Has the study of Creationism benefited Christendom

Has man's study and involvement in the debate of origins benefited Christianity? Have such studies brought people to salvation in Christ? Have such studies helped mature believers? Have such studies, in the end, glorified God? Or have these studies benefited man's understanding of scripture, theology, or the nature of God? What have been the practical benefits of the development of Creation theories? Or I could phrase it, what has been the 'fruit' of such labors?And if this study of Creationism has benefited Christendom, has it done so more than had the efforts been otherwise placed. If those who study/debate Creationism/Evolution were to spend their time in other arenas, such as philosophy, history, theology, evangelism, missions, etc., would there be greater benefit to Christianity? Would God be more glorified? Is the benefit sufficient for the work required to make a difference? And is other work more beneficial to the cause of Christ?This would generally apply to any who would call themselves Christian (though perhaps any of religious/theistic-belief could answer). Your actual position on the Creation/Evolution debate is irrelevant. The question is more "what is the spiritual benefit of your studies", not what is the scientific benefit.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Your question is a pragmatic one. How could anyone answer? I have no idea whether or not it has benefitted Christendom or Christianity, but I do know it had to be pursued. You can't just ignore this theory that has come along to challenge Christianity, and keeps convincing young people of its claims to truth, you have to do your best to answer it.

benifitted Christianity, then IMHO the answer is absolutely not. It has led folk away from an understanding of GOD's message to us, is an act of hubris, wilfully forced ignorance on many children, created a generation that cannot think critically or examine evidence and created Ghettos of Holy Ignorance claiming to be Christian Schools.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well and concisely stated jar.I should first state I am not an athiest, an agnostic, nor am I a Christian, I am a Spinoza Panthiest like Einstein, Campbell, Goethe, and many others who have seriously considered the substance and implications of religious belief and found Panthiesm the answer.That being said, it is apparent to me that creationism is so demeaning to the beautiful, although apparently all too well hidden, real meaning of Christianity an impartial observer may apprehend from the New Testament that it appears a way to seperate those who seek God from God.Creationism is against physics, chemistry, geology, engineering, anthropology, linguistics, agriculture, history, and of course logic. Evidently it is also against the billions of people such humanistic (pro-human as opposed to anti-human?) endeavors have saved, at least physically.My question, as I have posted in other forums, is essentially what kind of God does one worship? Is it the God that rewards good deeds regardless of birthplace, age, race, creed, or national origin? Or is the god that revels in human suffering, that punishes natural curiosity, that hurts those who seek God instead of those who blindly follow any self-appointed prophet?After more-than-usual studying of the debate for some six months, it is apparent that while ther are a few well-meaning, although IMHO misguided creationists, the vast majority are completly comfortable with bearing false witness, either through sins of comission, omission, or even the deliberate altering of artifacts, without any remorse or apparent respect for the ten commandments whatsoever.The question remains for the creationists. Which God do you worship? Could it be (to quote Dana Carvey on SNL) satan?This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-06-2006 01:43 AM

I think the answer depends upon creationism's goals. In my opinion, creationism exists not to advance science but to provide answers to challenges to conservative Christian beliefs. In this I think it has been fairly successful.Creationism is two-faced. The face it turns outward attempts to convey a scientific image, and while this has failed miserably within the scientific community, it has had much more success among laypeople. A very significant percentage of the American people, probably somewhere around 50% (but I'd still call it very significant even if it were as low as 20%), believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is a troubled theory. For the most part it is your average layperson who sits on school boards at state and local levels, and their textbook decisions have a significant impact on the content of textbooks.The face Creationism turns inward doesn't even try to appear scientific. For the most part the clientele can't distinguish scientific from non-scientific approaches. This month's Skeptic magazine has a detailed summary of last year's creationism conference, and it seems that many sessions with scientific sounding titles contained talks with mostly Biblical references and little or no scientific content.Conservative Christians are as concerned about their children's education as everyone else, and they find it very upsetting to send their children to public schools to be taught that the account of creation found in Genesis is wrong (it's not put in those terms in classrooms, of course, but this is how conservative Christians see it). The legal cases have helped the creationist cause, because now conservative Christian parents can explain to their children that evolution is a bad theory, that creation science has better theories, but that bad people went to court to keep creation science from being taught because they are atheists and don't like God. Or similar arguments - one can imagine endless variations.So from a conservative Christian perspective one would have to count creationism as pretty successful. But it is this very success that has made creationism such a significant threat to science education in the United States.--Percy

