# creationism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 28, 2002, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305 "2002-12-28T04:44:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/81 "2003-01-06T06:11:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > I’d also like to ask a second question. Obviously the Infidels site isn’t balanced, any more than, say, a pro-Christian site is balanced. It’s meant to present a particular viewpoint. Not so. The Indidels site merely looks at this whole Christianity business from a skeptical viewpoint. Which is all we should be doing, no? ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/82 "2003-01-06T06:17:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > I totally agree with you on all your points. I did have a question: Is ID and Creationistic _type_ research a total waste of time? The problem I see is that some creation researchers use dishonesty in their research. Is it actually possible to try to search (scientifically) for God in the universe? I think not. To do that, you have to frame the Christian god into some scientific hypothesis. By definition, the Christian god is singular and non-repeatable. Christians do not accept any falsification of their god. So you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/83 "2003-01-06T06:23:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > Bleeah! (But don’t think I’ve gone off the deep end and joined ICR!! :)) > > Evolution is a **theory**. But that’s not denigrating its status. > > Facts are data. Theories are tested hypothesis to _make sense_ of the data. > > Don’t fall into the Creationist trap of thinking that “theory” means something _less_ than “fact” – it means something **more**. What he meant by “evolution is fact” is there are now observed instances of evolution, even at that “macro” level. That is, [speciation](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). I don’t even understand why the creationists (including the ID’ists) haven’t folded. They kept saying it was impossible for evolution to produce new species, _but this has been observed_, even **repeatedly**. So what if we don’t know how it works? It is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/84 "2003-01-06T06:26:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > Bleeah! (But don’t think I’ve gone off the deep end and joined ICR!! :)) > > Evolution is a **theory**. But that’s not denigrating its status. > > Facts are data. Theories are tested hypothesis to _make sense_ of the data. > > Don’t fall into the Creationist trap of thinking that “theory” means something _less_ than “fact” – it means something **more**. Evolution is [both a fact _and_ a theory](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/85 "2003-01-06T06:28:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > > I totally agree with you on all your points. I did have a question: Is ID and Creationistic _type_ research a total waste of time? The problem I see is that some creation researchers use dishonesty in their research. Is it actually possible to try to search (scientifically) for God in the universe? > > I think not. To do that, you have to frame the Christian god into some scientific hypothesis. By definition, the Christian god is singular and non-repeatable. Christians do not accept any falsification of their god. > > So you can’t. Is it possible to search (scientifically) for God? Perhaps, if you don’t jump to the conclusion that “God” must mean “the Christian God”. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/86 "2003-01-06T12:03:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*That can’t be true, can it? That’s a hideous practice for a “scientific” MB.:eek: \*\* Here’s my original thread on the topic at the PP, along with links to the usenet threads in which people discuss their ICR experiences. (Incidentally, you can see why I raised the subject in response to GOM’s comments about the Infidels, given his lack of concern about the ICR’s dishonesty.) [http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=6938](http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=6938) If you like, you can read the ICR messageboard yourself. Last time I checked, it was just a bunch of YEC’s chuckling about how stupid evolution is. (After all, that’s all they’re allowed to talk about.) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/87 "2003-01-06T13:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Of course it’s possible to search for God. As long as the methodology is honest and empirical. The problem comes if you presuppose a result, and then skew, misinterpret or misrepresent the evidence to fit that presupposition. Scientists have been guilty of that too, but Science is a self-correcting discipline. Religion is not.** I agree that for a vast majority of the time religion gets in the way of science (in terms of ID research and the like). I think it’s a shame. Scientists should be looking for the answers-not the answers they want. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > BTW, you didn’t ask, but I don’t have a problem with _theistic_ evolution. Looking for transcendent implications in the physical world is perfectly noble and defensible-- as long as such an endeavor is _honest_ about the physical world. \*\* I have no problem with theistic evolution either (being as I accept evolution, and am religious). I do have a problem though, with these religious men/women fudging their data; From the start they label themselves as “christians” (not all mind you) and then they go and lie about the data, results, and tests. That doesn’t make religion look very good IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/88 "2003-01-06T13:08:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*I think not. To do that, you have to frame the Christian god into some scientific hypothesis. By definition, the Christian god is singular and non-repeatable. Christians do not accept any falsification of their god. > > So you can’t. \*\* Okay, let’s throw the “Christian” out of it. Do you think that **any** tests are possible, currently? I’m not so sure. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/89 "2003-01-06T14:33:19Z")
I have a question for the Old Earth Creationists out there. Given that a day is any amount of arbitrary length that you wish, there are still problems in the order of creation as described in Genesis 1. IIRC, it states that plants are created before the sun. How do you resolve this without invoking allegory? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/90 "2003-01-06T16:26:57Z")
