Why I am creationist

quote:

---

Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .

---

And your evidence for this is......

quote:

---

neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief.

---

I've never personally come across anyone who 'sees all the flaws in evolutionary theory' without having prior belief in some religious truth that contradicts it.So, are there people who believe in a young earth but do NOT believe this because of their religion? Can you name some?Are there people who believe in special creation but do NOT believe it was done by their God? Can you name some?Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. And yes, ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .

---

Simply re-asserting this doesn't get you any further forward. It makes it look as if you have nothing to back it up. I believe you don't have anything to back it up.To quote you:

quote:

---

If you are going to sling around a lpt of wild accusations, how about backing them up with independent & verifiable sources

---

So,- are there any people who believe in a young earth without having a religious belief in a young earth? Who are they?- are there any people who believe in special creation without believing that their god did it? Who are they?I don't believe there are people like this- in which case your statement is untrue. Can you prove me wrong?- what is it about evolution that you think makes it a religion? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes?

---

Get real Ichiban.You're 'quoting' something from Keith that is in contradiction to published statements of his that actually exist in real documents. You supply no original source, because there is no original source.Here's something from his introduction to the origin of species:-

quote:

---

It was Darwin, through this book, who changed the outlook of all gatherers of knowledge and made them realise that behind the field of their immediate inquiry lay an immense evolutionary or historical background which had to be explored before further progress was possible. Nay, it was Darwin who made men see that evolution is now everywhere at work -- in all things material, moral and spiritual, and will continue in operation, so far as the human mind can anticipate, to the very end of time.

---

The Origin of Species (1934) p.xixAre you aware that Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955? So that any statement he made on any subject must be at least 55 years old? Why do creationists quote (or in this case invent quotes from) old scientists? This quote is fictitious - but even if it weren't, scientists do not care what views were held by people before the modern evidence for evolution was available.So, without doubt, as Dr A is claiming, this is a creationist lie. You may be passing it on in good faith, but your source is lying to you.

quote:

---

Who cares what Ruse, Keith, and Wald may or may not have said? Regardless of the authenticity of those quotes, they still represent an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy.

---

I don't buy this 'appeal to authority' point. In the end, all the evidence we look at has been put together by other people. Most of us here don't actually do the science. We trust what the 'authorities' tell us about what they have found AND often they tell us what it means.If a true expert in a field expresses a view, then it's usually worth taking note of it. It may not always be right, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. I trust what Cavediver says about physics for example and I don't check everything he says.If someone who is a true expert in evolution were genuinely to say 'we have a serious gap around macroevolution' for example, that would indeed be something worth paying attention to.

quote:

---

There's an important distinction between appealing to the authority of a person and accepting an expert's explanation. In the former, no actual argument is made - the statements boil down to "because this guys says so." In the latter, there is an actual argument.

---

That's true, but it's a matter of degree. In the end, it comes down to what it takes to convince ourselves that something is true. In practice, for me at least, if I understand an argument, it makes sense, and the person making it has expertise in the field, I'm much more ready to accept it than an equivalent argument made by someone who does not have expertise. I don't have time to analyse all arguments in enough detail to check they are true (eg, in a scientific paper, does the conclusion really follow from the data, as the author says?). I am accepting authority, and I believe we all do that to some extent, except for the practitioners in a field.