Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 7:40 PM
253 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Jayhawker Soule, JonF, Meddle (7 members, 246 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,006 Year: 9,612/21,208 Month: 2,699/2,674 Week: 123/961 Day: 123/98 Hour: 2/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Evolution of Creationism
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 60 (356928)
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


Ask creationists if their idea evolves and you will likely hear that it can't. Their idea is a solid, unmovable thing. It upholds a single truth for the ages.

The reality, of course, is different.

There are many ways to be a 'creationist.' The labels YEC and OEC and ID were invented to accommodate the varieties of belief that fall under the category. The ID advocates of recent years were keenly aware of this. They promoted their idea in part as a 'big tent' under which the varieties of creationist belief could unite.

The big tent was not so big, though, as to include theistic evolutionists. No matter how devout theistic evolutionists may be, or how much they believe God stands ultimately behind all things, creationists deny them recognition. Theistic evolutionists cannot join the creationist club because creationists view them as people who have given away the store.

The term 'creationism' thus does not refer to a single idea people believe. It takes its meaning from a single idea they deny. The idea that unites creationists is the theory of evolution. They are against it. 'Creationism' is really evolution denial.

Evolution denial goes through its fashions and fads. Today you see YECs attributing almost any geological phenomenon to a global Flood, maintaining a 1970s fashion set by Whitcomb & Morris. But where did the water for the Flood come from? Morris made much of a 'vapor canopy' that supplied it. YECs today are loathe to mention this idea. Morris's book made much of the human footprints displayed by Carl Baugh. Prominent YECs now repudiate Baugh.

Many assertions are being discarded. Answers in Genesis maintains a page showing 'Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Make.' In recent years the list has lengthened substantially.

Creationists as recently as the 1980s denied biological evolution in any form. They denied natural selection, benign mutation, speciation, and genetic relationships between species. Now they admit the reality of all these things.

Creationism is evolving.

The creationist species faces a transformed environment. The burgeoning number of discoveries in recent years presents mighty challenges to its ability to survive. Its survival is further threatened by the ongoing rejection of creationism as science in US courtrooms. The species's vital characteristic--denial--is growing ever harder to maintain.

Creationism has responded to this threat as bacteria respond to a new antibiotic. Some organisms disappear. Others mutate.

What changes have you noticed in creationist beliefs, tactics, fads and fashions?

What further evolution of the creationist genome do you anticipate?

Which mutation of the creationist genome do you think is best adapted for survival in the new environment?

Which variant of creationism is least adapted for survival?

_

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Natural evolution of the text.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctuated equilibrium.


Archer

All species are transitional.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 10-16-2006 7:46 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 10-16-2006 8:12 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 10-16-2006 9:23 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 5 by mick, posted 10-17-2006 2:45 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 7 by working out eating chips, posted 10-17-2006 4:03 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 10 by iano, posted 10-17-2006 6:22 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 4:34 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 54 by PaulGL, posted 04-06-2012 11:01 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 59 by NicolaRedd, posted 08-20-2013 7:58 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 60 (356930)
10-16-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


Promoted
moved here by AdminJar

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 3 of 60 (356933)
10-16-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


this is a dandy topic AO, i like it :)
What changes have you noticed in creationist beliefs, tactics, fads and fashions?

one of the big ones i see is the new hyper-evolution in "kinds" since the flood argument. or the flood layered the strata, denying how floods work argument

What further evolution of the creationist genome do you anticipate?

i see in the future if we continue to study the genome of animals and dna, a shift in how dna reflects gods design, though i'm not sure how conisidering how hard it is to get them to admit what they do now

Which mutation of the creationist genome do you think is best adapted for survival in the new environment?

the best one is a form of TE like jar has, it doesn't make god out to be an idiot or do things that are full of illogic

Which variant of creationism is least adapted for survival?