Fair ball for getting your belief system out in to open. Often one must spend what seems like an age teasing out from whence another is coming. You would no doubt agree that the lauded company in which you are positioned and the seriousness with which you have investigated is not a reason to suppose your answer is a correct one. In other words you are an outsider looking in. If you are not a Christian then it would seem that you, along with all other philosphical and religious systems, will be blinded to the truth of what the Christian message is. For that is one of the messages of the Bible - a message which is only open to those who are no longer blinded (ie: Christians). You may have found a hidden message in your reading of Christianity - but per definition it cannot be a correct one. ToE is based on a number of a priori presumptions which exclude any possibility of God having acted in ways which may significantly affect the presumptions on which the 'science' is based. ToE's perogative of course, but if a science fails to take account of what God says then science it is not anymore. The Creationist starting point is Gods word not ToE's presumptions.One hears the frequent objection "Are we suppose to accept that God would (allegedly) make things appear to be billions of years old in ways that different strands of science (allegedly) point" What one doesn't hear is that the Bible tells us that God will send powerful delusions on those who are destined for destruction. Set the Bible aside and plough off under own steam and you can end up whereever he will have you end up and be convinced what you are seeing it correct.A Creationist isn't anti-science. Just anti-Scientism. Neither. Are these the only options available? assertion... ad hom..

This is one of the favorite misrepresentations of creationists by evolutionists but it is slander. Creationism is only against the ToE and its claim to be scientific. Creationism has no problem with science at all.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 10:53 AM

It is the opinion of this moderator that the statement you quoted is not a misreprentation of creationism. If you wish to discuss the premise that this *is* a misrepresentation then please propose a new topic. This thread is for discussion of whether creationism has benefited Christendom.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So Biblical Creationism has no problems with astronomy teaching us that the some stars are over 14 billion light years away from us?So Biblical Creationism has no problems with geology teaching us that the the rocks at the base of the Grand Canyon are over a billion years old?So Biblical Creationism has no problems with archeology teaching us that the The Venus of Willendorf was created over 25,000 years ago?AbE:Biblical Creationism has hurt Christianity. Children, when raised in Holy Ignorance, tend to lose their faith when confronted with that fact that they have been lied to about the world they live in. When confronted by the overwhelming evidence that absolutely refutes the YEC or Biblical Creationist position, they often simply abandon their faith altogether.This message has been edited by jar, 04-08-2006 10:11 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Biblical Creationism does indeed have a problem with the official geological age of the rocks of the Grand Canyon and with the age of the Venus of Willendorf. We consider it to be an error. How to explain the calculations of astronomy I simply don't know, but I'm certainly not in favor of suppressing the information. Nobody is proposing lying to children. They need to know all the thoughts on both sides.However, Admin has said this is off topic.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 12:52 PM

No, it is not off topic when it comes to the issue of whether or not Biblical Creationism has benefited Christendom.Biblical Creationism has harmed Christianity IMHO. A good example is your desire for Christians to abandon the public school system. The only justification for that is if Biblical Creationism cannot stand up to examination in an open environment but must be maintained through indoctrination and isolation.The things that you mention are good examples. YEC and Biblical Creationism have problems with just about EVERY science. When children finally get exposed to all of the overwhelming evidence that points to an old universe, old earth, that there never was a Flood, no garden of Eden, no literal Fall, no conquest of Canaan, no Exodus as described in the Bible, they begin questioning ALL of the mantras and indoctrination they have been subjected to.This is why every major Christian Church has come out in support of teaching the TOE and against Biblical Creationism. This is why over 10,000 US Christian Clergy signed the Clergy Project.The reason is not simply that old earth, old universe and evolution are fact (which they are) but because the indocrination of Biblical Creationism is harmful to Christianity, and act of hubris and a denial of the gift that GOD gave us for critical thinking.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I already gave my answer to this. I don't know the effect of creationism on Christendom but I do know that evolutionism has harmed Christendom. I really have nothing more to say than that.

Nice. Your answer to what? Where can it be found? Well, the topic happens to be " Has the study of Creationism benefited Christendom". So that was the issue I was addressing. If you'd like to start a thread on whether or not "evolutionism has harmed Christendom" I would be happy to discuss it with you.But based on what I posted in Message 12 it seems pretty clear that Biblical Creationism is a harm to Christianity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Message 3This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 01:32 PM