Talk:Creationism archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Contents

Added material about Dover Trial

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [1] "

ID and creationism

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --Horace 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. JoshuaZ 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --Horace 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is unclear whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --David R 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. JoshuaZ 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --Horace 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. JoshuaZ 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --Horace 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? JoshuaZ 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)
My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --Horace 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. JoshuaZ 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --Horace 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)
OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.
I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).
ID, however, is an argument that evolution looks like it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".
Edgar Allen Poe's story, Murders in the Rue Morgue is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim showed signs of having been murdered. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.
The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that natural selection can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.
ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are irreducibly complex, i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at talk:Intelligent Design. --Ed Poor 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: cdesign proponentsists Barikada 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism"

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on criticisms of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for Young Earth Creationism, not creationism in general . JoshuaZ 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Creationism as Myth

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --Neurocat 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

deleted material on Catholicism

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --Kolbe

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. [1] I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --schifra 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk Origins Archive

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. JoshuaZ 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)


Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. PhilipB 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). JoshuaZ 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884. A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[3]
Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized. The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [4]
I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:
"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume. Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [5]
I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating. I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents. Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission Conservative 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).
Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).
In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. JoshuaZ 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Evolutionism

This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --Ashens 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. JoshuaZ 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)
"Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was ancient man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but modern man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

I just joined to express disagreement with the format of the creationism page. I don't believe it should have any mentions at all of evolution in it, and here's why: I know Christianity is true and the Christian God is the one true God. Because of that I neither know nor care about any other reason why Islam, Judaism, Hindu, atheism etc. are wrong. All I need to know is they're wrong because those religions do not believe Jesus Christ died for my sins when obviously he did. If I wanted a detailed account of why Islam is wrong, I would check your page on Islam. Similarly, and as an extension of my faith, I know creationism is right and neither know nor care why evolutionism is wrong other than the simple fact that any contradiction of creationism whatsoever cannot be true. What I'm here for is the deepening of my understanding of the truth of creationism. Again, if I cared about why evolution was wrong, I'd read your page about it. But when God says something is true, that's good enough for me. Please leave any opposition of evolutionism on its own page where it belongs and devote this page completely to the wondrous life and universe only the Lord could have given us. We place such complete trust and love in the Lord because we know He's wiser and more gracious than our human minds can even conceive. If I ever want to know about the most absurd abuses of the logic He gave us, some day, I'll ask Him myself. Until then, as one of my grandmother's wall ornaments reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". --Pious 22:43, 17 November 2011 (CDT)

Katzmiller

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--AmesG 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

what about others

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. JoshuaZ 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Added Hindu creation

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

"Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry."

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say Evolutionism is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --Ymmotrojam 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see Kitzmiller 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--AmesG 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --BenjaminS 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --Ymmotrojam 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --TimSvendsen 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --Ymmotrojam 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--Murray 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. Palmd001 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at not 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-AmesG 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --TimSvendsen 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you ever read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does not have all the answers. Check out maybe.
I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.Palmd001 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --TimSvendsen 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called naturalism, or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --Ed Poor 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --schifra 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-AmesG 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"Palmd001 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --Ed Poor 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.Palmd001 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.Palmd001 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What practical predictions has evolution made? --TimSvendsen 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.Palmd001 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Compromise: Split Articles

I think we need the following

Evolution as a disambiguation page with the following:

  1. a Creation Theory article.
  1. a REAL, UNCENSORED Theory of Evolution or Scientific Theory of Evolution article.
  1. a Creationism article (check!)
  1. Conservative's Theory of Evolution article renamed Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution.

--AmesG 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. Palmd001 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --Ymmotrojam 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need the overlord of the evolution article to release it?-AmesG 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-AmesG 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)



Scientific theory of Evolution.

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --Lohengrin 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:

Sulgran 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist

I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --Mike M 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[6] or according to the "intention of the author"[7]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs do claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a literal reading of "6 days" (for example)?[8]
Philip J. Rayment 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--Mike M 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, yom can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a literal reading of the word, which was my point.
In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And yom cannot mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) defined as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
Philip J. Rayment 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maxwell support of ID?

