The fallacies of creationism

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, we've got a few specific threads going on this topic, but not a general thread for the evolution vs creationism debate. Years ago, I spent a lot of time on a c vs e message board. These are some of my main points.

1. If creationism is really science, then why is it one of the few sciences which produces no tangible results? Why isn't technology based on this science? We don't have creationist engines, creationist computers, creationist medicine, etc., etc. On the other hand, evolution has led to useful breakthroughs in genetics, computer science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, etc. It seems that the ONLY tangible result of creation "science" is to back up the truth of the Bible.

2. If creationists succeed in their goal to make creationism a legitimate science, then they defeat their own purpose of proving a Creator. For instance, many creationist arguments tend to find natural, physical causes for Biblical "miracles." The parting of the Red Sea. Manna from Heaven. The Genesis Flood. Catastrophic plate subduction--I believe--was tossed around to explain how a global Flood could occur, and thus legitimize the Biblical claim that such a Flood was actually possible (which they believe proves the Bible is true). But I ask you, if a physical mechanism can be found to explain every "act of God," then why still cling to the idea that God had anything to do with it? Substituting a natural explanation for a supernatural event strips it of anything supernatural, and renders any mention of God ad hoc and irrelevant.

Therefore, any attempt to present creationism as a naturalistic science fails before it begins. Creation is a supernatural act, and thus can never be rendered in terms of natural mechanisms without subverting the very idea of creation. Natural mechanisms make the idea of a Creator unnecessary and contradictory. One can still believe that a Creator was involved, but this is a religious belief, not part of a scientific theory.

3. In the attempt to claim creationism is science, and not religion, creationists often try to mask their theory's specific religious origins. They often refuse to admit that they are talking about the Christian God at all, and speak instead of a "designer," as if this neutral concept were more scientific. However, such a theory is indistinguishable from the idea of Satanic Creationism.

The Designer could have just as easily been a demonic being. This actually fits the facts much better, given the "perverse" design of some of life's features. Cancer, genetic disease, pestilence, poisonous plants, preditors feeding upon other creatures, etc. This "design" looks more like the work of Satan than of God. And more to the point: the "theory" of creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism. There is not one experiment you can perform to determine which super-natural being created or designed life.

So if Christian creationism is empirically indistinguishable from Satanic creationism, it can only be distinguished on the basis of faith and religious texts. Thus, in order to preserve its original intent (proving God created life), creationism must once again fall back upon religious faith, and not science at all.

Bottom line: creationism isn't science, and can never be science. The effort to make it into science is both futile and self-contradictory.

[Cail]

I may be wrong, but is anyone trying to turn Creationism into science? By my definition, it isn't, and it never will be.

Creation (as far as I'm concerned) happened. Species have come and gone, and they've evolved. But there's no science to Creation, nor can it be proven or disproven.

[sgt.null]

and why the need to disprove creationism? if the big bang and evolution are such shining lights of pure scientific thought, they would burn for all to see.

and this thread is what i was talking about when i mentioned the need for evolutionists not to prove their theory, but to disprove God.

[Zarathustra]

Hmmm. . . not trying to disprove God. As I said in my summary statement, it's about proving that creationism isn't science.

Yes, Cail, some people are trying to turn creationism into science. Like I mentioned, they try to explain Bible "miracles" with natural mechanisms in an attempt to prove that the bible is factually, literally true (which therefore proves creationism, since it's right there at the beginning of said Bible).

[Edge]

Yes, Cail, some people are trying to turn creationism into science. Like I mentioned, they try to explain Bible "miracles" with natural mechanisms in an attempt to prove that the bible is factually, literally true (which therefore proves creationism, since it's right there at the beginning of said Bible).

Who, exactly, is trying to do that?

I only ask, because those of us who believe in miracles are generally fully aware that they are, by definition, supernatural - and therefore unprovable by science.

Which obviously doesn't exclude their being "factually, literally, true".

[Cail]

I'm not aware of any mainstream, let me repeat that, mainstream denomination that teaches a 100% factual interpretation of the Bible.

Regardless, I can't imagine anyone of faith would try to say that faith=science. Just because I believe God created the universe, that doesn't mean I discount science.

[Prebe]

I may be wrong, but is anyone trying to turn Creationism into science?

Those who want creationism to be taught in science class for starters. Otherwise, why would it have to be in science class?

[sgt.null]

many people just want to make sure we don't become an atheist state. like Russia or China.

[Cail]

Yeah, I don't think they're trying to call ID science, I think they want it taught in the same forum.

[lucimay]

sgtnull:

many people just want to make sure we don't become an atheist state. like Russia or China.

what is an atheist state, a government without religious affiliation?

why should government have religious affiliation? does having religious affiliation make a government work better? or give it a better "moral standing" than a government without religious affiliation?

not being sarcastic or anything, i'm interested in this discussion.

[Edge]

what is an atheist state, a government without religious affiliation?

No. It's a government forbidding religion.

[The Laughing Man]

good points, Lucimay. I think the examples sgtnull provided show govt's actively involved in eradicating religion completely (Edge ) in favor of a more "national religion of government". The difference here I feel is that some of us are trying to prevent the govt from becoming involved either way, to have no say at all, because they have no business in what religion we choose.

www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_religious_freedom.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Connecticut Baptists

and I would venture that popular opinion of any country with no religion would be "immoral" in some sense. "Godless Heathens!" heh. (not my opinion, theirs!)

[lucimay]

The Esmer said:

The difference here I feel is that some of us are trying to prevent the govt from becoming involved either way, to have no say at all, because they have no business in what religion we choose.

absolutely, i agree one hundred percent.

[sgt.null]

but per my examples we see the danger in outlawing religion. and with the courts active in rooting out any religion...

[The Laughing Man]

sarge, seperate, not outlaw. no-one is trying to do that, but some are trying to make the govt participate in religion, and have religion participate as a function of our schooling and legislature. Thats where it gets dangerous, and exclusionary, and requires absolute non recognition of a particular faith as "official".

[sgt.null]

no one wants to do away with religion?

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46454

[The Laughing Man]

arrrrgh. It's about seperating! seperating! seperating! not eliminate.

[Edge]

arrrrgh. It's irritating. Really, REALLY IRRITATING. Also EXTREMELY AGGRAVATING!!!!!!!!!!

[sgt.null]

say it as much as you like. but folks on the left have a subculture that wants to eliminate. must i provide even more links? we have had attempts here in Texas.

[Prebe]

Say what you want, but.... Way to debate sgtnull!