# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/41 "2013-09-10T01:10:47Z")
We aren’t trying to convince Creationists. We’re trying to convince their audience. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I think that what goes on with most creationists is that the world is a very, very, very complex place. It’s way too much for any one person to comprehend. Yet they want to be just as smart as just as good as anyone else. So they figure if they adopt the Bible, they only have one book to study to be “equal”, and they don’t need to study it because it is right in and of itself. I can tell you that in my brief stint as a teenage creationist, this was _precisely_ my motivation. It was a way to intellectually trump others. Of course I was smarter than they were; I’d read more of the Bible than they had. Duh, :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/42 "2013-09-10T05:43:07Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Can someone do me a favor and define “Creationism”? My thoughts on the matter depend upon the way it is defined. Any of [these](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism). People are usually talking about YEC in threads like this, but occasionally, it will be Intelligent Design - mainly because those two movements are the main aggressors, especially in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/43 "2013-09-10T12:41:24Z")
The term ‘creationism’ simply refers to the hypothesis that the universe, and everything within it, was created by an external agency some call ‘God’. Creationism does not demand a 6,000 year old earth, or a rejection of evolutionary biology. Creationism is entirely consistent with the scientific method and it’s discoveries, because it speaks to ‘who’ not ‘how’ or ‘when’. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/44 "2013-09-10T13:01:53Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > The term ‘creationism’ simply refers to the hypothesis that the universe, and everything within it, was created by an external agency some call ‘God’. Creationism does not demand a 6,000 year old earth, or a rejection of evolutionary biology. Creationism is entirely consistent with the scientific method and it’s discoveries, because it speaks to ‘who’ not ‘how’ or ‘when’. No, it’s not. Science applies a strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism. God is not used in science books or the scientific method. Every creationist I’ve come across, while not always a young-earther, certainly rejected that humans evolved. ---
**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 10, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/45 "2013-09-10T13:09:46Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > The term ‘creationism’ simply refers to the hypothesis that the universe, and everything within it, was created by an external agency some call ‘God’. Creationism does not demand a 6,000 year old earth, or a rejection of evolutionary biology. Creationism is entirely consistent with the scientific method and it’s discoveries, because it speaks to ‘who’ not ‘how’ or ‘when’. This does not describe the common use of the word “creationism”, which certainly implies a rejection of evolution. ---
**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 10, 2013, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/46 "2013-09-10T13:10:24Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > The term ‘creationism’ simply refers to the hypothesis that the universe, and everything within it, was created by an external agency some call ‘God’. Creationism does not demand a 6,000 year old earth, or a rejection of evolutionary biology. Creationism is entirely consistent with the scientific method and it’s discoveries, because it speaks to ‘who’ not ‘how’ or ‘when’. Nonsense. “Creationism” (in the U.S. at least) is a Christian heresy that tries to sound “scientific.” It certainly is not simply a vague Deism / Directed Anthropic Principle philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/47 "2013-09-10T14:02:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Their average anxiety is not losing money if “science” wins. It’s losing credibility. If Creationism is completely wrong, then for Creationists, there is a direct loss of all “Truth.” For the average Creationist, it’s not the money that’s lost when Creationism is accepted as silly; it’s an entire theological paradigm around which their entire daily code of living is built–not to mention an eternal salvation. If “Evolutionism” is correct, then atheism wins. It’s as simple as that. Of course, while creationism does necessarily imply theism, biological evolution does not necessarily imply atheism. There still could be a God, one who simply prefers to take His time and let things happen rather than make everything at once. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/48 "2013-09-10T14:19:02Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Of course, these Creation Scientists are still a bit vague on the specifics of how to define a “kind” exactly. Nevertheless, if you put “kind” somewhere between order and genus, you have an incredible amount of evolution going on post-flood. Way more evolution–at least, way more rapid evolution–than real evolution. > > Kind of ironic, isn’t it? 😉 Wow, I thought you were kidding, then I went searching. As a Christian who goes to church with some YEC folks, I should probably keep myself better informed about the nonsense that they are reading. [QUOTE=Eric Hovind] God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven pairs of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The kind grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy. The idea that the Ark would need millions of animals on-board, because there are millions of species, can therefore be seen to be incorrect. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood, in a process known as speciation. This speciation is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. Speciation selects from within an existing gene pool, whereas molecules-to-man evolution would require new genetic information to be spontaneously generated. [/QUOTE] That is some amazing stuff right there. Speciation! I’m surprised his head doesn’t explode. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/49 "2013-09-10T14:22:33Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The average person–leader or parishoner–in the average protestant/catholic church (add the Muslims, for that matter, b/c their Creationist views are just as backward) is there because they fundamentally believe in their theological paradigm. They aren’t there because “the church” is a great way to scam people out of money. > . > . > . > I suggest the most productive conversation with a Creationist is to have them articulate their belief. Don’t defend “Science.” Start with the Ark 4,500 years ago, day one. What did the dinosaurs eat to survive? How about the rabbits? How did giant earthworms get to Australia but not be distributed at every other waystop between Ararat and Australia? And so on. You get the idea. Start with Ark as a putative point-source of what we see today, and forget sucking them into evolutionary theory right away. Make them see how silly their position is; not defend yours. As an average Catholic, I’d be happy to have such a discussion, and I doubt I would hear anything that threatened my views. I mean to say: you are aware that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution, right? