The Barmy Army Of Barmy Brexiteers.
News0 min ago
Why don't creationists explain creation?
51 Answers
Experts will explain evolution in as much detail as you want. They will admit to areas which are still unclear, but will often add "but we're working on it". The science claims to do nothing but explain how modern complex life evolved from very primitive life, and that it does with utter clarity and elegance. It claims nothing about the origins of the universe or (as yet) how that primitive life came about.
Not so creationists. Although their claim is the extravagant one of knowing how the whole universe came about, and all the life in it, they never offer a single word of explanation.
Ask a creationist what form his god takes, how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used, and you'll be treated with indignant amazement. "For heavens sake," you'll be told, " you don't ask questions like that of God! Behave yourself! Just believe it, that's all!". No explanation even permitted.
Instead, creationists spend much of their time knocking evolution, though what they expect to gain by that is beyond me. If evolution were to be discredited tomorrow it would have to be replaced by something equally rational, equally logical, equally supported by masses of evidence and equally explicable!
The idea that the only alternative is creationism is absurd: thinkers, when stymied, do not turn to the supernatural.
So why don't creationists drop their pointless and hopeless sniping at evolution and tell us all about their own subject?
Not so creationists. Although their claim is the extravagant one of knowing how the whole universe came about, and all the life in it, they never offer a single word of explanation.
Ask a creationist what form his god takes, how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used, and you'll be treated with indignant amazement. "For heavens sake," you'll be told, " you don't ask questions like that of God! Behave yourself! Just believe it, that's all!". No explanation even permitted.
Instead, creationists spend much of their time knocking evolution, though what they expect to gain by that is beyond me. If evolution were to be discredited tomorrow it would have to be replaced by something equally rational, equally logical, equally supported by masses of evidence and equally explicable!
The idea that the only alternative is creationism is absurd: thinkers, when stymied, do not turn to the supernatural.
So why don't creationists drop their pointless and hopeless sniping at evolution and tell us all about their own subject?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Islam does not deny evolution apart from the beginning of life. If evolution means that human were evolved from monkeys then that is not right. However if that did happen why human did not change into something else since then.
Yes apart from that of course other kind of things can change according to the environment if that is referred to as evolution. For example people in colder countries develop a bit harder skin and may be extra hair. And that happens to people who even move from other areas. Then Quran does speak about people being turned into apes because of their wrong doings. So if someone wants to call it evolution then call it but I will call it Allah's will.
Yes apart from that of course other kind of things can change according to the environment if that is referred to as evolution. For example people in colder countries develop a bit harder skin and may be extra hair. And that happens to people who even move from other areas. Then Quran does speak about people being turned into apes because of their wrong doings. So if someone wants to call it evolution then call it but I will call it Allah's will.
Well, I don�t think we�re going to get much more out of this so let me make a few comments:
I must apologise to ludvig (and to Octavius who defended him) for rejecting what was, on reflection, a straight answer to my question. His answer to Why Don�t Creationists Explain Creation was that they don�t want or need to; they believe out of pure blind faith. Not terribly rational but a fair answer.
dundurn, I�m pleased to see that your initial appeasement eventually gave way to reason. keyplus, like Theland you should learn something about evolution before you pontificate on it; you�ll discover, for a start, that humans do not come from monkeys; nor do evolutionists claim it.
Clanad, you put so much time and trouble into your post that I feel positively cruel in pointing out that it doesn�t answer the question. AB space and patience does not allow me to tackle all your points but I�ll say that the bible is hardly a reliable source. The first few verses of Genesis, for example, are cosmological nonsense. It�s quite a while since the contents of the Burgess Shale were considered an explosion; they are more sensibly seen as a freakish preservation of a chunk of sea-bed when the chalk cliff fell on it - one of the few occasions when the late Stephen Jay Gould (most of whose books I own) got it wrong. On the observation that there have been no new phylla since, I leave Richard Dawkins to comment:
It�s as though a gardener looked at an oak tree and remarked, wonderingly: �Isn�t it strange that no major new boughs have appeared on this tree for many years? These days all the new growth seems to be at the twig level.�
(If you want to continue re Burgess, Clanad, let�s do it on the Science site.)
(cont�d)
I must apologise to ludvig (and to Octavius who defended him) for rejecting what was, on reflection, a straight answer to my question. His answer to Why Don�t Creationists Explain Creation was that they don�t want or need to; they believe out of pure blind faith. Not terribly rational but a fair answer.
dundurn, I�m pleased to see that your initial appeasement eventually gave way to reason. keyplus, like Theland you should learn something about evolution before you pontificate on it; you�ll discover, for a start, that humans do not come from monkeys; nor do evolutionists claim it.
