What would evolution being disproved do for creationism?

[Shad]

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 since creationism needs to rely on it's own evidence not that a competing idea was falsified.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, lol.

 

[Augustus]

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?The point here is to get to the bottom of why so many creationists think that by disproving evolution, their beliefs win.

It would be absolute gold dust for creationists, the idea it would do nothing looks from the wrong perspective.

It would indeed do nothing for the objective truth value of the creationist argument - it would still be just as flawed as it is today. From a communications perspective (the more important one) it would be gold dust.

Basic communication practice, when your view lacks substance, throw mud at the opposition to try to create a wedge of doubt. Now they could say 'remember when evolution was a "fact", well now their new theory is a "fact" also. Wait a few years and this one will be wrong as well'.

Remember, the audience for creationists is mostly creationists (a bit like new atheists who write books about why there is no god for people who don't believe in god). They need to reaffirm the 'validity' of their own beliefs and dismiss any evidence that would force them to examine their own beliefs. To succeed they just need to create enough 'wiggle room' for people to be able to ignore the opposition arguments.

Evolution being disproved would be about the greatest thing possible for creationism, absent God appearing with an Ikea assembly plan for earth and the heavens

 

[Deidre]

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.

You science bully!

 

[RedDragon94]

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.

I guess what I meant to say is that some Christians feel like disproving evolution gives them ammo because the mentality is that if truth is absolute then it has to have happened the exact way the holy book said. One of the questions I ask myself sometimes is how did God actually bring creation into existence. And I know that I'll never really understand exactly how but I believe it was by evolution. Which leads me to the question how did God create evolution. It's just an exercise that helps me remember the infinity of God. And because I know I can't answer the question i just helps me maintain a mystical perspective.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Because creationists don't study other cultures, they don't realize that their creation myth isn't the only one, so they think it's the only alternative to scientific theory and the obvious winner if science were to somehow take a dive.

It's a consequence of living in countries with a strong Christian/Muslim majority, so that they forget other sorts of people exist and have existed since long before their own particular culture arose. And many of those people had creation myths too.

 

[dust1n]

Evolution being disproved would be about the greatest thing possible for creationism, absent God appearing with an Ikea assembly plan for earth and the heavens

I'm not sure I understand why. I don't disbelieve God because of evolution. I disbelieve in God because it's dumb, independent on how the universe or how humans got here. Let's say that there was no such thing as evolution (all though I'm not actually sure how that could happen given sexual selection exists), but for the sake of argument I'll ignore that. Creationism still doesn't have any basis on validity. It would be equally as unfounded as before, unless it were shown to be otherwise.

 

[Milton Platt]

I agree......even if evolution was completely falsified, it would have absolutely no effect on the inability of creationists to support their god hypothesis. It would just mean that we are having to back to square one and admit that we do not know at this point.

 

[Milton Platt]

I guess what I meant to say is that some Christians feel like disproving evolution gives them ammo because the mentality is that if truth is absolute then it has to have happened the exact way the holy book said. One of the questions I ask myself sometimes is how did God actually bring creation into existence. And I know that I'll never really understand exactly how but I believe it was by evolution. Which leads me to the question how did God create evolution. It's just an exercise that helps me remember the infinity of God. And because I know I can't answer the question i just helps me maintain a mystical perspective.

But why presuppose a god when evolution will do?

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure I understand why. I don't disbelief in God because of evolution. I disbelieve in God because it's dumb, independent on how the universe or how humans got here. Let's say that there was no such thing as evolution (all though I'm not actually sure how that could happen given sexual selection exists), but for the sake of argument I'll ignore that. Creationism still doesn't have any basis on validity. It would be equally as unfounded as before, unless it were shown to be otherwise.

As I said in my previous post, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. You are not the audience. That it does nothing for you, or for the objective truth of the claim is totally irrelevant. Creationist aren't trying to persuade the average person on the street to change their mind, they are trying to protect the view of fundies from attacks that might cause them to lose faith. It is more about holding what they have than winning new converts.

The audience is fundy Christians, and it plays well with that audience. That is all that matters. It serves a purpose to justify and validate a pre-existing worldview among a small section of society, and these are the people being spoken to.

From this perspective, it would be wonderful for the apologists. In this hypothetical scenario, I could design a wonderful communication strategy for creationist that would strike a chord with my intended audience. Would be an absolute dream PR scenario for the creationists, like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[dust1n]

As I said in my previous post, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. You are not the audience. That it does nothing for you, or for the objective truth of the claim is totally irrelevant. Creationist aren't trying to persuade the average person on the street to change their mind, they are trying to protect the view of fundies from attacks that might cause them to lose faith. It is more about holding what they have than winning new converts.

The audience is fundy Christians, and it plays well with that audience. That is all that matters. It serves a purpose to justify and validate a pre-existing worldview among a small section of society, and these are the people being spoken to.

From this perspective, it would be wonderful for the apologists. In this hypothetical scenario, I could design a wonderful communication strategy for creationist that would strike a chord with my intended audience. Would be an absolute dream PR scenario for the creationists, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh, I gotcha now. I see what you're saying.