What would evolution being disproved do for creationism?

[RedDragon94]

Yes I do also, very much so, ....but this is why I don't get into arguments over evolution, of course there had to be a form of evolution, but that's not the whole story as you know, so why argue over something that cannot be proven, and being a mystic is that, the mystical cannot be proven also, that's why its a mystery.

Well there's debating and then there's discussing. Someone wondered why certain people think a certain way, I happen to have experience with that group of people, I wanted to answer.

 

[Bunyip]

Because Anti-theistic evolutionists state that evolution is a proven fact. Which, if it were, wouldn't we all see the evidence for it and forsake our religions? What other option is there besides creationism or theistic evolution or non-theistic evolution?

Evolution is a proven fact, most Christians accept that and have done so for many years. Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution explains how it works.

 

[Bunyip]

Creationists need evidence for creationism, the argument from ignorance fallacy of trying to insert creationism into perceived flaws in evolution was never tenable.

 

[Parsimony]

Because Anti-theistic evolutionists state that evolution is a proven fact. Which, if it were, wouldn't we all see the evidence for it and forsake our religions?

No, because (1) something being well-supported doesn't mean that the evidence for it is easy to understand by the general populace (look at quantum mechanics and general relativity), and (2) evolution is not inherently theistic or atheistic.

What other option is there besides creationism or theistic evolution or non-theistic evolution?

Non-Abrahamic creation stories (the majority of creationists I've seen are Abrahamic), the 5-minute hypothesis, alien-guided development of life on Earth, or some other mechanism not yet discovered.

 

[Deidre]

Let us say that evolution was somehow disproved, even though at this point it's extremely unlikely.
In that case, what does it do for creationism?

It would instantly make the Bible ...true. Just like that.
I'm being somewhat serious.

 

[Bunyip]

It would instantly make the Bible ...true. Just like that.
I'm being somewhat serious.

How so?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because Anti-theistic evolutionists state that evolution is a proven fact.

It is.

Which, if it were, wouldn't we all see the evidence for it and forsake our religions?

No. You would probably stop calling anti-evolucionism a religious doctrine, though.

What other option is there besides creationism or theistic evolution or non-theistic evolution?

Seeing how in practice "creationism" is defined as the denial of evolution, you don't have even that many.

 

[Neo Deist]

Let us say that evolution was somehow disproved, even though at this point it's extremely unlikely.
In that case, what does it do for creationism?

Nothing.

 

[Deidre]

Just as an addon comment, I would like to point out the purpose of this thread.

The point here is to get to the bottom of why so many creationists think that by disproving evolution, their beliefs win.
I, of course, don't have the optimism to expect any such result.
Thus, instead of hounding after the purpose, I have decided to instead simply encourage discourse on this subject.

That is all.

A lot of creationists don't understand evolution, and I'm not trying to be rude when I say that, it's just an observation. It is easier to grab one's 'holy book' and pretend that it's both a history and science book in one. lol It's not remotely either, but in many arguments online and offline, creationists tend to steer away from using facts to disprove evolution, and instead jump to using their holy book to defend why they don't believe in evolution.

Well...it (evolution) is just a theory, ya know.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well...it (evolution) is just a theory, ya know.

I laughed at a kid for saying this, back when I was still a Junior in High School.
It really is a joke, said by those whom are unaware of the meaning of a scientific theory.

 

[psychoslice]

Well there's debating and then there's discussing. Someone wondered why certain people think a certain way, I happen to have experience with that group of people, I wanted to answer.

Yes just answering is fine, but sometimes the ego gets involved, and just discussing is lost, all of a sudden you find yourself having to prove that which you discussed, and then all mysticism is lost.

 

[outhouse]

all of a sudden you find yourself having to prove that which you discussed, and then all mysticism is lost

That's what happens when mythology meets reality.

 

[outhouse]

. What gets me is that atheistic evolutionists can put on a philosophy hat and theistic evolutionists can't.

If you had any evidence at all for theistic evolution outside mythology, you could do or wear what ever you like.


And there is no such thing to date called atheistic evolution. There is scientific well known fact of evolution, and that is taught in academia worldwide as higher education.


It has nothing to do with people who don't live mythology

 

[psychoslice]

That's what happens when mythology meets reality.

Yes, but what is reality ?.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes, but what is reality ?.

The depends entirely on what you rely on to perceive reality, your mechanism, per se.
You, of course, can use multiple mechanisms.

The most reliable mechanism, that has been presented thus far, is science.
So it seems logical to base 'what is reality' on what science presents to us.

Not knowing is a huge part of philosophy behind reality, as well.
Science can not explain everything, as should be obvious.
So for the things science cannot explain there are those who subscribe to different philosophical ideas.
Spiritualism, ultimate reality, solipsism, and so forth. All are equally unevidenced, and have no place with knowing anything.

(Btw, my definition for reality is provided via the default position.
I believe that reality is simply what it is, and our perception of it should be based on what we know.
Not entirely on ideas without evidence.)

I should probably put this here just for reference.
Reality

 

[psychoslice]

The depends entirely on what you rely on to perceive reality, your mechanism, per se.
You, of course, can use multiple mechanisms.

The most reliable mechanism, that has been presented thus far, is science.
So it seems logical to base 'what is reality' on what science presents to us.

Not knowing is a huge part of philosophy behind reality, as well.
Science can not explain everything, as should be obvious.
So for the things science cannot explain there are those who subscribe to different philosophical ideas.
Spiritualism, ultimate reality, solipsism, and so forth. All are equally unevidenced, and have no place with knowing anything.

(Btw, my definition for reality is provided via the default position.
I believe that reality is simply what it is, and our perception of it should be based on what we know.
Not entirely on ideas without evidence.)

I should probably put this here just for reference.
Reality

Yes that was nicely said, but for me there is no such thing as reality, what our senses sense is our so called reality, but that's where it ends, so myself I just don't take it on for whatever it is, its just something that we really know nothing of, but of course we all need that measurement that we all agree on, just for the sake of living our life as a human being.

 

[Laika]

if evolution were disproven, its effect on creationism would deopend entirely on how it was disproven. It is possible, that like all scientific theories, evolution could be superceeded by another theory which is better at explaning the origin of species. if we found live on another planet for instance, that would create a whole new swath of data to fit into our understanding. that scenario wouldn't help creationism at all as it takes away from the egocentrism and belief in the our own significance that our own personal god created us.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes that was nicely said, but for me there is no such thing as reality, what our senses sense is our so called reality, but that's where it ends, so myself I just don't take it on for whatever it is, its just something that we really know nothing of, but of course we all need that measurement that we all agree on, just for the sake of living our life as a human being.

I believe the quote went as such: "So long as there can be discourse there can be progress".
So long as we can discuss these things with each other we can find common ground and set our invisible boundaries.

To me, the 'could be's' aren't as important as the 'will be's".

 

[psychoslice]

if evolution were disproven, its effect on creationism would deopend entirely on how it was disproven. It is possible, that like all scientific theories, evolution could be superceeded by another theory which is better at explaning the origin of species. if we found live on another planet for instance, that would create a whole new swath of data to fit into our understanding. that scenario wouldn't help creationism at all as it takes away from the egocentrism and belief in the our own significance that our own personal god created us.

A scenario of any kind wouldn't help the poor creationist, they just haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe the quote went as such: "So long as there can be discourse there can be progress".
So long as we can discuss these things with each other we can find common ground and set our invisible boundaries.

To me, the 'could be's' aren't as important as the 'will be's".

Yea, but for me, I just don't care, I am here and we will never ever know all the answers, and that is fine with me.