What is creationism?

[Scott C.]

That what you describe should logically be called theistic creationism. In practice, "Creationism" involves some sort of attempt at denying known biological facts, though.

I hesitate to label my views, as I'm not certain of the implications.

 

[Sapiens]

I hesitate to label my views, as I'm not certain of the implications.

A few questions the that will make "labeling" them easier:

1. Did man evolve from a common ancestor with all the other apes or was he created independently?
2. How old is the planet?
3. Was there a Garden of Eden?
4. Was there a global flood, an ark with all the animals, Noah, etc?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hesitate to label my views, as I'm not certain of the implications.

That's fair enough. For the sake of the evolution vs. creationism debate, creationism tends to be defined strictly along the lines of anti-evolutionary theism (i.e: the religious/social movement that has been pushing a strong anti-evolution agenda and attempts to supplant science education with education in literal interpretations of the origin stories contained in holy texts or tenets). A lot of people tend to equate creationism and theism, and it tends to create a lot of confusion and frustration, particularly on these forums.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hesitate to label my views, as I'm not certain of the implications.

A wise decision, IMO.

 

[outhouse]

I hesitate to label my views, as I'm not certain of the implications.

Or you refuse to back yourself in a corner you know you cannot escape, because of academic knowledge would not let you logically or reasonably escape?

 

[Scott C.]

Or you refuse to back yourself in a corner you know you cannot escape, because of academic knowledge would not let you logically or reasonably escape?

Ummm... no. I'm not sure of the definition of theistic creationism so I don't want to call myself that. I'm a Mormon. I believe in my church. If that has elements of creationism or theistic creationism, that's fine by me. I haven't studied those enough to know. Hence I don't want to label myself as anything religious other than Mormon. You're way off the mark in your comments.

 

[Scott C.]

By the way, Brigham Young University, owned and operated by the Mormon Church, teaches evolution. If my church were anti-science, they would not allow it to be taught. Again, the scriptures do not explain "how" God created the world. Scientists are free to figure it out they best they can. I welcome any new scientific discoveries on the subject.

 

[rusra02]

You chose the two worst possible traits to ask that for since we know exactly how the wing and the eye have evolved. We also have eyes and wings at every step of the evolutionary process alive and well today.
For the eye.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-gap-filled-more-evidence-for-eye-evolution/
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-of-the-eye.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.
htmhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

for wings
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8959.html
http://www.sussexvt.k12.de.us/science/Evolution/Evidence for Evolution.htm
http://www.shmoop.com/evidence-evolution/structure-function.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

Irreducible complexity itself is a bunk argument that has been settled numerous times in debate and discussions. There are logical problems with the assertions itself but what is worse is that the predictions made based on it have always been wrong. So its highly problematic for anyone invoking the argument. Secondly you chose the eye and the wing. These two are incredibly well understood. Asking why we have skin rather than scales if we evolved from scaly creatures would have been a much better question but wings and eyes are both understood because they evolve independently so often in the life on this planet.

Providing evolutionist websites that simply claim the eye somehow evolved proves nothing. If definitive proof exists, present it without resorting to links to sites that simply make assertions.

 

[outhouse]

Ummm... no. I'm not sure of the definition of theistic creationism so I don't want to call myself that. I'm a Mormon. I believe in my church. If that has elements of creationism or theistic creationism, that's fine by me. I haven't studied those enough to know. Hence I don't want to label myself as anything religious other than Mormon. You're way off the mark in your comments.

And once you do posit anything your church teaches I suspect my example will apply fully.

 

[outhouse]

. If my church were anti-science, they would not allow it to be taught

There are many areas that are probably pseudoscientific.

In 1992, the university drafted a new Statement on Academic Freedom,[86] specifying that limitations may be placed upon "expression with students or in public that: (1) contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy; (2) deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or (3) violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others." These restrictions have caused some controversy as several professors have been disciplined according to the new rule. The American Association of University Professors has claimed that "infringements on academic freedom are distressingly common and that the climate for academic freedom is distressingly poor."