Clanad, you put so much time and trouble into your post that I feel positively cruel in pointing out that it doesn�t answer the question. AB space and patience does not allow me to tackle all your points but I�ll say that the bible is hardly a reliable source. The first few verses of Genesis, for example, are cosmological nonsense. It�s quite a while since the contents of the Burgess Shale were considered an explosion; they are more sensibly seen as a freakish preservation of a chunk of sea-bed when the chalk cliff fell on it - one of the few occasions when the late Stephen Jay Gould (most of whose books I own) got it wrong. On the observation that there have been no new phylla since, I leave Richard Dawkins to comment:
It�s as though a gardener looked at an oak tree and remarked, wonderingly: �Isn�t it strange that no major new boughs have appeared on this tree for many years? These days all the new growth seems to be at the twig level.�
(If you want to continue re Burgess, Clanad, let�s do it on the Science site.)
(cont�d)
(cont�d)
Apart from the usual rational comments from Waldo and jake, the rest of the posts, as so often on this site, sashay around the question without getting to the nub. But there is a general whiff of an idea that I should not have asked for a �scientific� answer. I totally reject this attitude as a cop-out, a running-away. Here�s how it seems to me:
Remembering that �science� merely means �knowledge��
That complex life arose from primitive life by the evolutionary process of random mutation followed by natural selection is a scientific factual claim about our planet.
As such it is entitled to be challenged, probed, analysed and questioned.
Evolution has passed this test with flying colours, being now accepted as an established science. Not once piece if evidence has been found to contradict it and no other scientific theory has been advanced as a rival.
That complex life was created whole by a supernatural creator is a scientifc factual claim about our planet. As such it is entitled to be challenged, probed, analysed and questioned.
But what happens then? Creationists claim immunity from investigation; they demand to be sheltered from such a searchlight, their views protected from challenge by some sort of special licence.
Why this privilege that normal folk don�t have � and, in the case of reasonable people, don�t want? Why this coyness? Is it fear?
Apart from the usual rational comments from Waldo and jake, the rest of the posts, as so often on this site, sashay around the question without getting to the nub. But there is a general whiff of an idea that I should not have asked for a �scientific� answer. I totally reject this attitude as a cop-out, a running-away. Here�s how it seems to me:
Remembering that �science� merely means �knowledge��
That complex life arose from primitive life by the evolutionary process of random mutation followed by natural selection is a scientific factual claim about our planet.
As such it is entitled to be challenged, probed, analysed and questioned.
Evolution has passed this test with flying colours, being now accepted as an established science. Not once piece if evidence has been found to contradict it and no other scientific theory has been advanced as a rival.
That complex life was created whole by a supernatural creator is a scientifc factual claim about our planet. As such it is entitled to be challenged, probed, analysed and questioned.
But what happens then? Creationists claim immunity from investigation; they demand to be sheltered from such a searchlight, their views protected from challenge by some sort of special licence.
Why this privilege that normal folk don�t have � and, in the case of reasonable people, don�t want? Why this coyness? Is it fear?
Well I wouldn�t consider myself a creationist as such, but it seems � as I said before � you are asking for scientific evidence that is theoretically impossible to provide.
If that is not a rational comment, then my great great great great (etc) granddads a monkey.
The simple answer is that you have to accept that that is what they believe. But I have never considered they are immune from investigation, or fearful they might be wrong. Perhaps it is blind indifference, or maybe they just haven�t been able to offer up scientific proof yet.
When the masses are banging on your door in the middle of the night with torches and pitchforks, it is likely that you�ll batten the hatches. Particularly when you know that no matter what answer you give the people, they always believe it is wrong, because their minds are already made up.
If that is not a rational comment, then my great great great great (etc) granddads a monkey.
The simple answer is that you have to accept that that is what they believe. But I have never considered they are immune from investigation, or fearful they might be wrong. Perhaps it is blind indifference, or maybe they just haven�t been able to offer up scientific proof yet.
When the masses are banging on your door in the middle of the night with torches and pitchforks, it is likely that you�ll batten the hatches. Particularly when you know that no matter what answer you give the people, they always believe it is wrong, because their minds are already made up.
A couple of things, chakka... the Cambrian Explosian is well established by other than the evidence found in the Burgess Shale, as I'm sure you must know. If not, you ceratinly misunderstand the entire segment of science.
You seem to place a great deal of "faith" in the claims of evolution, but fail to present evidence other than to state, repeatedly, that it's a settled, proven question. Again, you must know, that many scientists in every field of inquiry have serious reservations about segments of the theory or about the concept as a whole. For example, can you define species? If so, please do so, knowing full well that a series of arguments against any definition you present can be easily produced.
