# Creationism: Why not call a spade a spade? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2013, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065 "2013-09-05T11:44:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/221 "2013-09-12T12:22:18Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > And so by that mechanism child torture will be morally permissable if yur neurological function and environment, coupled with your ‘belief’ (whatever that means) say so. Yes. I’ll elaborate on one component, but I’m hesitant to invest a great deal of time in going on, having observed something of your style of interaction so far. It may, however, make me feel a little better about engaging you in what appears to have been an effort at distraction away from the issue of evolution. Human children are not born with the capacity to protect and nurture themselves. They would not survive if adults did not take care of them. As a result, the genes of individuals who do not respond with nurturing care to their offspring would not be propagated any further than that second generation. Humans are thus more likely to be genetically disposed to provide nurturance to children. Indeed, childlike characteristics evoke sympathetic responses from adults, even in an individual who is not their child. These biological characteristics would support, in part, the emergence of moral prohibitions against causing harm to children. > [@](#): > > I didn’t claim that (sigh). You specifically countered my assertion that the morality regarding the treatment of children has evolved over time by loosely suggesting examples of how children always been cared for. I don’t disagree that children have been cared for; see my point above regarding a genetic disposition to care for them. My point is to show that the prevailing cultural views of the parameters around appropriate or acceptable treatment of children has changed markedly over time. You argue otherwise. I’m asking for any example to support your contradiction of my point. > [@](#): > > The claim I was responding to was that we somehow live in an enlightened age and prior to this age we treated children like crap. That is nonsense. The ancient Egyptians educated their children, raised and nurtured them in extended families similar to many cultures today, recognised and affirmed their intellectual and physical attributes, and yes some sold them as slaves. Well, now see right there you add as almost an afterthought a crucial confirmation of the point that I am making. Do we regard selling children into slavery as morally acceptable these days? Another key issue with your statement is your snarky use of the word “somehow”. There’s no head-scratching magic to it. There’s no vexing conundrum in seeing the evolution of our views about what is right and wrong to do from the middle ages to today. We didn’t get here “somehow,” we got here through a pretty consistent lineage of evolving “beliefs” about what is right and wrong. (Why “beliefs” by the way should be such a challenging word, I have no idea.) > [@](#): > > The agent of morality is neither fickle, arbitrary or inconsistent, although humans are. Yet whatever your neurons or your ‘beliefs’ may tell you, there are certain actions that throughout history have troubled sane human beings consistently, irrespective of time or culture. Like selling children into slavery? Child labor more generally? Corporal punishment? ---
**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:** [September 12, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/222 "2013-09-12T16:59:02Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Like selling children into slavery? Child labor more generally? Corporal punishment? Corporal punishment was (and still is in some places) considered good for children, kind of like operations or shots. I’m not defending it, but it is not at all like real torture. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/223 "2013-09-12T17:01:28Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > No. Objective morality suggests that something outside of a purely naturalistic universe exists. If you are claiming that an objective morality exists you are going to have to do a lot better than note a few things agreed to by most humans over time. Care to share it? If there is objective morality, but no one knows the rules, it is a bit worthless, isn’t it? The Biblical version was quite explicit. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/224 "2013-09-12T17:04:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Corporal punishment was (and still is in some places) considered good for children, kind of like operations or shots. I’m not defending it, but it is not at all like real torture. Perhaps, but that just exemplifies the point. It’s certainly not the case, at least in the US, that corporal punishment is regarded as generally acceptable. A few decades ago, school personnel could generally use corporal punishment. Attitudes have changed so that most people would be, if not horrified, then at least taken aback at finding that a teacher paddled a child. But if, as you assert, some regions still hold similar views as were prevalent 50 years ago, while others do not, it does not make much sense to explain these differences as arising from a common external agent. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/225 "2013-09-14T09:57:01Z")
[quote=“Gyrate, post:214, topic:668065”] Says the person whose approach seems to be “I assert things and demand you prove me wrong, and while you’re at it please do all my homework for me”{/QUOTE] Ah, no. I have challenged others assertions, and then when I have asked them to support their position they have run a mile. When I have made an assertion, I have supported it with cites. If you are too lazy or closed minded to take a look, that’s not my problem. > [@Gyrate](#): > > and also who denounces anyone using the most common definition of “creationism” while creating a strawman about “naturalism”. Ah, no again. I have not denounced anyone. I began with a definition of creationism which is entirely valid and supported by a number of external references. Some here enjoy taking pot shots but don’t like it when someone actually can refute their positions. > [@Gyrate](#): > > I’m not entirely sure what morality has to do with evolution or creationism… If you had been following the thread you would. The discussion move to naturalism, and to the idea that nothing exists beyond the natural world. One exampleI have given to suggest otherwise is the existence of an objective moral code. Keep up please. > [@Gyrate](#): > > The existence of morality only requires imposition by an external force if you start from the premise that morality cannot exist without that external force. Which is begging the question. Oh most certainly not. We observe an absolute morality. I am precisely arguing that such a morality can not have arisen from a purely naturalistic universe. I am not assuming that, I am arguing that. No-one hs answered yet, but I am a patient man. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/226 "2013-09-14T09:59:46Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > 1. Objective morality doesn’t exist, and 2) even if it did, your conclusion does not necessarily follow. > Ah, the old “I’m pretending not to see the answers that I didn’t like” trick. You want people to watch YouTube videos to support your points, but you won’t even read the thread you’re posting in? Now who has a closed mind? 1. An example of objective morality: "The torture of an innocent child is wrong. 2. Please explain this in the context of a purely naturalistic universe. That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. If you can cite the post where it has, and to which I have not given a rebuttal, I will leave the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/227 "2013-09-14T10:01:56Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > OK, and where does it derive its properties. How, within this external environment, is it determined that torturing children is bad? By the external agent. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/228 "2013-09-14T10:11:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am sure that you believe that you are making some point, but you are really failing in your effort. Your “objective morality” assertion and “child torture” question were the result of a secondary exchange that appeared to have moved away from your blanket (and unsupported) assertions regarding naturalism and did not appear to be connected in the way that they appeared in the thread. > _::: shrug :::_ > > However, considering your attempt: > > There are any number of reasons, in a naturalist world, where the torture of any person would be considered wrong. Society lives by rules that develop within the society to ensure further cooperation among its citizens. Over time, those rules develop patterns, among them, taboos on inflicting harm on those who cannot defend themselves. By establishing a taboo against the defenseless, society sets boundaries by which reckless violence is restrained, making the overall society more successful. As the clearest example of the defenseless, we have children, so they come under such taboos with the strongest emphasis. (That is why so many societies do not have prohibitions against harming children: they have not developed to the point of that level of intra-societal protection.) > > The problem with your attempt to attack (your version of) naturalism, is that you have asserted that an objective morilty exists, but you have failed to demonstrate that it does. With your posts, we are back to gratuitously denying a gratuitous assertion. > > Let’s review your “case.” > > - You assert that there is an objective morality. > - When challenged that there is not one, you point to your own belief that harming children is objectively morally wrong. > - When it is pointed out that there are societies in which harming children in various ways has not been penalized, you simply shrug off such evidence and go back to asserting your “truth.” > > Where is the evidence for your claim? Why should we accept your assertion since you have made no effort to demonstrate that it is true? Why should your personal opinion carry any weight in the discussion? > > There are any number of reasons why a society would develop a taboo against harming children. I have provided one. The fact that many societies have failed to develop the same taboo is strong evidence that your “objective morality” does not exist. So, where is your evidence? No one is “running away.” We are simply waiting for you to hold up your end of the discussion. Please read the thread more carefully. 1. The discussion on objective morality arose from a discussion about the validity of a purely naturalistic universe, which has been submitted as the alternative to creationism. My point has been (and I tire of repeating myself) that if objective reality exists, it questions such a naturalism). 2. You seek to refute the existence of an objective morality and yet in the same breath seek to justify exactly that in the form of the torture of an innocent child. Curious? 3. Societal rules regarding the torture of the innocent are the result of an inate understanding that such a prohibition is appropriate. Naturalism mitigates against such an inclination developing, particularly where that child is part of a village competing with my village for scarce resources. