For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.
I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.
To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.
This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.
Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?
Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?
Is this it for creationism?
Moderator: Moderators
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Is this it for creationism?
Post #1
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #2Well you miss a lot when you post here about "creationism" like the fact that it isn't even an intellectual discipline but a general, mostly rational set of beliefs about origins, the belief that the thing to be explained cannot be the explanation for itself, you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.
I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.
To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated twelve years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.
This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.
Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last dozen years all they have?
Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?
As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting? would the discovery of the Big Bang - a confirmation that the universe had a beginning (as stated in Genesis for thousands of years before astronomical technology) - not count for you? Or the fact that almost all historic contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists? do you not think those men and women had "an impact"? because most historians of science would give you an argument on that point!
Perhaps you believe that you can use science to disprove creationism? is that it? because again, I'm happy to debate that with you if that is what you believe.
I'm happy as always to discuss this with you but I suspect it won't be long before you resort to attacking me, my personality and so on rather than rationally and dispassionately discussing the subject, but we'll see.
So why not define what you think "creationism" is, that seems like a sensible next step.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #3[Replying to Inquirer in post #2]
I think Jose is referring to creationism and not creationists. No one can argue that a lot of scientists, especially from the past, believed in gods and were creationists. But show me one result someone like Newton published that involved creationism in any way. He and others may have been inspired in some way by their religious beliefs, but the hard science they produced is independent of that.
What creationism in science produces is nonsense of the type that Russell Humphreys, Walt Brown, and others like them produce. You won't find this garbage in real science journals because it is the result of taking religious ideas as fact and then trying to make the science fit. It has never worked and probably never will.
If the Big Bang were shown to be the correct explanation for origin of this universe, that doesn't mean some intelligent entity was behind it and "created" the initial event. It could have come about completely naturally without any such intelligent entity (and since we don't know the full mechanism yet, both a purely natural explanation and a god being of some sort can be speculated).As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting? would the discovery of the Big Bang - a confirmation that the universe had a beginning - not count for you? Or the fact that almost all historic contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists? do you not think those men and women had "an impact"? because most historians of science would give you an argument on that point!
I think Jose is referring to creationism and not creationists. No one can argue that a lot of scientists, especially from the past, believed in gods and were creationists. But show me one result someone like Newton published that involved creationism in any way. He and others may have been inspired in some way by their religious beliefs, but the hard science they produced is independent of that.
What creationism in science produces is nonsense of the type that Russell Humphreys, Walt Brown, and others like them produce. You won't find this garbage in real science journals because it is the result of taking religious ideas as fact and then trying to make the science fit. It has never worked and probably never will.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #4That's all fine and dandy, but dare I say a trifle naïve. If you're going to invoke naturalism as an explanation then that's fine, if you are free to assume naturalism without explaining it then I am free to assume supernaturalism on the same basis.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:05 am [Replying to Inquirer in post #2]
If the Big Bang were shown to be the correct explanation for origin of this universe, that doesn't mean some intelligent entity was behind it and "created" the initial event. It could have come about completely naturally without any such intelligent entity (and since we don't know the full mechanism yet, both a purely natural explanation and a god being of some sort can be speculated).As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting? would the discovery of the Big Bang - a confirmation that the universe had a beginning - not count for you? Or the fact that almost all historic contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists? do you not think those men and women had "an impact"? because most historians of science would give you an argument on that point!
Now you just wrote "It could have come about completely naturally" is that a scientific claim? can you support that with evidence? No, it isn't science at all it is belief, faith not science.
You did that for me, without inspiration there can be no science.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:05 am I think Jose is referring to creationism and not creationists. No one can argue that a lot of scientists, especially from the past, believed in gods and were creationists. But show me one result someone like Newton published that involved creationism in any way. He and others may have been inspired in some way by their religious beliefs, but the hard science they produced is independent of that.
But some creationists spouting nonsense does not invalidate creationism any more than some naturalists spouting nonsense invalidates naturalism.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:05 am What creationism in science produces is nonsense of the type that Russell Humphreys, Walt Brown, and others like them produce. You won't find this garbage in real science journals because it is the result of taking religious ideas as fact and they trying to make the science fit. It has never worked and hopefully never will.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #5It's good to know that you also don't see creationism as an "intellectual discipline" and instead see it as a belief.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:52 am Well you miss a lot when you post here about "creationism" like the fact that it isn't even an intellectual discipline but a general, mostly rational set of beliefs about origins, the belief that the thing to be explained cannot be the explanation for itself,
Overall, creationism is a belief that various things (e.g., humans, the universe, genetic sequences) were created by gods (or a god). Of course there are many subcategories, such as young-earth creationism, old age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and other forms that relate to specific religions (e.g., Hindu creationism).you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.