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:

... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --Mtur 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --Ed Poor 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see Conservapedia:Attribution.
WhatIsG0ing0n 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ TK MyTalk 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Vatican POV

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. [2] --schifra 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless 50something 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

"Doctor" Norman L. Geisler

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbaker3122 (talk)

Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Dates

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. JazzMan 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Category change

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. TheEvilSpartan 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I don't have a strong objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. Philip J. Rayment 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. TheEvilSpartan 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). Philip J. Rayment 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, Category:Religion is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). TheEvilSpartan 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Social effects of Creationist ideas

Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. Barikada 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)

It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. Philip J. Rayment 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include negative effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing science. Philip J. Rayment 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the Theory of Evolution article? Barikada 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Huh? That is nothing like what I said. Philip J. Rayment 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --GDewey 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --GDewey 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.Order 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their POINT guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. Jinxmchue 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Keep in mind, Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Feebasfactor 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, educated (or perhaps we could say expert) opinion, and opinion based on evidence. And what it is talking about is the influence of Christianity, not the church. Perhaps some/the religious institutions did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that Christianity limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the rest of the world put together, I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. Order 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
"Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose because of the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
"...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
"...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
"Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a more "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the non-Christian teachings of Aristotle.
"Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
"So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America today, and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
Philip J. Rayment 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. Order 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as observations go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as history goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose because of a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting as empiricists, not as Christians. That's a false distinction, because it was their Christianity that gave them cause and justification to act as empiricists in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this principle that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so everywhere in the universe, because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. Philip J. Rayment 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? Order 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
"Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.": What do you mean by that?
"But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
"Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See here.
"Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...": Principle, not invention.
"First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is acknowledged by the experts as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
"...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they don't change.
"But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
"The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on evidence. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
Philip J. Rayment 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
"And neither would there be any reason to assume that they don't change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.Order 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
"Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope." which does suggest something rather different.
"...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
"Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
"Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
"To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God couldn't, but that because of His nature, he wouldn't. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so in that very case!
"No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. And he did point at his telescope, the article that you quoted yourself mentions explicitly that he showed dignitaries telescopes. And it also mentioned that he refused to give proof for some of his more outlandish claims, maybe because he didn't have it. But at no point did he offer pieces of scripture as replacement for observations. He then offered nothing, and acted condescending towards his peers.
That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements. You still would have been a heretic.
If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter. No matter who would have won the argument, you could claim that it would be because of the Christian root either way, and therefore this claim is vacuous.
I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.
So you play your little game with the different meanings of "chance" again. Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either. I am happy to take you along this argument again. Nobody claims what you claim to happen by chance. But why do you have such a hard time to admit that you take recourse to the heavens, rather than try to explain why it isn't random? Order 20:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

(unindent)"I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible": Perhaps you did, but that's not quite the same thing as "Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible". The rest of your first paragraph appears to be arguing points that I don't disagree with.

"That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements.": Reference please.

"If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter.": That assumes that they are both correctly applying the Christian principles. But nobody is perfect, so it's entirely possible that one of them has misapplied the principles. So simply quoting an example of two people supposedly basing their opposing views on Christian principles does not by itself prove that Christian principles do not matter.

"I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.": The distinction that I drew was not between "deity" and "god", but "a deity" (that is, any given deity) and "God" (with a capital "G", that is, a particular deity). "a deity" and "God" are not synonyms.

"So you play your little game ...": Game? No, it's no game.

"Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either.": If there is no design, then it's down to chance.

Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 6 February 2008 (EST)

If you want an accessible introduction to the condemnations of 1277 look here [9]. A better introduction can be found here [10]. Chapter six for example explicitly refers to what we discuss, but it's in German. But to summarize, and the economist mentions it too, the idea that God couldn't do something, like changing the laws of nature, was forbidden.
You assume that there exist such a thing as "Christian principles". And then not in the platonic universe, but in reality. In reality the Christian principles are what Christians say they are. Especially if you claim the knowledge that Europeans had of these principles caused modern science to emerge in Europe. It then only matters what Europeans thought they would be. And we know that they thought differently. And we have no way to determine in advance which interpretation is the correct one; all you offer is hindsight.
The capital G god, is a god. So, you are right that it is not a synonym, and God is a particular instance of a deity. But it still correct to call it a deity, as you say yourself. But what is your point? If it is a property of deities that the can change laws, then it should be in particular be a property of an omnipotent deity.
If it's not a game, then it is probably a mistake that you us the word with different meanings. Doesn't make your argument correct.
You claimed before that lack of design implies that it must be chance. And we are now talking about "chance" with the meaning of "Probability", but you should know that the difference between the two uses of the word chance by now. If something happens by "chance" it can mean without purpose, or with a certain probability. So, I asked you before, and I am waiting for a few month now, to give me a single example, where lack of design lead to a random event. A single instant. I am not even asking you to prove your general claim that lack of design leads to chance, but just for a single example. Order 09:23, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Cdesign proponentsists

I would like to include mention of Cdesign proponentsists in the paragraph about the Dover case as an argument linking creationism and ID. I can not edit the page to do this, so will someone with authority please review and include it. --Gman2 18:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

I've unlocked the article, but I don't think that the term deserves mention in the article. It's little more than irrelevant trivia. Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Basic Grammar Changes

I found that there were several grammatical errors in the page and thought I'd run through them:

1. 1st sentence of the Creationism and Intelligent Design section has a double "the" in the phrase "believe that the the natural world."
2. 2nd sentence of the same section reads "Recently, there has been," and may be an effort by liberals to make Conservapedia sound like lolcats.
3. 5th sentence of the same section has a double "of" in the phrase "advocates of of creationism," which may stem from liberals' misuse of prepositions in trying to sabotage this article.