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/50 "2013-09-10T14:32:42Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > That’s just stupid. If he wanted to postulate some sort of “hollow Earth” scenario, he’d have done better to say that the Lord caused the core of the planet to expand (probably from Hell coming back up to normal operating temperature), causing the whole thing to blow up like a party balloon, so there would be too much surface for the water to cover. Oh don’t start; I’ve already argued with [this guy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_8n7s3QpqY) about his inflatable Earth theory. To save your brains, I’ll recap: he and his ilk note that you can squash all the continents together like a round jigsaw puzzle and they very roughly fit (not in a Pangaea sense but as a solid sphere), therefore what must have happened was that they started all together and as the Earth expanded for undefined reasons they broke apart into their current shapes and positions. When I asked him whether the Earth was adding mass from below, adding mass from above or getting less dense, he said it was the first one. So I asked him where the extra mass was coming from and how it was getting there. He promptly deleted all my posts, pretended that the conversation had never happened and continued to repeat his nonsense. Thus is it often with YECers. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/51 "2013-09-10T14:34:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I mean to say: you are aware that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution, right? Is it not the case that the Church says evolutionary processes are planned and directed by God? And that humans arose from special creation and not from ordinary evolutionary processes? Those beliefs are inconsistent with evolution. It’s like saying “I have no problem with gun control,” but specifying that “gun control” means background checks at point of sale and nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/52 "2013-09-10T15:03:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is it not the case that the Church says evolutionary processes are planned and directed by God? And that humans arose from special creation and not from ordinary evolutionary processes? Those beliefs are inconsistent with evolution. It’s like saying “I have no problem with gun control,” but specifying that “gun control” means background checks at point of sale and nothing else. That’s a poor analogy. Background checks are a form of gun control, with accurate data and full enforcement, an effective measure, though arguably contrary to the 2nd Amendment. However, “Humans exist because … magic” is not any kind of Science and has nothing to do with Evolution. Neither is, “Evolution turned out this way because … magic” related to Science. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/53 "2013-09-10T15:24:27Z")
You seem to have missed the point. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/54 "2013-09-10T15:41:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is it not the case that the Church says evolutionary processes are planned and directed by God? And that humans arose from special creation and not from ordinary evolutionary processes? **Those beliefs are inconsistent with evolution.** It’s like saying “I have no problem with gun control,” but specifying that " **gun control" means background checks at point of sale and nothing else**. Religious beliefs are inconsistent with any Science. Background checks can be the only extant form of gun control. I don’t need to define gun control as “Any possible form of gun control” or as “Any type of gun control practiced currently”. Applying Magic to Science doesn’t equal applying limitations to a policy, or even redefining a policy. Magic has nothing to do with Science. Background checks are Gun Control, and Gun Control typically includes background checks. I didn’t miss the point, I just don’t think it’s a very apt comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/55 "2013-09-10T15:49:05Z")
No, you missed the point. “Background checks and nothing else” is not a reasonable interpretation of gun control. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/56 "2013-09-10T15:49:06Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Religious beliefs are inconsistent with any Science. No, they mutually irrelevant to any science. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/57 "2013-09-10T15:56:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, you missed the point. “Background checks and nothing else” is not a reasonable interpretation of gun control. I think “background checks and nothing else” is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Gun Control. It’s one kind of Gun Control, and could very well function as a stand-alone policy. “God” is never a reasonable interpretation of Science, and Science is never reasonably applied to Magic. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/58 "2013-09-10T15:57:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, they mutually irrelevant to any science. Me like you sentence. You very smart. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/59 "2013-09-10T16:20:04Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Me like you sentence. You very smart. He right but not type so good. As previously indicated, you can be a scientist and religious without conflict or contradiction; lots of perfectly respectable scientists believe in a higher being. It’s the folks who deliberately do science wrong to justify their faith that ruin things for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/60 "2013-09-10T16:23:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > He right but not type so good. > > As previously indicated, you can be a scientist and religious without conflict or contradiction; lots of perfectly respectable scientists believe in a higher being. It’s the folks who deliberately do science wrong to justify their faith that ruin things for everyone. He not right. Because scientist superstitious not mean he able to reconcile Magic with scientific theories or methods. They not mutually exclusive but they inconsistent with each other. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=4)