Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Creationism isn't the general belief that there was a creator / creation event. It's short hand for Scientific Creationism. Which is a very specific belief system that comes in 3-4, or more, flavors.

Intelligent Design is a variation of Creationism, and is often promoted by old fashioned Creationists. But ID is not scientific either as they have no scientific theory and no way to falsify it.

The issue with the OP doesn't look to be about wether a creator exists or not, which TeaEarlGreyHot brought that up, but rather, the topic is Creationists rejection of evolution, physical cosmology and geology, which pretty much means rejecting science.

Wether a god exists or not is a separate issue.

The OP seems to be talking about a specific sort of creationism, so I think it is worth distinguishing it from some other forms of creationism.

The most basic forms of creationism, the burn the textbooks types, are common pretty much world-wide. There are Islamic preachers in Europe making these sorts of cases and if you go to Africa, this type of thinking can be found also.

I have an issue with this sort of thinking because it does reject science.

Confusing this sort of creationism with the rejection of absolute naturalism is not particularly useful. There is, in many scientific circles, a presumption of methodological naturalism. I personally see this as being an untestable position also, essentially the modern incarnation of logical positivism. So, while I presently do not accept the science being put forward by ID proponents (I see most of it as philosophy of science), I do think they make a fair point when they challenge the presumption of methodological naturalism; which I view as equally bad thinking. If a conclusion is falsifiable and in large part empirical, I personally don't have much of a problem with it being science.

@teaearlgrey
uhm, the burden of proof is on the one making a positive assertion, even a mediocre high-school student should know that. You seem pretty "butt-hurt" but, where's your evidence for a creator?

I'd be like me touting unicorns as existent then yelling at people saying "you can't prove there are no unicorns!!".

I find you childish and scientifically illiterate.

Oh and as for which type of creationism I don't care whether it's christian, muslim, (although they are the most common) or any other magical explanation. Using magic over science is the trademark of a simple mind.

There being no evidence for a creator I would count as relevant in the case against creationism in any form. If there was evidence that magical powers existed, then the creationists arguments would have at least some backing, even if it would result in Bill Hick's 'prankster god' scenario.

Troll say troll things.

Oh yea and wait for it....

Here it comes....

I'm bored again. Bye!

I prefer intelligent design. Everything was designed.

The bible is not here to teach science and there is no internal evidence that God made the world in 7 days(in the way that we know the term "day") anyways.

You aren't anti-physics or anti-chemistry if you think darwinists are full of it. You're just anti 100% darwin-based biology. So the notion that creationists or ID folks are anti-science is dishonest. Darwinian explanations are not the litmus test for one's love or lack of love for science, and the sciences are largely preserved with half or none of Darwin's views preserved.