Creationism a new tact.

Where agnostics and atheists can freely discuss

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Creationism a new tact.

Post #1

Post by DanieltheDragon »

I think its time to stop defending evolution etc. It defends itself on its own merits. Perhaps its time to go on the offensive. I am going to stop debating evolution and focus on debating only the merits of creationism(or lack there of). Time to stop the false equivication between evolution and creation it doesn't deserve to be discussed in the same thread.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Creationism a new tact.

Post #2

Post by McCulloch »

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

One problem is that many creationists by the very arguments that they use display a sad ignorance of evolution. If evolution meant what the creationists generally say that it means, I wouldn't believe it either. By exposing the untruths and downright deceptive practices of the creationists we achieve a result beyond just the evolution v creation debate. We also get people to become a bit more skeptical of their sources. If they lied to us about one thing, what else might they be lying to us about?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Creationism a new tact.

Post #3

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

That is a valid point. I would have a hard time just ignoring flat out wrong assumptions about evolution. However, it is my opinion that creationism is not really a philosophical stance. It is designed purely to attack evolution. By taking evolution out of the debate creationists have no legs to stand on.

When asked to demonstrate their "science" they will equally prove themselves a fraud.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Creationism a new tact.

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

That is a valid point. I would have a hard time just ignoring flat out wrong assumptions about evolution. However, it is my opinion that creationism is not really a philosophical stance. It is designed purely to attack evolution. By taking evolution out of the debate creationists have no legs to stand on.

When asked to demonstrate their "science" they will equally prove themselves a fraud.
I agree. The main stance of creationism is the idea of irreducible complexity. For example they argue that something as complex as the human eye could not have evolved because it is "irreducibly complex".

Actually that argument is blown away by evolution. Evolution has no problem explaining how something as complex as the human eye evolved piecemeal. It's simply false to say that it is "irreducible complex".

For this reason creationists have no choice but to attack evolution because if evolution is true they have no case.

~~~~

Now moving forward to contribute to the topic of this thread allow me to suggest the following.

We don't need evolution to see that some things are simply a bad design. I always like to use the observation that humans, as well as most other animals, need to procreate using the some orifices and organs that they use for the removal of disgusting and unwanted waste. I would personally argue that if this design was done intentionally by a grand designer then he was one sick dude. However, if this just happened to evolve out of mere efficiency of a process of evolution of natural selection, then it's understandable how it could have come about. ;)

I think also, and perhaps far more impressive is the simple fact that horrible diseases exist. Why would an intentional designer design parasites, germs, bacteria and viruses to attack and harm the main object of its creation?

Creationists must either argue that all disease was designed for the purpose to inflicting punishments upon sinful individuals. In fact, this was the original superstitious beliefs of religions. Or they must demand that Satan is the designer of these things. After all, keep in mind that they are demanding that everything has a designer, so they can't claim that these things merely deteriorated on their own accord. That would be a form of evolution itself.

So creationists are stuck with Satan also being a valid "designer". One that their creator gives totally free rein to design any hideous thing his evil heart desires.

The whole idea of creationism is plagued with self-contradictions without evolution to save it's dying soul. And once evolution comes to the rescue then creationism is no longer needed at all. So even the evolution of disease and bacteria can't save it. If their God is the designer then he must be the designer of all things, both good and evil.

Of course many Christians claim that this is their God and even the Bible tells us so.

Fine. But now we have a blatant confession that this Christian God is evil.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #5

Post by H.sapiens »


Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Post #6

Post by Hamsaka »

[Replying to post 5 by H.sapiens]

From the linked article:
Therefore, in dealings with YECs, whenever you meet them, I urge you, in every forum, in every conversation, do not try to engage them with argument and evidence about the real world. Simply ask them whether they believe that “kind begets kind�, explaining what you mean. Then ask them why they believe that. A few may not have thought about this, you might then have an opportunity to engage in a conversation about dogs, wheat, horses and bananas. You might even be able to have a conversation about DNA and how changes to the genome occur. For the others, who will “know� that it is in Genesis, challenge them. Say “Where in Genesis? When I started thinking about this, I read Genesis, just to check, - and it is not there. Sure, it says that God created kinds, but he did not tell them to reproduce according to their kind�. I am sure that most of these people will swear blind it is in there, and even if shown the text of Genesis will say “well if it’s not there, it must be somewhere else�. It isn’t. No YEC was ever convinced to change their belief on the basis of evidence, no matter whether the evidence was biblical or scientific. However, if this is said long enough and loudly enough by enough people, the message will eventually be heard that YECs are making a knowingly deceitful claim of biblical authority.
(I hate how teensy the text is in quotes)

Daniel, here's an approach that doesn't involve defending the theory of evolution. The whole article was well done, and though I haven't read everything, I certainly hadn't heard this angle.

At first, I felt pretty dubious about this contributor's 'kind begets kind' as the core of the YEC position, but as I read on, of course it is, it's just that this particular argument is evaded -- for good reason, for the tiresome attacks on evolution.

I agreed wholeheartedly with your OP, and then naturally McCullough's point was pretty obvious. This little 'approach' includes refusing to evade YEC core arguments and brings in opportunity to teach evolution basics instead.

Post Reply