Heck, Genesis 1 also states that “evening” and “morning” came, three times each, before the creation of the sun. Even if you’re going to claim that the Hebrew word usually translated as “day” means something other than 24 hours, are the Hebrew words translated as “evening” and “morning” in Genesis 1 ever translated as anything other than “evening” and “morning”? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/91 "2003-01-06T16:52:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\*I have a question for the Old Earth Creationists out there. Given that a day is any amount of arbitrary length that you wish, there are still problems in the order of creation as described in Genesis 1. IIRC, it states that plants are created before the sun. How do you resolve this without invoking allegory? \*\* If you’re positing that God created the universe, sun, moon and plant life, you can also posit that the light He created on Day 1 was sufficient to sustain plant life until Sol came around. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/92 "2003-01-06T17:29:05Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > I would just like to add that I think the infidels are more balanced than some other web boards I’ve [seen](http://pub7.ezboard.com/bcbbb) . Be advised that the site linked to in that post may spawn pop-ups, and there’s been at least one report of “adult” content pop-ups that may try to install nasty stuff on your computer. (All I’ve seen so far are the usual “credit repair” and “find your old schoolmates” ads.) So, if you do visit that site (a militantly anti-Christian message board called “Chri$tianity: Bogus Beyond Belief”, in case you’re wondering), don’t just click “yes” to everything you see, the way you do when you visit [this site](https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/dopestore/buystuff.bat). ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/93 "2003-01-06T17:40:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\ ***Moderator’s Note:** > > Be advised that the site linked to in that post may spawn pop-ups, and there’s been at least one report of “adult” content pop-ups that may try to install nasty stuff on your computer. (All I’ve seen so far are the usual “credit repair” and “find your old schoolmates” ads.) So, if you do visit that site (a militantly anti-Christian message board called “Chri$tianity: Bogus Beyond Belief”, in case you’re wondering), don’t just click “yes” to everything you see, the way you do when you visit [this site](https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/dopestore/buystuff.bat). \*\* Sorry about that, I have pop-up stopper and I’ve never noticed the “adult” pop-ups. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/94 "2003-01-06T18:05:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\ ***Moderator’s Note:** > > Be advised that the site linked to in that post may spawn pop-ups, and there’s been at least one report of “adult” content pop-ups that may try to install nasty stuff on your computer. (All I’ve seen so far are the usual “credit repair” and “find your old schoolmates” ads.) So, if you do visit that site (a militantly anti-Christian message board called “Chri$tianity: Bogus Beyond Belief”, in case you’re wondering), don’t just click “yes” to everything you see, the way you do when you visit [this site](https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/dopestore/buystuff.bat). \*\* Thanks for the warning. I won’t be going there… That is one of the unfortunate sides of the internet. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/95 "2003-01-06T18:12:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*1. I wasn’t trying to present the infidels as a well balanced site. > > 1. FWIW, I think the straightdope is one of the most fair and well balanced site out there. \*\* 1. Good. 😉 2. Flattery will get you everywhere. 😉 (Actually, from what little I have seen of it I would tend to agree. Some of the language is a little rough for me though. .02) ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/96 "2003-01-06T18:15:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Most of those are not outright contradictions, but simply exceptions to a rule. > > If God gives a rule, and then tells you at one time to do something counter to the rule, then it’s an exception to the rule, not a contradiction. > > There are very few rules that are absolute. > \*\* Ah, but the question becomes: What rule is God following? If there’s an exception, what makes acting differently in those circumstances morally and/or ethically correct? Can God make exceptions at will? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/97 "2003-01-06T18:21:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*Ah, but the question becomes: What rule is God following? If there’s an exception, what makes acting differently in those circumstances morally and/or ethically correct? Can God make exceptions at will? \*\* Yes, He can. He can tell you don’t violate the Sabbath. He can then turn around and tell you that you can violate the Sabbath to save a life. He can tell you not to marry your brother’s wife. He can then turn around and tell you that if your brother dies childless then you can. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/98 "2003-01-06T18:21:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*GOM, you criticise the Infidels messageboard without having seen it, on the presumption that creationists aren’t welcome there. > > \*\* No. I criticize it for what I have heard about the behavior there. Do you post there? And if so, are creationists welcome there? ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/99 "2003-01-06T18:27:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*From what I’ve seen, IDists are nothing more than Creationists who’ve taken up a certain not-dead-yet-argument of the month. \*\* Good. You’re honest about your current view. That’s why I posted two links. You might learn something by taking a second look. Your choice, of course. God bless. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305/100 "2003-01-06T18:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Yes, He can. > > He can tell you don’t violate the Sabbath. He can then turn around and tell you that you can violate the Sabbath to save a life. > > He can tell you not to marry your brother’s wife. He can then turn around and tell you that if your brother dies childless then you can.\*\* But is God acting in accordance with a higher morality (another set of rules)? If these exceptions aren’t arbitrary, then there must be a ‘higher’ and ‘truer’ moral/ethical code, and there’re really no exceptions to the rules. It’s just that we don’t know what the real rules are. If the exceptions are arbitrary, then we have to answer the question of why we should follow the rules in the first place… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism/145305.md?page=6)