 

[Midnight Rain]

Providing evolutionist websites that simply claim the eye somehow evolved proves nothing. If definitive proof exists, present it without resorting to links to sites that simply make assertions.

The evidence is in there. When you say "evolutionist" site what you mean to say is "credible scientific source".

 

[Scott C.]

And once you do posit anything your church teaches I suspect my example will apply fully.

Where are you coming from? I wa

There are many areas that are probably pseudoscientific.

In 1992, the university drafted a new Statement on Academic Freedom,[86] specifying that limitations may be placed upon "expression with students or in public that: (1) contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy; (2) deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders; or (3) violates the Honor Code because the expression is dishonest, illegal, unchaste, profane, or unduly disrespectful of others." These restrictions have caused some controversy as several professors have been disciplined according to the new rule. The American Association of University Professors has claimed that "infringements on academic freedom are distressingly common and that the climate for academic freedom is distressingly poor."

So you don't like BYU. Sorry about that. But they do teach evolution.

 

[Scott C.]

And once you do posit anything your church teaches I suspect my example will apply fully.

Where are you coming from and why the assault?

 

[outhouse]

Where are you coming from and why the assault?

No assault. You have made many anti academic and scientific claims in the past.

Because I know you and what you posit as knowledge. You change history to meet your faith based needs, not what the evidence proposes and what academia teaches.

 

[outhouse]

So you don't like BYU

I use it for some things myself. But it has to be taken with a grain of salt due to its theistic agenda, and lack of academic freedom.


My reply was a credible criticism of the institution.

 

[Scott C.]

No assault. You have made many anti academic and scientific claims in the past.

Because I know you and what you posit as knowledge. You change history to meet your faith based needs, not what the evidence proposes and what academia teaches.

I'm not aware of these anti-academic and scientific claims that I've made.

 

[Scott C.]

WARNING: Sarcasm...

Here are a few devout and well known Mormons who were anti-science. They altered their scientific findings and made stuff up to make sure there would be no contradictions to their faith. After all how can you believe in God, miracles and things of the Spirit if you respect science?

Henry Eyring pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry. He also won the National Medal of Science for having developed the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions. He was elected president of the American Chemical Society in 1963 and of the Association for the Advancement of Science in 1965.

Harvey Fletcher, as a graduate student worked with Millikan and together they were the first to measure the charge on an electron. Millikan won the nobel prize for that work. Harvey Fletcher directed research at Bell Labs. There he played a central role in the development of stereophonic reproduction. He was elected president of the American Physical Society in 1945.

Wilford Gardner described the movement of water through unsaturated soils by reference to capillary potential. For this and other work the American Society of Agronomy called him "the father of soil physics." He was a dean at U.C. Berkeley.

Russell M. Nelson was a prominent heart surgeon and received a Ph.D. in surgery from the University of Minnesota.

Richard G. Scott was a nuclear engineer who did advanced studies at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy.

James Fletcher Had a doctorate in physics for University of Utah and was head of NASA under Nixon in 1972 and then again to deal with the Challenger aftermath in 1986.

James Cannon is a professor of mathematics at BYU who played a key role in the classification of simple groups.

Tom Hales is a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan who proved a long standing conjecture about the optimal stacking method of spheres.

Even little 'ole me has a B.S. in Mathematics. Of course, I lack the intellect to think logically and to follow the sophisticated proofs I read around here. It's so easy for me to believe in those magical leprechauns in the sky.

While I don't know the backgrounds of people in this forum, I'd venture a guess that many of those named above (excluding me) have better scientific minds than those who are here. They have a better grasp on science and a better respect for their subjects. Yet, they are people of faith.

Think carefully before you think yourself a brilliant person of science who is above this religious non-sense. It may reveal arrogance and ignorance. I'm not asking that you become a person of faith. But I am asking that you respect the scientific minds and approaches of many people of faith.

