What is creationism?

[AndromedaRXJ]

I was asked what limits variation in animals and plants. Sterility limits such variation. Attempts have long been made to transgress these limits and have failed.

None of that prevents macroevolution as that doesn't require hybridization. It's a moot point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution.

How? Evolution doesn't predict that all species can interbreed - it predicts that all species share common ancestry. Can you demonstrate that there is a "limit to variation" that prevents mutations accumulating over generations?

Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Why should we care what lies an unqualified creationist apologetic likes to spread? Not only does he demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of evolution in this very passage (that being that evolution says nothing about animals being able to produce anything OTHER than "their own kind"), but also the flat-out lies about the strength of the fossil evidence.

Lies do not strengthen your position, Rusra.

 

[Sapiens]

One may quibble about the details, but from my vantage point "Creationism" is any belief system that incorporates an origins mythology featuring near simultaneous supernatural creation of the universe and all living organisms and that cleaves to the view that two centuries of consistent scientific findings, resultant from data careful gathered and analyzed by many,many of thousands of the best logical minds the Earth has to offer are wrong.

 

[Skwim]

One may quibble about the details, but from my vantage point "Creationism" is any belief system that incorporates an origins mythology featuring near simultaneous supernatural creation of the universe and all living organisms and that cleaves to the view that two centuries of consistent scientific findings, resultant from data careful gathered and analyzed by many,many of thousands of the best logical minds the Earth has to offer are wrong.

Only problem is that the Logical Fallacies list is cut way too short. Other than that,

 

[Sapiens]

Only problem is that the Logical Fallacies list is cut way too short. Other than that,

Logical falacies are, in my mind, a tactic not a belief, though it is fair to say that the Creationist/ID argument against naturalism is based, almost exclusively, in the logical fallacies of "God of the Gap" and "Appeal to Ignorance." Other forms of science denial appeal to other Logical Fallacies, so the shortened list is of the fallacies that are almost always invoked in all science denial.

 

[Sapiens]

The "verses" comes in when creationists (predominantly Christian creationists) claim that life did not evolve as scientists contend, but that each species (sometimes reconfigured as genera or even families) was put on earth "as is" by god. It should be noted that the whole "versus" issue is a creationist construct. "Evolutionists" couldn't care less what creationists believe. The only time thy get their hackles up is when creationists try to slip their theology into public school classrooms as the truth or as a viable alternative to evolution.

You are giving the creationists more than they deserve. They do not have "theories" the best you might style their views are "beliefs."

Creationism, the notion that the universe was created by some higher being, doesn't necessarily go against the Theory of Evolution. What goes against Evolution is Intelligent Design. The idea that all of the specific features of various life forms were intentionally designed as they are, rather than evolved that way over time.

As for general creationism, it's quite possible that a creator simply created the Universe with all the physical laws in place, and from there, the creator just let the Universe take it's course with no intervention on his/her part. Perhaps such a creator would know ahead of time that Natural Selection would take place automatically.

That is generally referred to as deism, not creationism.

Still... it's just an idea in the end with no scientific basis. And if a creator like this did exist, I doubt he/she is omnipotent or omniscient. At best, I'd say it's aliens that have mastered higher dimensional physics and have figured out how to artificially create Big Bangs from some higher dimension. Purely scientific and non-mystical means, therefore, I wouldn't even call them deities.

Don't forget Sir Arthur's Third Law.

Intelligent design and creationism are the same thing. ID is just a repackaging of creationist literature and textbooks, done in the '80s to get around legal objections by Scientists and proponents of teaching evolution in schools. The Creationists just renamed creationism "Intelligent Design." in all their literature.
http://ncse.com/multimedia/proving-id-creationism
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11774

Let us not forget the missing link in the evolution of creationism to intellegent design:

In the leadup to the Dover Trial, the plaintiff lawyers subpoenaed the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (publishers of Of Pandas and People) for all draft versions of the textbook. They received copies of all draft versions, including those created in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard case was decided (making it unlawful to teach creationism in public schools).

Examination of various draft versions of Of Pandas and People from 1987 showed that after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, all references to "creationism" were replaced with alternate terms.

A particular sentence in an early 1987 draft read as follows:

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

In one particular draft dated to after the Edwards decision, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists". However in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. If they'd learned to use "Find and Replace" properly, then this wouldn't have happened.

Let us not forget how the honest creationists evolved into the lying IDers:

After the trial, there were calls for the defendants, accused of not presenting their case honestly, to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behavior as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "...unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed."

 

[Sapiens]

Evolution is just a change of frequencies of genes in a gene pool. Adding God into the equation does nothing to stop that. A theistic evolutionist is a person who finds the evidence for God and for evolution to both be convincing. They don't have to know how to mesh the two together in order to hold those beliefs. Plenty of people accept both the Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics even though scientists don't yet know how to mesh those two together, for example. Even at that, I'm sure plenty of theistic evolutionists already have a way of reconciling to two concepts that at least satisfies themselves.

Bake a cake ... it's a cake. Put icing on it, it is still a cake. Frost it, instead with excrement ... it is no longer a cake. Adding things that do not belong, that change the very nature of the original thing can destroy the essence of the original item and transmogrify it into something totally different.

