What is creationism?

[Milton Platt]

What is creationism?

In the western world, beliefs stemming from the Biblical Genesis story about the creation of the world. A pretty good work for its time but should not be taken too literally anymore. It is unfortunate in my opinion that Biblical fundamentalists want to hold onto the story as a literal truth.

What in the bible indicates it is not to be taken literally? Can you show that the people during and just after the story was written thought it was not literal?

 

[Milton Platt]

Nearly always "Creationism", when it is presented as something worth pursuing or defending, means simply "denial of biological evolution". Sometimes it also includes the insistence of affirming that existence itself was an act of dvine decree.

It is possible and far saner to understanding "Creationism" as the simple belief that there is a Creator God, but there is not a lot of controversy to create from that, so the word rarely is used to mean that in practice.

Now there you go making sense again....what's wrong with you???

 

[George-ananda]

What in the bible indicates it is not to be taken literally? Can you show that the people during and just after the story was written thought it was not literal?

I'm sure people at the time were content with the teaching. I am saying the Bible is a product of its time.

 

[outhouse]

What in the bible indicates it is not to be taken literally?

Nothing indicates it should be read that way.

But to answer your question, how about the fact we have 4 different versions of communities telling the same story and describing it differently.

There are many contradictions, so they all cannot be correct.

You also need to take into account they wrote rhetorically using allegory, poems, songs, mythology, history, fiction, theology, and metaphor.

Can you show that the people during and just after the story was written thought it was not literal?

Yes.

because they write different things about the same events, decades after the events by people who witnessed nothing.

 

[mindlight]

Is it limited to the Christian religion's interpretation of God creating the world in 7 literal days? I believe in creation but my religion says that evolution was the mode of creation so I don't get how there is a "versus" there.

I would suggest that broadly Religious Creationism implies:
1)there was a Creator,
2) that before Creation there was nothing (so ex nihilo),
3) that the history of the Universe has a beginning.

So Muslims, Christians and Jews should all be able to agree on the above for instance. But then when you start getting in details there are considerable differences between the religions and even within religions. Within Christianity I would suggest the 2 most credible positions are those of strict 6 day Creationism and that of Theistic Evolution. Both agree on the 3 assumptions above but have massive disagreements on:

1) How old is the universe
2) When was man created
3) Special creation v Evolution
4) Common ancestor v common Creator when considering the types of creatures that exist
5) A global flood v a local one
6) The age of humans before the flood e.g. Methuselah was over 950 when he died.

 

[rusra02]

Is it limited to the Christian religion's interpretation of God creating the world in 7 literal days? I believe in creation but my religion says that evolution was the mode of creation so I don't get how there is a "versus" there.

I believe the term is understood differently by people. Some use the word in a derogatory manner to deride anyone who believes in a Creator as ignorant and unscientific. I believe in the Bible account of creation, but I do not believe God created the universe in seven 24-hour days. I do not believe in evolution.

 

[metis]

One does not "believe" in evolution any more than one "believes" Earth has a moon. Either one accepts reality or they don't.

 

[outhouse]

1) How old is the universe

Over 13 billion years FACT

2) When was man created

NEVER man factually evolved.

3) Special creation v Evolution

Evolution is FACT

creation is mythology outlawed from poisoning innocent childrens minds

4) Common ancestor v common Creator when considering the types of creatures that exist

Factually common ancestor, backed with a mountain of credible evidence


modern mythology deemed pseudoscience in a court of law

5) A global flood v a local one

Factually a local one when the Euphrates often overflowed and exactly where the mythology started, that stated it was first a river flood.

6) The age of humans before the flood e.g. Methuselah was over 950 when he died.

No he was not that old. It is straight up mythology.

No global flood EVER took place

 

[outhouse]

I believe the term is understood differently by people.

many people think mythology is real

 

[outhouse]

I do not believe in evolution.

Education and knowledge taught in every university as fact, is not up for debate because peoples personal opinions are faith based.

 

[rusra02]

Education and knowledge taught in every university as fact, is not up for debate because peoples personal opinions are faith based.

Many advocates for Intelligent design base their belief on science, not faith. Belief in macro-evolution is faith-based, or rather credulity-based, IMO.

 

[Skwim]

Many advocates for Intelligent design base their belief on science, not faith.

No they don't. Intelligent design, being just another term for creationism, defaults to the Bible for its underpinnings, whose assertions are taken on faith. There is no science in ID.

 

[metis]

Many advocates for Intelligent design base their belief on science, not faith. Belief in macro-evolution is faith-based, or rather credulity-based, IMO.

No, it is not.

Secondly, if any scientist bases their religious belief on science, then they ain't much of a scientist. "Faith" is believing without evidence, but science lives or dies on the basis of evidence or the lack thereof. They may believe for another reason, but science cannot be one of them because there simply ain't any objective evidence for a theistic causation.

 

[mindlight]

Over 13 billion years FACT



NEVER man factually evolved.



Evolution is FACT

creation is mythology outlawed from poisoning innocent childrens minds



Factually common ancestor, backed with a mountain of credible evidence


modern mythology deemed pseudoscience in a court of law





Factually a local one when the Euphrates often overflowed and exactly where the mythology started, that stated it was first a river flood.



No he was not that old. It is straight up mythology.

No global flood EVER took place

Great so there is no real scientific reason there why you cannot become a Theistic Evolutionist.

 

[outhouse]

Many advocates for Intelligent design base their belief on science, not faith

No they do not.

They pervert science by using credible parts to support their faulty methodology already classified as factual pseudosceince

Belief in macro-evolution is faith-based, or rather credulity-based, IMO.

Evolution Is fact. get over it

 

[outhouse]

Great so there is no real scientific reason there why you cannot become a Theistic Evolutionist.

None at all.

Mythology has no part in any credible scientific conclusion

 

[Valjean]

Many advocates for Intelligent design base their belief on science, not faith. Belief in macro-evolution is faith-based, or rather credulity-based, IMO.

Macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution. Do you think small changes stop, at some point, so as not to become too different from the prototype? How would that happen?
Both micro and macro-evolution have been observed.

 

[outhouse]

Both micro and macro-evolution have been observed.

Actually I was corrected on this as well.

Macro evolution means over a longer period then can be observed, so it does not apply.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know... Speciation can happen pretty quickly, sometimes.

 

[rusra02]

No they don't. Intelligent design, being just another term for creationism, defaults to the Bible for its underpinnings, whose assertions are taken on faith. There is no science in ID.

I think you know that is not true; it is common for evolutionists to lump creationism and ID theory together, in order to discredit ID theory.