Not targeted at anyone in particular... a general point... if the shoe fits...

 

[Sapiens]

You drooped a couple from the list you cut and pasted:

Kip Thorn Kip Thorn has done considerable work in theoretical physics. He is the author of the book Black Holes and Time Warps. The book features a story about a robot named "Kolob" that falls into a black hole. Apparently Thorn left the church with his family in the 70's because of the ERA issue. It appears that he wasn't terribly active at that time, however.

Paul Boyer Paul Boyer is a professor at UCLA and won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work in uncovering the mechanism of ATP synthesis. (He grew up in a devout Latter-day Saint home and went to BYU is the 1930's. Boyer stopped attending church while he was doing postgraduate research at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He subsequently adopted atheism and is a Life Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

But mores the point, how do Mormons, who are also scientists, handle the cognitive dissonance of the huge number of clear anachronisms contained in the Book of Mormon and the universal agreement within the academic community (save for a few BYU apologists) that "Reformed Egyptian" is clearly a fraud?

 

[Katzpur]

WARNING: Sarcasm...

Here are a few devout and well known Mormons who were anti-science. They altered their scientific findings and made stuff up to make sure there would be no contradictions to their faith. After all how can you believe in God, miracles and things of the Spirit if you respect science?

Henry Eyring pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry. He also won the National Medal of Science for having developed the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions. He was elected president of the American Chemical Society in 1963 and of the Association for the Advancement of Science in 1965.

Harvey Fletcher, as a graduate student worked with Millikan and together they were the first to measure the charge on an electron. Millikan won the nobel prize for that work. Harvey Fletcher directed research at Bell Labs. There he played a central role in the development of stereophonic reproduction. He was elected president of the American Physical Society in 1945.

Wilford Gardner described the movement of water through unsaturated soils by reference to capillary potential. For this and other work the American Society of Agronomy called him "the father of soil physics." He was a dean at U.C. Berkeley.

Russell M. Nelson was a prominent heart surgeon and received a Ph.D. in surgery from the University of Minnesota.

Richard G. Scott was a nuclear engineer who did advanced studies at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy.

James Fletcher Had a doctorate in physics for University of Utah and was head of NASA under Nixon in 1972 and then again to deal with the Challenger aftermath in 1986.

James Cannon is a professor of mathematics at BYU who played a key role in the classification of simple groups.

Tom Hales is a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan who proved a long standing conjecture about the optimal stacking method of spheres.

Even little 'ole me has a B.S. in Mathematics. Obviously, I lack the ability to think things through logically and easily fall into the trap of believing in those magic leprechauns in the sky.

While I don't know the backgrounds of people in this forum, I'd venture a guess that many of those named above (excluding me) have better scientific minds than those who are here. They have a better grasp on science and a better respect for their subjects. Yet, they are people of faith.

Think carefully before you think yourself a "great scientist" who is above this religious non-sense. It may reveal arrogance and ignorance. I'm not asking that you become a person of faith. But I am asking that you respect the pro-science attitudes of many people of faith.

I think you made that stuff up, Scott.

Here's another "made-up" fact. The LDS Church was a major contributor to the new Natural History Museum of Utah -- which is a highly reputable museum with one of the best collection of dinosaur fossils anywhere. Could it actually be that the LDS Church doesn't believe that "God just put dinosaur bones around the earth to fool people and to test our faith"?

 

[outhouse]

Here are a few devout and well known Mormons who were anti-science

NO Sarcasm needed. Here is the low down, that is not down low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

There is generally no direct support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.


This means your book has no support for its HISTORICITY


The mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the ancient Americans and peoples is apparently at odds with the claims put forth in the Book of Mormon, though Mormon apologists have made efforts to reconcile these apparent contradictions.

This means morman apologist cannot accept the academic truth.


The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility

This means your book has NO academic credibility