I had no dellusions that attempting to answer your question would be acceptable, but I did mistakenly expect more of a discussion than a dismissive "...cosmological nonsense..." The Bible clearly describes the realities of the Big Bang, especially the ongoing "stretching out" that is observed by cosmologists today.
No world view of who, what, when and why can be complete without attempting to answer the all important question of origin of life (OoL). You know , of course, that Darwin never attempts to provide insight... except to say "... �I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed". Ironically, in his Third Edition, he adds "by the Creator" to this phrase.
I maintain that scientific inquiry and the Judaeo/Christian worldview (as established in Scripture) are compatible, once thoroughly and openly discussed and understood.
You seem to place a great deal of "faith" in the claims of evolution, but fail to present evidence other than to state, repeatedly, that it's a settled, proven question. Again, you must know, that many scientists in every field of inquiry have serious reservations about segments of the theory or about the concept as a whole. For example, can you define species? If so, please do so, knowing full well that a series of arguments against any definition you present can be easily produced.
I had no dellusions that attempting to answer your question would be acceptable, but I did mistakenly expect more of a discussion than a dismissive "...cosmological nonsense..." The Bible clearly describes the realities of the Big Bang, especially the ongoing "stretching out" that is observed by cosmologists today.
No world view of who, what, when and why can be complete without attempting to answer the all important question of origin of life (OoL). You know , of course, that Darwin never attempts to provide insight... except to say "... �I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed". Ironically, in his Third Edition, he adds "by the Creator" to this phrase.
I maintain that scientific inquiry and the Judaeo/Christian worldview (as established in Scripture) are compatible, once thoroughly and openly discussed and understood.
Regarding OoL, I have questioned in a previous thread the validity of Abiogenesis, but never received a satisfactory answer, other than to have mentioned that certain amino acids have been produced in the laboratory.
Amino acids are not life.
Self replicating molecules are supposed to have been the starting point of life, and this was supposed to have happened on its own with no outside agency involved, yet very clever scientists with state of the art laboratory equipment cannot duplicate what is expected to be accepted as definitive.
Amino acids are not life.
Self replicating molecules are supposed to have been the starting point of life, and this was supposed to have happened on its own with no outside agency involved, yet very clever scientists with state of the art laboratory equipment cannot duplicate what is expected to be accepted as definitive.
Clanad, as I said before, this is not the site on which to discuss the so-called Cambrian Explosion; neither does it touch on my question.
And you have not "attempted to answer my question". The first few verses of Genesis claim that the earth existed at least three days before the rest of the universe. Is that not nonsense?
It also claims that God divided the light from the darkness on the 1st day and enjoyed evenings and mornings on the first three days when the sun and other stars were not created until the fourth day. Is that not nonsense?
I don't blame the writer of Genesis, an unknown Jew who was writing millennia before there was any science; but I find it astonishing that grown people should take such stuff seriously in this day and age.
Theland, again not relevant to my question but I might as well point out that scientists are not trying to produce the components of life but seeing whether they could have come about naturally from the right combination of chemicals and conditions. That all 20 amino acids vital to life have come about this way is a good start. Proteins, enzymes and DNA are not life either but they would be very welcome.
Don't forget that nature had about 1500,000,000 years of this planet's existence in which to produce the first life. Give us a chance.
As I have said, my question was answered by ludvig who explained why creationists don't explain creation. So what more is there to say? Start a new question, if you like. I'm leaving this one.
And you have not "attempted to answer my question". The first few verses of Genesis claim that the earth existed at least three days before the rest of the universe. Is that not nonsense?
It also claims that God divided the light from the darkness on the 1st day and enjoyed evenings and mornings on the first three days when the sun and other stars were not created until the fourth day. Is that not nonsense?
I don't blame the writer of Genesis, an unknown Jew who was writing millennia before there was any science; but I find it astonishing that grown people should take such stuff seriously in this day and age.
Theland, again not relevant to my question but I might as well point out that scientists are not trying to produce the components of life but seeing whether they could have come about naturally from the right combination of chemicals and conditions. That all 20 amino acids vital to life have come about this way is a good start. Proteins, enzymes and DNA are not life either but they would be very welcome.
Don't forget that nature had about 1500,000,000 years of this planet's existence in which to produce the first life. Give us a chance.
As I have said, my question was answered by ludvig who explained why creationists don't explain creation. So what more is there to say? Start a new question, if you like. I'm leaving this one.
-- answer removed --