YEC and ID, YEC for being logically absurd and UD for lying to people about what it does

just to add to this, i would say the most interesting thing about creationism, is the claim that people 200-300 years ago share thier views
for example saying because kelvin or pascel or any naturalist is a creationist is a bogus statement. but they like to use this argument as if it holds some weight when infact none of those people would hold their views of god or reality. its a form of equivlation christian = creationist, when infact its not remotely the samething, because creationism is more than just a belief in god creating the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 670 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 60 (356953)
10-16-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


Archer Opterix writes:

Which variant of creationism is least adapted for survival?


Before I answer this question, I must point out that the theory of evolution as a whole is more likely to die out in a blink of an eye than creation myths. Everybody knows what a tv is, but only a few people know how it works or how to build one. The theory of evolution... science as a whole is like a super structure that can potentially collapse at a moment's notice. All it takes is another collapse of civilization like the ones we have observed in the past.

Creationism, on the other hand, does not require any kind of learning or thinking. Like all other creation myths, all it takes is a person to tell a story to a child and the tradition is passed on.

In other words, all the so-called "creation science" stuff that have sprung out of the original creation myth are most likely to die out first. As to the rest, I don't care if we have a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, the 6 days creation account will continue to live on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RickJB, posted 10-17-2006 7:35 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 2365 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 60 (356982)
10-17-2006 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


Hi Archer,

I think it would be really interesting to build a phylogeny of the world religions, in which each faith is a leaf of the tree. It could be done using the known historical events leading to the formation of different schools of thought or it could be done using dogma (i.e. monotheistic versus polythestic, written versus oral tradition, resurrection versus reincarnation, etc) as binary phylogenetic characers.

The first phylogeny based on known historical events would of course be accurate, and would allow creationists to face the historical contingency of their beliefs. The second phylogeny based on the phylogenetic method would be of interest in identifying homology, parallelism and divergence amongst the world faiths. It could be used to test my hypothesis that extremist islam and extremist christianity are sister taxa. In any case the trees would make great visual aids.

But I won't be doing it myself until they put religious data into genbank.

Mick

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-17-2006 6:10 AM mick has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12557
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 60 (356984)
10-17-2006 3:05 AM


In the U.S. one of the driving forces is the need to pretend to be scientific. If they can get away with that then they can get their sectarion religious beliefs into science lessons. Yes, it's a pretty dishonest tactic but dishonesty doesn't seem to be something they're concerned about.

So the U.S. got "Creation Science". Pretty much as soon as that had flopped "ID" got invented as a replacement with much the same aim in mind. Of course they had to throw out stuff that was too obviously Bible-based (like the Young Earth) which didn't sit will with many YECs but even some YECs backed the tactic.


    
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 7 of 60 (356985)
10-17-2006 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


I don't think anyone demonizes these people but I can't help to believe that these people over at answersingenesis Ken Ham and the like are good, competent people that happen to be fervently religious. I must say I deeply respect this.

To be more on topic,
when creationists say that creationism doesn't change I've thought they were simply referring to the Word of God. I was looking for a source to support this statement but I'm sure everyone here is well versed enough in articles where the "inerrant Word of God" has been referred to as unchanging. They obviously have to adapt their scientific arguments because science changes daily, all of the physical sciences do. Everytime there is a new find in anthropology (for example:florensis), physics (string theory) and what not.
I checked out the site and they are proponents for logic and reasoning. Overall they're doing a lot more good than the televangelists and Hovind types. Anyone know where their "creation science museum" is based?

I must admit however that I am quite partial to creationism and Christian fundamentalism. I find beauty in it. Paulk sees a dishonesty in the movement of creationism overall but I see a honesty. With establishing a worldview that makes you something in rejection of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2006 8:50 AM working out eating chips has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 60 (356996)
10-17-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mick
10-17-2006 2:45 AM


Religious phylogeny
You might be interested at a limited attempt to do something similar.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2001/vol5/lord_a&price_i.html

In this paper Lord and Price try to construct a memetic phylogeny of post-reformation christian sects.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mick, posted 10-17-2006 2:45 AM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mick, posted 10-17-2006 6:21 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 4:14 PM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Yakuzi, posted 08-28-2013 10:17 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 2365 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 9 of 60 (356997)
10-17-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
10-17-2006 6:10 AM


Re: Religious phylogeny
cool! thanks for the link.