Any contribution to our scientific knowledge of the world around us.As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting?
Nope. The big bang models are not in any way based in creationism.would the discovery of the Big Bang - a confirmation that the universe had a beginning (as stated in Genesis for thousands of years before astronomical technology) - not count for you?
This is about creationism, not creationists (and more specifically, creationists' arguments). Just as we don't credit atheism when an atheist scientist contributes something, we don't credit creationism when a creationist scientist contributes something (unless their contribution directly stems from creationism).Or the fact that almost all historic contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists? do you not think those men and women had "an impact"? because most historians of science would give you an argument on that point!
Since creationism centers on gods, it is impossible to disprove. Gods can do absolutely anything imaginable.Perhaps you believe that you can use science to disprove creationism? is that it? because again, I'm happy to debate that with you if that is what you believe.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #6Understood.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:21 pmIt's good to know that you also don't see creationism as an "intellectual discipline" and instead see it as a belief.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:52 am Well you miss a lot when you post here about "creationism" like the fact that it isn't even an intellectual discipline but a general, mostly rational set of beliefs about origins, the belief that the thing to be explained cannot be the explanation for itself,
Overall, creationism is a belief that various things (e.g., humans, the universe, genetic sequences) were created by gods (or a god). Of course there are many subcategories, such as young-earth creationism, old age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and other forms that relate to specific religions (e.g., Hindu creationism).you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.
You said "impact" now you say "contribution" how can one establish whether a belief in a creator did or did not contribute to some outcome? Now you need to be able to answer this because it is you who argues it has not contributed, tell me how you established this.
Hmm, first you said "impact" then you said "contribution" and now you're saying "based on" ! I argue that the Western European scientific revolution took place in a culture where belief in an intelligent source of order and structure and organization was taken for granted. There were other parts of the world where such a belief was absent or negligible and those cultures had no scientific revolution, e.g. see the Needham question.
Speak for yourself, I do credit creationism - a firm belief in a God as a source of structure, order, laws, a rationally intelligible universe and so on - as a contributory factor in the scientific revolution. Would you for example, not credit the scientific method as contributing to the scientific revolution? If so to what do you attribute the scientific revolution? it certainly can't be atheism!Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:21 pmThis is about creationism, not creationists. Just as we don't credit atheism when an atheist scientist contributes something, we don't credit creationism when a creationist scientist contributes something (unless their contribution directly stems from creationism).Or the fact that almost all historic contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists? do you not think those men and women had "an impact"? because most historians of science would give you an argument on that point!
So you admit you have no idea if the universe is the result of a creator or mindless laws, good, we might at last be getting somewhere.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:21 pmSince creationism centers on gods, it is impossible to disprove. Gods can do absolutely anything imaginable.Perhaps you believe that you can use science to disprove creationism? is that it? because again, I'm happy to debate that with you if that is what you believe.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #7The actual work would need to involve a god in some way. For example, the field of phylogenetics specifically involves evolutionary processes for things like tracking diseases and discerning genetic function.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:35 pm You said "impact" now you say "contribution" how can one establish whether a belief in a creator did or did not contribute to some outcome? Now you need to be able to answer this because it is you who argues it has not contributed, tell me how you established this.
Yep, in science those are all basically the same thing.Hmm, first you said "impact" then you said "contribution" and now you're saying "based on" !
Yet none of the actual work involved gods. A person can be inspired to do great science because he believes it will impress women, but that doesn't mean impressing women has contributed to science.I argue that the Western European scientific revolution took place in a culture where belief in a intelligent source of order and structure and organization was taken for granted. There were other parts of the world where such a belief was absent or negligible and those cultures had no scientific revolution, e.g. see the Needham question.
I'm sure you do.Speak for yourself, I do credit creationism - a firm belief in a God as a source of structure, order, laws, a rationally intelligible universe and so on - as a contributory factor in the scientific revolution.
Of course the development of the scientific method contributed to science, as evident by all the work that utilizes it. Can you show any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods?Would you for example, not credit the scientific method as contributing to the scientific revolution? If so to what do you attribute the scientific revolution? it certainly can't be atheism!
