# 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:** 5
**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 11, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/81 "2013-09-11T14:20:31Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > There are many scientists who hold creationist beliefs because of what they observe in the natural world. For example…? ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/82 "2013-09-11T14:31:55Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > **Yet the two are not incompatible.** > > I disagree, so I look for a suitably twisted definition of “incompatible” … > > \*\* There are many scientists who hold creationist beliefs because of what they observe in the natural world.\*\* > > I know there are scientists who are religious. I have no problem with religious. My problem is with … > " … because of what they observe in the natural world." > What are they observing that inspires Creationist beliefs? Why would these observations hinge on Science, and how is it that, since “Science cannot speak to the existence of the supernatural …”, that science and creationism are compatible? Can you explain the contradiction … are the scientists observing miracles? Are they observing particularly inspiring sunsets? First of all I would differentiate between being religious and being convinced that an intelligent agent is the most likely explanation for origins; the two are actually very different propositions. As to the contradiction you allege, I don’t see one. I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I can repeat what I have read of their thought processes. Some observe the complexity of life, and the fine tuning in the universe, and decide that the likelihood of that complexity deriving from an oblivion in the time available is simply beyond mathematical probability. Others consider the development of a moral code such as we have as being unlikely in a purely naturalistic universe. There are a number of others, of course. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/83 "2013-09-11T14:36:39Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > First of all I would differentiate between being religious and being convinced that an intelligent agent is the most likely explanation for origins; the two are actually very different propositions. > > As to the contradiction you allege, I don’t see one. I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I can repeat what I have read of their thought processes. Some observe the complexity of life, and the fine tuning in the universe, and decide that the likelihood of that complexity deriving from an oblivion in the time available is simply beyond mathematical probability. I’d like to see the math on that one. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/84 "2013-09-11T14:39:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > For example…? A good place to start is John Lennox. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/85 "2013-09-11T14:42:31Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > I suggest that may be the case in the US, but not everywhere. Where I live someone can call themselves a creationist without having to explain why they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, or how the diversity of life on the planet happened without evolution. Well, I’m in the UK and the self-proclaimed creationists here that I’ve encountered have been just as nutty as the US ones. The nice old lady (why are they always nice old ladies?) who came to my door to tell me that evolution was wrong because a Volkswagon couldn’t spontaneously become a BMW (her example, not mine) fled in panic when I pointed out that evolution is a slow process that happens over a large number of generations and required organisms that reproduce. She later returned to stick a leaflet through my door but never came back to discuss it. Admittedly there’s a self-selection process here; often the only time you become aware that someone is a creationist is when they launch into an ill-informed anti-evolution screed. Obviously those who accept evolution would not be as visible as such. That said, the math is pretty much on the side of evolutionary/cosmological theory (since you’re combining the two) as well, so unless you’re of the “God wound up the universe and let it go” bent there remains no reason to assume divine tinkering in the development of either the universe or life on Earth. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/86 "2013-09-11T14:42:32Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > I’m not sure why a creationist would need to sound scientific. Because Creationism masquerades as science to make it sound legitimate to the ignorant. Creationists want to spread their ideas, but since it’s just religion wearing a cheap suit they need to disguise it better so as to convince others that it’s not really religion. Since they don’t bother with all that research and publishing stuff that actual science concerns itself with, they need to shoehorn themselves in by subverting school science programs and changing textbooks and other underhanded crap. > [@](#): > > Science cannot speak to the existence of the supernatural, it can only speak to the natural world. Define ‘supernatural’. The problem with this statement is that the instant something interacts with ‘the natural world’, it becomes a part of it, and enters the domain of science. If something doesn’t interact with the natural world in any way, how do you even know it exists? > [@](#): > > There are many scientists who hold creationist beliefs because of what they observe in the natural world. Well, maybe not ‘many’. Maybe some. Well, [a few anyway.](http://creation.com/creation-scientists) There are more scientists who support evolution named [Steve](http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves) then there are scientists who deny evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/87 "2013-09-11T14:43:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’d like to see the math on that one. There is some excellent material on the web about Lee Spetner’s work, including exchanges with protagonists. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/88 "2013-09-11T14:49:19Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Well, I’m in the UK and the self-proclaimed creationists here that I’ve encountered have been just as nutty as the US ones. The nice old lady (why are they always nice old ladies?) who came to my door to tell me that evolution was wrong because a Volkswagon couldn’t spontaneously become a BMW (her example, not mine) fled in panic when I pointed out that evolution is a slow process that happens over a large number of generations and required organisms that reproduce. She later returned to stick a leaflet through my door but never came back to discuss it. > > Admittedly there’s a self-selection process here; often the only time you become aware that someone is a creationist is when they launch into an ill-informed anti-evolution screed. Obviously those who accept evolution would not be as visible as such. > > That said, the math is pretty much on the side of evolutionary/cosmological theory (since you’re combining the two) as well, so unless you’re of the “God wound up the universe and let it go” bent there remains no reason to assume divine tinkering in the development of either the universe or life on Earth. No