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/229 "2013-09-14T10:13:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Like selling children into slavery? Child labor more generally? Corporal punishment? Here’s what I suggest you do. Do some reading on what slavery actually meant in ancient Egypt, then we can have a meaningful discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/230 "2013-09-14T10:17:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you are claiming that an objective morality exists you are going to have to do a lot better than note a few things agreed to by most humans over time. Care to share it? If there is objective morality, but no one knows the rules, it is a bit worthless, isn’t it? The Biblical version was quite explicit. “A few things agreed to b most humans over time” is perhaps an understatement, but it is still pretty close! Thank you. As to the rules, I can’t be more clear. The torture of an innocent child is morally wrong. Always has been, always will be. Now explain how that works in a naturalistic world in which for millennia individuals, families, communities, towns, cities and countries have fought over scarce resources. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/231 "2013-09-14T10:25:46Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. An example of objective morality: "The torture of an innocent child is wrong. > 2. Please explain this in the context of a purely naturalistic universe. > > That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. If you can cite the post where it has, and to which I have not given a rebuttal, I will leave the thread. Point 1 is a gratuitous assertion that you have failed to demonstrate or support except through repetition of the point. You are the one who has persistently evaded answering the question of how you claim that it is “objective morality.” There have been several posts addressing a taboo on the torture of children from a naturalistic perspective. [Trinopus](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16658846&postcount=205), [DrFidelius](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16659153&postcount=218), [Hentor the Barbarian](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16659235&postcount=221), [and I](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16659120&postcount=217) have all provided “naturalistic” reasons to have prohibitions against torturing children. That would indicate four more “answers” to your Point 2 than you have provided to demonstrate that there actually is an “objective morality” as you have asserted in Point 1. I also see no “rebuttal” to those posts by you or anyone else. Now, I have no care whether you abandon this thread or continue, but, as I have already noted, you are failing miserably to persuade anyone of your opinion. Your continued claims of others failing to respond are rather hollow in that context. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/232 "2013-09-14T12:33:47Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. An example of objective morality: "The torture of an innocent child is wrong. > 2. Please explain this in the context of a purely naturalistic universe. > > That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. If you can cite the post where it has, and to which I have not given a rebuttal, I will leave the thread. How can we answer this if we disagree with the premise? Statement 1 is incorrect. Even so, there have been several attempts to answer 2- to show how this could be considered morally wrong in a “purely naturalistic universe”. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/233 "2013-09-14T12:41:17Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. Societal rules regarding the torture of the innocent are the result of an inate understanding that such a prohibition is appropriate. Naturalism mitigates against such an inclination developing, particularly where that child is part of a village competing with my village for scarce resources. This is a false understanding of how evolution (and naturalism) work. A natural inclination against harming children could easily evolve, even if that child “is part of a village competing with my village for scarce resources”, if this trait was more helpful in general (in terms of providing for kin children) than harmful (in terms of giving resources to non-related children). In addition, this could evolve as a cultural trait (as opposed to genetic)- if the tribe adopts and cares for stray children, and teaches the children to care for other children, then this idea could easily spread from generation to generation by teaching (Dawkins’ “meme”). There’s also the point, of course, that there have been cultures in human history that did not value unrelated (outside-the-tribe) children, and would have seen nothing wrong with capturing them and harming them- even harming (torturing) them for their amusement. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/234 "2013-09-14T12:55:43Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. An example of objective morality: "The torture of an innocent child is wrong. > 2. Please explain this in the context of a purely naturalistic universe. > > That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. If you can cite the post where it has, and to which I have not given a rebuttal, I will leave the thread. Is the torture of a guilty child wrong? Is the mistreatment of an innocent child short of torture wrong? Is the torture of an adult wrong, and does guilt or innocence enter into the question? How is guilt or innocence determined? Do we use a jury system or can we depend on spiritual advice? We may be arguing past each other. Please define the terms of your statement to ensure that we are on the same page. (This is not even getting close to the question of what to do if a person sincerely believes that their god wants them to do something that might be seen to be immoral.) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/235 "2013-09-14T13:01:54Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. An example of objective morality: "The torture of an innocent child is wrong. > 2. Please explain this in the context of a purely naturalistic universe. > > That’s the question that hasn’t been answered. If you can cite the post where it has, and to which I have not given a rebuttal, I will leave the thread. Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Inca, or the Chinese? Both cultures tortured innocent children (although I suspect you’ll be in shortly to claim that torture means something other than [ > [@](#): > > the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal) who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer’s control or custody, unable to defend against what is being done to them ]([Torture - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture)) [ > [@](#): > > n. > > 1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. > b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. > 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. > 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish. ]([Torture - definition of torture by The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/torture)) Your argument is negated. Some cultures have deemed it acceptable to torture children. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/236 "2013-09-14T13:09:48Z")
Some perspective is needed. “What I and my neighbors believe about this issue at this time” does not equal an objective TRVTH regardless of how strongly you happen to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/237 "2013-09-14T15:50:38Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Here’s what I suggest you do. Do some reading on what slavery actually meant in ancient Egypt, then we can have a meaningful discussion. Here’s what I suggest _you_ do. Provide a cite for your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/238 "2013-09-14T15:55:19Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > By the external agent. Nonsense answer. The question was “how”, not “who” or “what”. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/239 "2013-09-14T15:56:56Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Please read the thread more carefully. > > 1. The discussion on objective morality arose from a discussion about the validity of a purely naturalistic universe, which has been submitted as the alternative to creationism. My point has been (and I tire of repeating myself) that if objective reality exists, it questions such a naturalism). > 2. You seek to refute the existence of an objective morality and yet in the same breath seek to justify exactly that in the form of the torture of an innocent child. Curious? > 3. Societal rules regarding the torture of the innocent are the result of an inate understanding that such a prohibition is appropriate. Naturalism mitigates against such an inclination developing, particularly where that child is part of a village competing with my village for scarce resources. You have a problem in your assessment of objective morality. It’s an understandable hurdle you’ve failed to clear, as undoubtedly, you’ve been raised to believe “God told us what’s right and wrong, so that’s how we know.” Now, whether the Deity, who arguably killed nearly all of humanity in a flood, wiped out all the firstborn Egyptians, tortured Job, mentally tortured Abraham, as well as Moses, obliterated a couple of large cities,and commanded the massacres of numerous Bronze Age tribes, the enslavement of their children and the forcible rape of their women, is actually in a position to dispense rules of moral behavior (Do as I say, not as I do) is, to me, up for debate. A better explanation for the revulsion we feel at the thought of harming a child is related to the subject of Neotany, or paedomorphosis. Child-like features trigger a nurturing mechanism in not only humans, but many animal species as well. However, it’s not like harming children is always universally taboo. The practice of infanticide is not limited to ancient Rome and Sparta … it’s alive and well in India and China. > **[Female infanticide in India and China - Gendercide](https://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html)** > > Female infanticide does not only occur in India and China, but in this case study we will focus on those two countries, which are also two of the most populous countries in the world. [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/female-infanticide](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/female-infanticide) > **[Trash Bin Babies: India's Female Infanticide Crisis](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/)** > > Can the European concept of "baby hatches" help curb sex-selective abortions and infanticide? I know it’s comforting to think that our most noble traits are the result of divine creation and influence, and that something as base and random as nature, where physical laws somehow manages to make sense out of chaos, couldn’t result in behaviors like tenderness, honesty, and courage … but they did. Now, if God, in all His wisdom, foresaw this and is proud of it, that’s a plus. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/240 "2013-09-14T17:13:22Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > The discussion move to naturalism, and to the idea that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Do you have any evidence to refute this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=13)