Huh? No idea how you got that from what I wrote.So you admit you have no idea if the universe is the result of a creator or mindless laws, good, we might at last be getting somewhere.
Also, I notice that you've avoided the main point of the OP, i.e., whether creationists have any new arguments (since 2006). Do you?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #8How does single example that prove that creationism has never contributed to scientific discoveries?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:51 pmThe actual work would need to involve a god in some way. For example, the field of phylogenetics specifically involves evolutionary processes for things like tracking diseases and discerning genetic function.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:35 pm You said "impact" now you say "contribution" how can one establish whether a belief in a creator did or did not contribute to some outcome? Now you need to be able to answer this because it is you who argues it has not contributed, tell me how you established this.
How did you prove that "none of the actual work involved creationism"? I don't see how you can scientifically defend such a belief, but do try.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:51 pmYep, in science those are all basically the same thing.Hmm, first you said "impact" then you said "contribution" and now you're saying "based on" !
Yet none of the actual work involved gods. A person can be inspired to do great science because he believes it will impress women, but that doesn't mean impressing women has contributed to science.I argue that the Western European scientific revolution took place in a culture where belief in a intelligent source of order and structure and organization was taken for granted. There were other parts of the world where such a belief was absent or negligible and those cultures had no scientific revolution, e.g. see the Needham question.
So you are willing to credit a belief system after all. I can show that the belief in a created universe inspired numerous lines of scientific inquiry. One's beliefs are an integral part of one's thought processes. You cannot do an experiment here, you cannot take a world and human population absent any beliefs in a creator and show that a scientific revolution would still emerge, you can perhaps believe it but that's about all.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:51 pmI'm sure you do.Speak for yourself, I do credit creationism - a firm belief in a God as a source of structure, order, laws, a rationally intelligible universe and so on - as a contributory factor in the scientific revolution.
Of course the development of the scientific method contributed to science, as evident by all the work that utilizes it. Can you show any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods?Would you for example, not credit the scientific method as contributing to the scientific revolution? If so to what do you attribute the scientific revolution? it certainly can't be atheism!
You said:
Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.Since creationism centers on gods, it (the view that creationism is true) is impossible to disprove
I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #9You should give that sentence another try.
By the complete absence of any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods.How did you prove that "none of the actual work involved creationism"? I don't see how you can scientifically defend such a belief, but do try.
The scientific method is not a belief system, it's a method...a series of steps in a procedure, the same as steps in administering a drug regimen for example.So you are willing to credit a belief system after all.
We've been over this. "Inspired by" is not the same as "utilizes" (see previous example of a scientist being inspired by impressing women).I can show that the belief in a created universe inspired numerous lines of scientific inquiry. One's beliefs are an integral part of one's thought processes. You cannot do an experiment here, you cannot take a world and human population absent any beliefs in a creator and show that a scientific revolution would still emerge, you can perhaps believe it but that's about all.
In the same way I can't truly know whether magic invisible fairies are living at the top of the tree next to my house.Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.
See the OP. If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #10You use the term "utilized", does one utilize their beliefs about reality when studying reality? of course we do.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:25 pmYou should give that sentence another try.
By the complete absence of any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods.How did you prove that "none of the actual work involved creationism"? I don't see how you can scientifically defend such a belief, but do try.
I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.
I've pointed out before (but unless you've studied physics you'd likely not grasp this) that just because an experiment yields the same outcome when repeated does not serve as proof that it will always do so, this is why physics is essential in my opinion, to attain a deep understanding of science.
Well you do keep choosing new words once you realize that the prior word works against you! Initially you used "impact" then you moved the goalposts and used "contribute" and then you moved them again and used "based on" and now you move the goal posts again and use "utilize", very specious Mr. Fly, very specious.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:25 pmWe've been over this. "Inspired by" is not the same as "utilized by" (see previous example of a scientist being inspired by impressing women).I can show that the belief in a created universe inspired numerous lines of scientific inquiry. One's beliefs are an integral part of one's thought processes. You cannot do an experiment here, you cannot take a world and human population absent any beliefs in a creator and show that a scientific revolution would still emerge, you can perhaps believe it but that's about all.
So, were back to "impact" now, very well!Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:25 pmIn the same way I can't truly know whether magic invisible fairies are living at the top of the tree next to my house.Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.
See the OP. If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?
But the old argument "God created an orderly, rationally intelligible universe" had an impact (it led to and drove the scientific revolution) there aren't many historians of science Mr. Fly that would disagree with this either.