 

[Sapiens]

The word is often used as if it represents a marginalized minority

Yet according to the most recent Gallup poll- only 19% in the US believe in Darwin style evolution, i.e. chance v design, that's the real 'versus' in the end is it not?

So I'd say the rest of us 81% are creationists of some kind. Evolutionists have various subcategories also, but are often lumped together as a 'consensus' even though they can't agree on any basics of the theory- other than it must exclude God

One does not "believe" in evolution, one understands it. One believes in creationism/ID, even though no one can understand it.

That 19% figure for belief in evolution is artificially low and is a product of poor pooling questions. Were I forced to choose between "chance" and "design" it would be a false dichotomy, for neither equals or encompasses "natural selection."

 

[Skwim]

You are giving the creationists more than they deserve. They do not have "theories" the best you might style their views are "beliefs."
That is generally referred to as deism, not creationism.

Other than using it to mock rusra02's use of it when he said, ". . . the term does not invalidate to me that ID is a valid scientific theory based on evidence and . . . ." I don't believe I ever called it that.

 

[Sapiens]

Other than using it to mock rusra02's use of it when he said, ". . . the term does not invalidate to me that ID is a valid scientific theory based on evidence and . . . ." I don't believe I ever called it that.

Sorry, I must need to get my vision prescription changed. Somehow I read "their theology" as "their theories." Again, apologies.

 

[rusra02]

Absolutely false, and constantly repeating that doesn't make it true. You've been asked many times before to supply scientific sources for that, but you don't produce them.

When dealing with science, it's important to use scientific sources and scientific evidence.

What do you claim is false? That there are definite limits to inter species successful breeding? Or that such limits would stop claimed macro evolution from occurring?

 

[rusra02]

How? Evolution doesn't predict that all species can interbreed - it predicts that all species share common ancestry. Can you demonstrate that there is a "limit to variation" that prevents mutations accumulating over generations?


Why should we care what lies an unqualified creationist apologetic likes to spread? Not only does he demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of evolution in this very passage (that being that evolution says nothing about animals being able to produce anything OTHER than "their own kind"), but also the flat-out lies about the strength of the fossil evidence.

Lies do not strengthen your position, Rusra.

Fortunately, honest people, including honest scientists, can examine the evidence for themselves about the fossil record, whether mutations are a viable mechanism for the ToE, and whether sterility is a barrier to inter species breeding. Calling those who disagree with you names does you no credit. It is by such bullying tactics some evolutionists seek to prop up their fragile theory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fortunately, honest people, including honest scientists, can examine the evidence for themselves about the fossil record, whether mutations are a viable mechanism for the ToE,

Agreed, which is why the VAST majority of scientists accept evolution. Or, lemme guess, the only "honest" scientists are the ones that don't agree with evolution?

and whether sterility is a barrier to inter species breeding.

Nobody has claimed that it isn't. But evolution has nothing to do with interspecies breeding.

Calling those who disagree with you names does you no credit. It is by such bullying tactics some evolutionists seek to prop up their fragile theory.

I didn't call him names. I called him a liar who doesn't understand evolution and is content with the spreading of his ignorance. That is a statement of fact. You can call it a bullying tactic, but it isn't "bullying" to call someone who lies a liar.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fortunately, honest people, including honest scientists, can examine the evidence for themselves about the fossil record, whether mutations are a viable mechanism for the ToE, and whether sterility is a barrier to inter species breeding. Calling those who disagree with you names does you no credit. It is by such bullying tactics some evolutionists seek to prop up their fragile theory.

I take it you are not being intentionally sarcastic.

... are you?

 

[outhouse]

Fortunately, honest people,

Don't have a problem with the facts regarding evolution.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Why should we care what lies an unqualified creationist apologetic likes to spread? Not only does he demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of evolution in this very passage (that being that evolution says nothing about animals being able to produce anything OTHER than "their own kind"), but also the flat-out lies about the strength of the fossil evidence.

so .. 'creationism' is proved false by fossil records, is it?
No! It's all a load of twaddle

Almighty God created the universe [ oh! I must be a 'creationist' ]
There is no evidence to prove that this is not AT LEAST a possibility..

 

[McBell]

so .. 'creationism' is proved false by fossil records, is it?
No! It's all a load of twaddle

That is a rather huge leap from what was actually posted...

Almighty God created the universe [ oh! I must be a 'creationist' ]
There is no evidence to prove that this is not AT LEAST a possibility..

what said evidence look like?
I mean, what does evidence that proves without a doubt even the possibility of god?

 

[Parsimony]

Bake a cake ... it's a cake. Put icing on it, it is still a cake. Frost it, instead with excrement ... it is no longer a cake. Adding things that do not belong, that change the very nature of the original thing can destroy the essence of the original item and transmogrify it into something totally different.

Which isn't the case with what I said. Believing in the existence of a god does not automatically mean denying the processes by which evolution is known to occur by (or vice versa).

 

[Sapiens]

Which isn't the case with what I said. Believing in the existence of a god does not automatically mean denying the processes by which evolution is known to occur by (or vice versa).

No, it's more like spreading excrement on a good cake.

 

[Parsimony]

No, it's more like spreading excrement on a good cake.

You're going to need to be more specific than that.