I’m a theist, not a deist. I disagree with you on what the maths points to, and I would also point out that any naturalistic postulations about the origin of the universe have no more (and possibly less) going for them than the God hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/89 "2013-09-11T14:50:33Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Some observe the complexity of life, and the fine tuning in the universe, and decide that the likelihood of that complexity deriving from an oblivion in the time available is simply beyond mathematical probability. Others consider the development of a moral code such as we have as being unlikely in a purely naturalistic universe. There are a number of others, of course. These decisions are made in ignorance. If each of them is examined objectively after thorough research these become non-issues. Complexity can be easily explained by evolutionary theory. The fine-tuning argument is nonsense, proposed by puddles who marvel at the hole in the ground made in their exact shape just for them. Moral code is explainable by sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. It’s not like there’s no information out there, but if you’re not looking for anything past your own opinion then these are the kind of decisions that get made. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/90 "2013-09-11T14:52:19Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > I disagree with you on what the maths points to, and I would also point out that any naturalistic postulations about the origin of the universe have no more (and possibly less) going for them than the God hypothesis. You would be wrong. The god hypothesis has nothing going for it, and more than one definition of the word ‘god’ is self-contradictory. Whereas the naturalistic explanation is at least one step less complex than invoking a god, and doesn’t involve anything we have no evidence for. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/91 "2013-09-11T14:52:28Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > A good place to start is John Lennox. No-A good place to start would be you telling us what they observe in nature that leads them to believe in Creationism, where they didn’t believe in it before. If you want to throw in a link to what John Lennox has to say on this particular subject, that would also be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/92 "2013-09-11T14:53:43Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Define ‘supernatural’. The problem with this statement is that the instant something interacts with ‘the natural world’, it becomes a part of it, and enters the domain of science. If something doesn’t interact with the natural world in any way, how do you even know it exists? > Well, maybe not ‘many’. Maybe some. Well, [a few anyway.](http://creation.com/creation-scientists) > > There are more scientists who support evolution named [Steve](http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves) then there are scientists who deny evolution. 1. Your first assertion seems to imply that nothing exists outside of the natural universe. Can you support that contention in any way? 2. Here’s a few more…[List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science) 3. You don;t have to deny evolution to support the hypothesis that an intelligent agent created the universe. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/93 "2013-09-11T14:54:25Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > There is some excellent material on the web about Lee Spetner’s work, including exchanges with protagonists. Since you seem to know about it already, how about a link to the math involved? ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/94 "2013-09-11T14:57:18Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > These decisions are made in ignorance. If each of them is examined objectively after thorough research these become non-issues. Complexity can be easily explained by evolutionary theory. The fine-tuning argument is nonsense, proposed by puddles who marvel at the hole in the ground made in their exact shape just for them. Moral code is explainable by sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. > > It’s not like there’s no information out there, but if you’re not looking for anything past your own opinion then these are the kind of decisions that get made. I’m sorry but I have no idea who you are to determine that some of the leading scientists on the planet are ignorant. But I’m happy to engage with you on the moral code. Explain in a purely naturalistic universe why the murder of an innocent child is morally wrong. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/95 "2013-09-11T14:57:27Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > 1. Your first assertion seems to imply that nothing exists outside of the natural universe. Can you support that contention in any way? Since we have no evidence otherwise, it is the default position. It isn’t up to us to disprove the supernatural world-it’s up to _you_ to provide evidence that it exists. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/96 "2013-09-11T14:59:55Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > I’m sorry but I have no idea who you are to determine that some of the leading scientists on the planet are ignorant. But I’m happy to engage with you on the moral code. Explain in a purely naturalistic universe why the murder of an innocent child is morally wrong. Don’t have to. First, show us that there is anything beyond the natural universe to consider as an alternative. We can’t talk about which is better before you even bring your evidence to the table. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/97 "2013-09-11T15:00:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Since you seem to know about it already, how about a link to the math involved? Lee Spetner’s work is summarised in the book ‘Not by Chance’, but it won’t take much effort to google his work and the various critique’s. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/98 "2013-09-11T15:02:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Don’t have to. First, show us that there is anything beyond the natural universe to consider as an alternative. We can’t talk about which is better before you even bring your evidence to the table. Isn’t that what we are engaging in? If there is an objective moral code that naturalism cannot explain, then that suggests something outside of a purely naturalistic universe. Now answer the challenge. ---
**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 11, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/99 "2013-09-11T15:03:15Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Lee Spetner’s work is summarised in the book ‘Not by Chance’, but it won’t take much effort to google his work and the various critique’s. And the reason that you, the person that originally brought it up, can’t do so is…? Sorry, bucky-you make the claim, _you_ provide the cite. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/100 "2013-09-11T15:04:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Since we have no evidence otherwise, it is the default position. It isn’t up to us to disprove the supernatural world-it’s up to _you_ to provide evidence that it exists. It was your assertion. It is up to you to support it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=6)