Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

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?

[Inquirer]

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?

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, you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.

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]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #2]

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!

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).

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.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #2]

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!

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).

That'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.

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.

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.

You did that for me, without inspiration there can be no science.

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.

But some creationists spouting nonsense does not invalidate creationism any more than some naturalists spouting nonsense invalidates naturalism.

[Jose Fly]

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,

It's good to know that you also don't see creationism as an "intellectual discipline" and instead see it as a belief.

you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.

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).

As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting?

Any contribution to our scientific knowledge of the world around us.

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?

Nope. The big bang models are not in any way based in 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!

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).

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.

Since creationism centers on gods, it is impossible to disprove. Gods can do absolutely anything imaginable.

[Inquirer]

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,

It's good to know that you also don't see creationism as an "intellectual discipline" and instead see it as a belief.

you've also never - to my knowledge - bothered to post your preferred definition of "creationism" so again your vagueness make reasoned discourse a challenge.

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).

Understood.

As for "any impact on science" what is it exactly you are expecting?

Any contribution to our scientific knowledge of the world around us.

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.

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?

Nope. The big bang models are not in any way based in creationism.

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.

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!

This 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).

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!

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.

Since creationism centers on gods, it is impossible to disprove. Gods can do absolutely anything imaginable.

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]

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.

The 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.

Hmm, first you said "impact" then you said "contribution" and now you're saying "based on" !

Yep, in science those are all basically the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sure you do.

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!

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?

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.

Huh? No idea how you got that from what I wrote.

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?

[Inquirer]

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.

The 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.

How does single example that prove that creationism has never contributed to scientific discoveries?

Hmm, first you said "impact" then you said "contribution" and now you're saying "based on" !

Yep, in science those are all basically the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sure you do.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Huh? No idea how you got that from what I wrote.

You said:

Since creationism centers on gods, it (the view that creationism is true) is impossible to disprove

Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.

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?

I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?

[Jose Fly]

How does single example that prove that creationism has never contributed to scientific discoveries?

You should give that sentence another try.

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.

By the complete absence of any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods.

So you are willing to credit a belief system after all.

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.

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.

We've been over this. "Inspired by" is not the same as "utilizes" (see previous example of a scientist being inspired by impressing women).

Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.

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.

I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?

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?

[Inquirer]

How does single example that prove that creationism has never contributed to scientific discoveries?

You should give that sentence another try.

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.

By the complete absence of any scientific work that utilizes creation by gods.

You use the term "utilized", does one utilize their beliefs about reality when studying reality? of course we do.

So you are willing to credit a belief system after all.

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.

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.

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.

We've been over this. "Inspired by" is not the same as "utilized by" (see previous example of a scientist being inspired by impressing women).

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.

Therefore you cannot know can you, it could be true it could be false, you have no idea.

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.

I for one don't need "new" arguments, so what relevance is "new"?

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?

So, were back to "impact" now, very well!

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.