# Argument for creationism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621 "2013-12-06T00:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/61 "2013-12-06T20:58:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism. Neither are science or scientific theories. Exactly. There are not scientifically valid “arguments for creationism”, because creationism isn’t science. Creationism starts with the premise that there is something outside the bounds of physical reality. Now, some might argue that ID could posit some superior race of beings (maybe giant spiders living on one of Jupiter’s moons) that have genetically engineered us to be what we are. But there is no evidence for that, and then you’re still left to explain, scientifically, how those giant spiders came into being. Which puts you right back at the drawing board with evolution by natural selection. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/62 "2013-12-06T21:03:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > “Critter” is just a dialectical way of saying “creature”. Thus the wink. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/63 "2013-12-06T21:05:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But there is no evidence for that, and then you’re still left to explain, scientifically, how those giant spiders came into being. Which puts you right back at the drawing board with evolution by natural selection. Nonsense, good sir, it’s spiders all the way down. …that sounded better in my head. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/64 "2013-12-06T21:10:01Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > Either way, it’s constantly debated, I don’t see the harm in using “believes” to reference one’s belonging to their school of thought. You should. It is an attempt to create a kind of balance between Creationism and Evolution where none exists. Evolution is science and there’s no debate about the vast majority of evolution among scientists. There is no confusion by anyone who is informed in the subject. The only debate takes place in the political realm, and it’s not based on facts but on emotions and religious goals. That debate is real (and somewhat deplorable) but it has nothing to do with the established facts of evolution. It’s not a “school of thought” - it’s fact. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/65 "2013-12-06T21:17:40Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Preexisting (no hyphen) is a word, according to the Chrome spellcheck. Personally, I like the hyphenated version to avoid the awkward double e. I much prefer my Double E from college. I prefer “preëxisting,” but I suppose that’s fallen out of vogue. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/66 "2013-12-06T21:23:18Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Imagine you see a man on top of a tall cliff. FTW. I’d never heard that one; thanks! > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism. Neither are science or scientific theories. Practically speaking, you’re right. In theory, ID could be science, if it was pursued scientifically, and if there was any evidence to support it. If there had been miracles in the past, there might be evidence for them now. Alas, we find little evidence for any divine intervention, with a possible exception for origins, as we have no good theory for the origin of life. But in that case, the only “evidence” is “ignorance”. We don’t know: that doesn’t mean it has to be a miraculous. > [@Musicat](#): > > Preexisting (no hyphen) is a word, according to the Chrome spellcheck. Personally, I like the hyphenated version to avoid the awkward double e. Spelling and grammar checkers are going to turn us into a horde of morons with poor spelling and grammar. I wonder if the checkers would balk at a diacritical mark, which is what we might use over the 2nd e if we weren’t typing. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/67 "2013-12-06T21:24:32Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I prefer “preëxisting,” but I suppose that’s fallen out of vogue. Ninja’d! I don’t even know how to type that. (Nor do I really want to know …) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/68 "2013-12-06T21:29:31Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/69 "2013-12-06T21:55:54Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Practically speaking, you’re right. In theory, ID could be science, if it was pursued scientifically, and if there was any evidence to support it. If there had been miracles in the past, there might be evidence for them now. > > Alas, we find little evidence for any divine intervention, with a possible exception for origins, as we have no good theory for the origin of life. But in that case, the only “evidence” is “ignorance”. We don’t know: that doesn’t mean it has to be a miraculous. Scientific hypotheses can be as nutty as you like. I’d suspect that most get falsified without the creator of the hypothesis telling anyone else about it. Continents floating around is pretty crazy, after all. After that they need testable predictions. When the hypothesis is falsified and there are better explanations for the existing data keeping the hypothesis moves one from science to nutjobbery. Creationism 300 years ago was a reasonable hypothesis, and did make testable predictions. When none came true reasonable scientists abandoned it. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/70 "2013-12-06T22:58:56Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Preexisting (no hyphen) is a word, according to the Chrome spellcheck. Personally, I like the hyphenated version to avoid the awkward double e. I much prefer my Double E from college. “Preexisting” with no hyphen is American style, as shown in the [American Heritage Dictionary](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/preexist). It does have the hyphen as a second choice, but in that dictionary the second choices are usually British style. American English disregards the hyphen in just about all words like that, with some exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/71 "2013-12-06T23:32:27Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > FTW. I’d never heard that one; thanks! I forget which book it’s from, but I stole the idea from Richard Dawkins. However, the wording is all mine. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/72 "2013-12-07T00:14:01Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I forget which book it’s from, but I stole the idea from Richard Dawkins. However, the wording is all mine. 🙂 Climbing Mount Improbable, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/73 "2013-12-07T01:08:48Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Imagine you see a man on top of a tall cliff…You yell up to him: “Hey, how the hell did you get way up there? It must have been terribly difficult!” [Dom Delouise] Ya, ya, ya! Ya, ya, ya!! … …Oh, boys… [/DD] ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Schmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Some\_Schmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Schmo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/74 "2013-12-11T22:43:56Z")
Are your eyes useful? How can they be when they are only partial eyes compared to an eagle’s? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/75 "2013-12-11T22:58:52Z")
> [@Some\_Schmo](#): > > Are your eyes useful? How can they be when they are only partial eyes compared to an eagle’s? Good point, and allow me to segue into this modified proverb: “In the land of the blind, the partial-eyed man is king”. Many millions of years ago, the world was the land of the blind- an organism that had evolved even partial vision gained a significant advantage. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/76 "2013-12-11T23:31:58Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > As was demonstrated at the [Dover trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) in 2005, they are exactly the same thing, and still not science. Creationism was outlawed by the Supreme Court in [Edwards](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=578) (1987), so the proponents [(“Cdesign proponentsists”)](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists) replaced all references to _creationism_ in their literature with the phrase _Intelligent Design._ > > Didn’t work for long. The Dover court caught on. > > [A humorous take on the topic](http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html) I heard Kenneth Miller talk about his Dover trial experience, and he showed the graph in the “humorous take” link. It’s pretty obvious that the creationists are getting around the Supreme Court ruling by calling it ID. Miller made the comment that Watergate should have taught people to get rid of the paper trail [the _Of Pandas and People_ publishers missed a few uses of the terms “creationists” and “creationism” in their cut and paste editing job of replacing those terms with ID]. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621.md?page=3)