looking for book recommendations, I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Most creationists know about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and are turned off by him. I will actually agree that The God Delusion is a somewhat poorly written book, however, Dawkins' other books on evolutionary biology are very, very good.

Did you vet these authors or just using them to troll Christians? I wasn't familiar with Jerry Coyne, but just read that he recently upset a lot of people by arguing for infanticide:
"If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral."

Should one be allowed to euthanize severely deformed or doomed newborns?

Atheist Professor Argues for Infanticide for Severely Disabled Newborns

We're not living in Roman times anymore. What if it was his child who got Lou Gehrig's disease like Stephen Hawking? Clearly, I'm not going to read this a-hole atheist .

What about Richard Dawkins? I've read The God Delusion which made him popular, but thought it was just the opinions of a rabid dog. He was literally foaming at the mouth. It's mostly his philosophy against religion and is anti-theology. This guy is supposed to be a biologist and ethnologist, but little biology in it. Later, I read a much earlier work by him, The Selfish Gene. It was more interesting. He turns the little gene into the star and he wrote this book well. Yet, I don't think it was received well because evolution was evolving into a more complex field than just the gene could explain. He also introduced the concept of a cultural meme and while he made a good case for it, I'm not sure how far his ideas for it went. That said, I've use him to represent atheist ideas in the past. He did a poll of strong theism, weak theism vs strong atheism and weak atheism. He presents some good ideas and writes well, so he's worth reading. He's a good representative for atheism, but not as well versed for evolution. I'll read his book.

 

[Sapiens]

too nice... yes he sounds lovely!

He could start by looking many accomplished scientists in the eye while repeating this

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”


"I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields."
David Raup, Curator of Chicago Field museum

"People who boast about their IQ are losers" Stephen Hawking


I'm not saying Dawkins is not intelligent enough, and he was very well schooled in Darwinian theory in the 1960's and I'm sure could hold his own then

he just lacks the qualifications, experience to cope with the crucial subject matter in the 21st C, as I said he is at least partially aware of this

I really don't understand what Raup was driving at. The full range of arguments could be handled by no more than a small squad: paleontologist, geologist, geneticist, evolutionary biologist, cosmologist, maybe a philosopher ... that'll cover anything that all the creationists in the world can pretend.

 

[Stewart Hough]

I had to pick the least non-factual option in the poll, the last choice being the worst. The problem is that because the word evolution is subject to duplicitous equivocation, evolution must be defined before it is used.
Evolution as change over time is not an issue.

Chemical evolution is a myth, like Darwin’s “warm little ponds, and Oparin-Haldane prebiotic soup.

Microevolution, limited speciation, and microbial evolution are valid as adaptations from mutations, heredity, and environment of the common design in DNA, which has no naturalistic origin explanation.

Macroevolution has only untestable circumstantial evidence through genus or family transition body plan modifications. Accumulated microevolutionary steps do not yield macroevolution changes, as evolution has no explanation for co-opted gene or new gene creation, let alone epigenetic mutations for protein creation required for body plan changes. There is no fossil evidence to support it.

To state that evolution is contrary to the Bible is dependent on which definition is used. It is categorical, unspecified use of the word as opposing the Bible that polarizes the issue and makes Christians look stupid.

God designed DNA, the information system of greater complexity than any other, to be capable of adaption of the organism to mutations, heredity, and the environment. This is good design and is a type of evolution.

This confusion is precisely why the whole issue of creationism and evolution is so confusing to many.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had to pick the least non-factual option in the poll, the last choice being the worst. The problem is that because the word evolution is subject to duplicitous equivocation, evolution must be defined before it is used.
Evolution as change over time is not an issue.

Chemical evolution is a myth, like Darwin’s “warm little ponds, and Oparin-Haldane prebiotic soup.

You need to learn your terminology. You are talking about abiogenesis and it is far from being a myth. It is an area of science that is advancing every year. Not every question has been answered yet, but quite a few of them have been.

Microevolution, limited speciation, and microbial evolution are valid as adaptations from mutations, heredity, and environment of the common design in DNA, which has no naturalistic origin explanation.

Speciation is macroevolution. Once again you need to learn your terminology. The originator of the terms micro and macro evolution defined macro evolution at evolution at the species level. We have observed speciation.

Macroevolution has only untestable circumstantial evidence through genus or family transition body plan modifications. Accumulated microevolutionary steps do not yield macroevolution changes, as evolution has no explanation for co-opted gene or new gene creation, let alone epigenetic mutations for protein creation required for body plan changes. There is no fossil evidence to support it.

Even with your incorrect use of terminology what makes you think that the concepts are untestable? You should be asking scientists how they test the concept. The theory can be used to make predictions and those can be used to test it. There is plenty of fossil evidence that supports this, and why limit your search to fossil evidence? There are other extremely sources of evidence for the theory of evolution.

To state that evolution is contrary to the Bible is dependent on which definition is used. It is categorical, unspecified use of the word as opposing the Bible that polarizes the issue and makes Christians look stupid.

No, only Christians that oppose the sciences tend to make themselves look stupid. Most Christians appear to accept the theory of evolution today.

God designed DNA, the information system of greater complexity than any other, to be capable of adaption of the organism to mutations, heredity, and the environment. This is good design and is a type of evolution.

And yet there is no evidence of that. Meanwhile scientists do know how new traits evolve. No god seems to be needed.

This confusion is precisely why the whole issue of creationism and evolution is so confusing to many.

It is only confusing because of the tendency of creationists to go into cognitive dissonance when the y face the evidence.

One thing that you probably do not realize is that creationists have abandoned science. To be a scientist one must use the scientific method and all of the major creationist sites require their employees to swear not to use the scientific method.

 

[sayak83]

I wish I could be surprised to see another thread/poll that ignores the existence of theistic evolution.

OTHER: Yes, I have a strong background in life-science at the graduate level and have read multiple books and peer reviewed articles that touch upon biological evolution on some level or another. I honor and accept biological evolution in whatever the current scientific consensus is, and that the gods are the drivers of it (or more accurately, all things are gods, and the forces of biological evolution itself are gods). Theistic evolution is a thing.

In creation-evolution debate, creationists are only those who deny that evolutionary processes are responsible for creating new species. Theistic evolution is on the evolution side of the debate.

 

[game_winner]

From what I understand, most all scientists now agree that the universe had a beginning. So before the universe came into being, there was nothing and then nothing exploded (the big bang) and as a result we got the universe. Now that seems to make a lot of sense to me: nothing exploded and we got the universe. So why do we need a God to explain anything?