I wish I could have an original idea once in my life, though...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-17-2006 6:10 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 562 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 60 (356998)
10-17-2006 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


Deja vu
Creationism is evolving.

Inspired perhaps, by the activities of its opposite number


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2006 11:46 AM iano has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 11 of 60 (357000)
10-17-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
10-16-2006 9:23 PM


Gasby writes:

All it takes is another collapse of civilization like the ones we have observed in the past.

Oh goody. Humanity sinks back into mass ignorance and myth returns to the top of the tree. Hallelujah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 10-16-2006 9:23 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12557
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 12 of 60 (357010)
10-17-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by working out eating chips
10-17-2006 4:03 AM


quote:

Paulk sees a dishonesty in the movement of creationism overall but I see a honesty.

It's not just my opinins. Judges have agreed when the matter came to trial.

Here's some quotes from Judge Overton's deciison in the Arkansas case.


Ellwanger's correspondence on the subject shows an awareness that Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact


The unusual circumstances surrounding the passage of Act 590, as well as the substantive law of the First Amendment warrant an inquiry into the stated legislative purposes. The author of the Act has publicly proclaimed the sectarian purpose of the proposal. The Arkansas residents who sought legislative sponsorship of the bill did so for a purely sectarian purpose. These circumstances alone may not be particularly persuasive, but when considered with the publicly announced motives of the legislative sponsor made contemporaneously with the legislative process; the lack of any legislative investigation, debate or consultation with any educators or scientists; the unprecedented intrusion in school curriculum (16); and official history of the State of Arkansas on the subject, it is obvious that the statement of purpose has little, if any, support in fact. The State failed to produce any evidence which would warrant an inference or conclusion that at any point in the process anyone considered the legitimate educational value of the Act. It was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula. The only inference which can be drawn from these circumstances is that the Act was passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.

And of the attempts to claim that the views taught were not specifically Fundamentalist Christian beliefs:


The evidence fully answers these arguments. The idea of 4(a)(1) are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story of creation

Every time someone tries to get creationism into schools - and that incudes ID - they deny the religious aspects. Even when the religious aspect is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to examine the evidence. Is that honest ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by working out eating chips, posted 10-17-2006 4:03 AM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by working out eating chips, posted 10-23-2006 9:26 PM PaulK has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 13 of 60 (357036)
10-17-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by iano
10-17-2006 6:22 AM


Creationism evolving in response to...
Creationism is evolving.

Inspired perhaps, by the activities of its opposite number

Of course. Not many decades ago creationist denied that speciation happened. (based on how obvious it is that the bible's "kind" is refering to what we call species today).

Now a large fraction of the creationist community has backed away from that since speciation has been amply demonstrated. They even learned a lesson. They no longer define kind clearly enough to allow it to be ripped to pieces again.

Of course, as shown by posters here, there are many creationists who still haven't gotten the message and still deny speciation but the mainstream (depending on how you define that) has moved on because of scientific developments.

I don't expect it to evolve as drammatically in the next couple of decades. I think they are now backed deep into a corner. The only "out" left now seems to be to simply deny evidence. Any further retreat and their position is in shreds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 10-17-2006 6:22 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-17-2006 1:53 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(1)
Message 14 of 60 (357077)
10-17-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
10-17-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Creationism evolving in response to...
NosyNed:

I don't expect it to evolve as drammatically in the next couple of decades. I think they are now backed deep into a corner. The only "out" left now seems to be to simply deny evidence. Any further retreat and their position is in shreds.

YECs have retreated so much you have to ask what's left. They allow evolution itself now. They even depend on it to get out of jams. We've seen it here. YECs can invoke more evolution in a shorter space of time than Charles Darwin on a fourth fifth of Jack Daniels.

So what's left to circle the wagons around?

Special creation for humans, obviously. What else? Anything?

_


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2006 11:46 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2006 4:20 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 15 of 60 (358418)
10-23-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
10-17-2006 8:50 AM


Nope
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2006 8:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2006 2:08 AM working out eating chips has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017