Hope this helps!--Limbo 14:24, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks; I've fixed each of them. Without checking the history, though, I suspect just simple typos rather than "liberal" sabotage. Philip J. Rayment 20:29, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Why must we be created by God

It seems that one of the most prominent creationist argument is if there exists a creation, there must also exist a creator. Makes perfect sense right? If there's a meal, there must be a cook to cook it. However, the cook is not a god so why must we be created by God? Why must we, an imperfect creation, be created by a perfect entity? Why is it not possible for us to be created by the Devil? Because the Bible said so? Who created the Bible? God?

Also, if the cook produced the meal and God created the cook, what created God and what created the creator of God?

Your first question (why it needs to be God) is answered by your second paragraph. It doesn't (logically) need to be God, but that then raises the question of who created the beings that created us. Ultimately, you will need to invoke someone that we would call "God". The devil is something that God created, so he can't be the ultimate creator. That is, if the devil was the ultimate creator, then the devil would actually be referred to as "God", not "the devil".
You only need to explain the origin of something that had an origin. God exists outside of time; He had no beginning, so no explanation of His origin is needed.
Philip J. Rayment 20:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I should reword my question then: "Is humanity the direct creation of the ultimate creator?". It is perfectly plausible for us to be the creation of a creation (e.g. the Devil). The idea that everything must be originated directly or indirect from the ultimate creator bring up the question of its perfection. If God is indeed perfect then shouldn't everything he do be perfect? If so, he should be perfect at creating a perfect creation. This creation then must be too capable of perfect creation, would it not?--Aixer 22:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)
To your first question, I would say that humanity is a direct creation of God, although that is something that is deduced from evidence such as the Bible, not from straight logic, as the existence of God Himself can be deduced.
To your second question, you confuse perfection with other traits such as infallibility and invulnerability. If you build a "perfect" television, it's one that works without flaw, has no scratches or dents, doesn't break down or corrode, and so on. It doesn't mean that the television won't succumb to an attack from a sledgehammer.
God created a creation that was perfect, but one that had a special feature, the creatures that were the object of his creation, man, had the special feature of free will, which is the ability to reject God, and thus deliberately introduce a defect. But just as a sledgehammer can introduce a defect into a perfect television, this doesn't mean that the creation was not perfect to begin with.
Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)
To expand on that, perfection refers to something being without fault in what it was designed to do. A television is not designed to make you a cup of tea, work underwater, or make offspring of itself. Unlike televisions, humans were designed to make offspring of themselves, but were not designed to create universes out of nothing. Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wondered much the same myself, until it was explained to me in Philosophy 101. I know, normally a liberal field. In this case however I got lucky- my instructor was exploring a doctorate in theology. Basically, he gave me the best philosophical proof for the existence of a god I've heard yet, and the same thing you allude to- the finite regress of causes. Pure science, I do not trust. Pure math, I do trust. And I don't remember the exact explanation but I did take away the most important message of it. An infinite regress of causes is mathematically impossible, that is, impossible by the rules of logic the Lord has given us. Therefore there must be an original cause, one which has existed for an an infinite interval prior and has no cause to it. Try to fill that role with anything other than our Lord. You simply can't. Hell, you literally can't. We humans while on this earth can't truly conceive the concept of the infinite.

Bigotry against Creationism

I was thinking we could open a section on bigotry against creationism, and comment on tolerant and intolerant reactions to it by the evolutionists. I'd be happy to write it if anyone is interested. --Johanan Raatz

The first sentence

"Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants was created by God or some other supreme being. " It's not a "belief." It's the acknowledgement of scientific fact. Also, what other "supreme being" is their besides God? Martyp 20:37, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Superb points. I've unlocked the entry so you can edit as you suggest, and perhaps you have some other good insights for this entry as well.
Thanks! Martyp 10:13, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Absolutely this. The one true God created everything. The very same true God who gave all of mankind the gift of logic. The true application of His gift can lead to no other conclusion. Well done Martyp. Pious 23:51, 17 November 2011 (CDT)

References

  1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
  2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Personal tools