Has the study of Creationism benefited Christendom

And of course I didn't say it was.It is the opinion of this moderator that it is obvious to nearly everyone even just casually familiar with the creation/evolution debate that the views of creation science differ with traditional science in fundamental ways across many fields. It is true that evolution is at the core of these differences, but that these broad differences exist is considered by this moderator to be so clearly obvious that no time should be spent debating it, unless someone proposes a thread for that specific purpose.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So your answer to the question "Has the study of Creationism benefited Christendom" is "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."I thought I did a pretty good job of answering the question in Message 12. Biblical Creationism has hurt Christianity and only driven folk away.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Since this is the subject of the thread, it might be a good idea to lurk or ask questions. Okay.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm not so sure about the "only driven folk away" part. Isn't evangelicalism still a growing movement in the US?--Percy

"What one doesn't hear is that the Bible tells us that God will send powerful delusions on those who are destined for destruction."The god of creationism as the great deciever? No wonder so many are completly comfortable with bearing false witness.Yeah, this really helps Christianity.

That's true. But evangelicalism does not necessarily equate with either Biblical Creationism or YEC. And the issue is broader, dealing with Christendom. In the words of the Cergy Project: How can embracing ignorance, rejecting the will of our Creator, limiting GOD and failure to use the Gift of minds capable of Critical Thinking ever be a benefit to Christendom?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was wondering if this issue would come up. How does one define what is a benefit to Christendom? Is Christendom better off with a faith-based or an evidence-based view of the world?Perhaps which one is a benefit is a subjective issue. You could look at what creationism is doing and say that ignorance is no benefit to Christendom. But an evangelical might look at what creationism is doing and say that increasing faith in the truth of scripture is a great benefit to Christendom. You could argue that such ignorance would have rendered many of our important scientific advances impossible, and they could argue that those scientific advances would have happened anyway since they don't depend upon accepting macroevolution.--Percy

But we are not talking about simply the issue of Macro Evolution. If you read Faith's post in Message 11 you find that she takes issue with Geology and Archeology and only exempts Astronomy because she says she does not know anything about it. IMHO it most certainly is a subjective issue. All that we can do is try to present the best defense of each position. What I try to point out is that those Christians who accept the TOE and all the other sciences, accept old universe, old earth, evolution, geology, astronomy, even abiogensis also find no conflict with our Christian beliefs. We still recognize the message of Christ, of salvation, of the Golden Rule. We still recognize the Bible.Again, quoting from the Clergy Project, signed by over 10,000 US Christian clergy, pastors, priests and ministers:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are misrepresenting me. I did not take issue with the entire fields of science you mention or any entire fields of science as you are claiming, but only with the dates given. This is a particular point, which is parallel with the point that Percy made, that creationists reject MACROevolution as science, but consider microevolution and everything else to be legitimate science.

Await the conclusion before totally burning me for being OT.Radioactivity is a part of physics and chemistry like gravity and pharmaceuticals. Radioactivity is used to date artifacts and rocks, like in anthropology and geology. It is also used to kill people with nuclear bombs. Creationists believe radioactivity is real and good when it is used to kill people but false and bad when it is used to learn something about the past. BTW radioactive dates agree with tree rings (dendritics) and ice cores where they overlap. The ages are far greater than 6000 years.DNA is studied in biology to cure genetic diseases and determine the relationship between different species, such as in cladistics. Creationists believe studing DNA is good and true when it is used to cure diseases but it is false and bad when it is used to determine relationships between species.The mathematical study known as trigonometry is used by astronomers to determine how distant a star is from Earth (this is known as parallax). It only works for the closest stars, up to around 6000 light years away. Beyond that they use Cephied variables and red shifts to determine the distance. Light shifts in a spectrogram just like sound shifts. This is the Doppler effect. Parallax, Cephied variables, and red shifts overlap and are consistent with each other. Creationists say the Doppler effect is good and true when it is used to determine the position of a train or tornado but it is bad and false when it is used to determine how far away a star or galaxy is.These are just three examples out of thousands concerning how all science is interrelated, evolution included. Science does not determine if nuclear decay, DNA, or the Doppler effect fit in with an over simplistic fundamentalist reading of the Bible, Koran, or any other sacred text. To science these concepts, or theories if you like, are simply there because of the evidence, at this point in time, usually quite overwhelming evidence. To Panthiests, theories and or concepts are a more reliable way to understand and study God than the cherry-picked words of so-called prophets. Panthiests believe in the works of God rather than the words of men.There are no more than four ways to resolve the debate concerning fundamentalism and its God-awful offspring creationism/ID. Either one believes in a god that is intentionally deceptive to humans who seek to understand the universe or seek to know God through examination and study rather than through the words of false prophets, which should be called the Great Deceiver Hypothesis. Or it is not the core concept part of a given religion but literal fundamentalism that is false, which in Christianity, given that Jesus taught in parables, is no great stretch. I prefer to call this position Christianity when refering to Christians, Bhuddism when referring to Bhuddists, Panthiesm when referring to Panthiests, etc. Or one can deny any supernatural belief, these people are Athiests. Or say they do not have an opinion, they are called Agnostics.Under this model, the Great Deceiver Hypothesis is against Christianity.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-08-2006 05:31 PM

Hi Faith,I'm going to state my position more strongly this time. This thread is not about your positions on issues not directly related to the topic and how jar is mispresenting you concerning those issues. You have two choices:

1. Discuss the topic.
   ​
2. Stop posting to this thread

If you want to discuss your view that creationism is largely in agreement with traditional science except for the macroevolution part of the theory of evolution then please propose a new thread. It is my judgment that that view is so unsupportable that no time should be spent on it in any thread except one expressly for that purpose.Please follow this request or I will remove your posting privileges for this forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

We stopped burning people at the stake for being OT a long time ago. Seriously, if your post ties into the topic of how creationism benefits Christendom then it isn't obvious to me. Please either make the tie-in more clear or take this line of discussion to another thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't think so. In fact, I believe that I included a link to the message where you made the statements so that everyone coulod read exactly what it was you said. IIRC it is Message 11. But the thread is "Has the study of Creationism benefited Christendom", and my point is that by denying an old earth, old universe and evolution are fact (which they are), Biblical Creationism is harmful to Christianity, and act of hubris and a denial of the gift that GOD gave us for critical thinking. When children who have been raised under the isolation and indoctrination of YEC parents finally get exposed to the full complete and overwhelming masses of evidence of those facts, they often turn away from Christianity. This is a loss which is easily preventable by explaining to the children as they grow up the realities we have discovered of How GOD actually did it, the amazing wonderful world we live in, of the Theory of Evolution, of a universe more than 14 Billion years across, an earth over 4 Billion years old.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion