# Creationists - Ignorant or Brainwashed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2001, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665 "2001-02-23T23:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/141 "2001-03-07T14:30:03Z")
I think in the root of all things creationism tends to deal with ‘first causes’, while evolution is usually used to describe how the diversity of life arose from common beginnigs. Most, not all, creationists also reject the notion of ‘common descent’ that arose from Darwin’s theories. So, IMHO, creationism is more an argument/position against abiogenesis, rather that evolution. That being said, many people on both sides take their term and run with it in opposite directions. Creationists may tend to the 6/24 YEC belief, while an Evolutionist may tend toward an uncaused random universe where the development of life was an accident. Trying to nail anyone to a individual bucket based on their use of ‘I’m a creationist’ is putting a large cart before your horse. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/142 "2001-03-07T19:56:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > **I think in the root of all things creationism tends to deal with ‘first causes’, while evolution is usually used to describe how the diversity of life arose from common beginnigs.** You have a point here. Some folks believe their god(s) created the world, got life started, then left it alone, the natural laws He/She/They established taking over from that point. (This would be deism. Benjamin Franklin was a deist.) I suspect that this is what **Gaspode** believes. > [@](#): > > **an Evolutionist may tend toward an uncaused random universe where the development of life was an accident.** Well, THIS Evolutionist doesn’t believe the origin of life was an accident. An accident is an unintended or unexpected event. If there was no intelligence responsible, there was neither intent nor expectation. And it wasn’t purely random either, it was the result of the interaction of natural laws. The crash of a plane, train, automobile or boat is not always an accident, for example. It may be suicide or murder or both. As for Darwin being a creationist, he may have been one in his youth, but it isn’t likely that he was at his death (his own granddaughter disputed the “death-bed conversion” story). ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/143 "2001-03-07T23:59:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Gaspode_ > \*\*I would be interested in seeing your definition of creationist Hardcore, and to see you explain how Darwin, Spetner and myself don’t fit the definition. \*\* Do you even read what you cut-and-paste before you post?? I make no claim about either Dr. Spetner or your position with respect to creationism, but Darwin most certainly did not hold that _“the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”_. Perhaps you have heard of his theory of descent with modification? You should try some light reading from a book entitled [On the Origin of Species](http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/), then compare it with the book of [Genesis](http://www.churchofcompassion.org/BibleStudy/KJV/Genesis.html) and note the subtle differences in the two accounts. Take special note of these words from Darwin himself: > [@](#): > > “\*\*This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings under what is called the Natural System, is utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation. \*\*” > > “ **We can see why throughout nature the same general end is gained by an almost infinite diversity of means, for every peculiarity when once acquired is long inherited, and structures already modified in many different ways have to be adapted for the same general purpose. We can, in short, see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation. But why this should be a law of nature if each species has been independently created no man can explain.** ” > > _(continuing further about creation theory)_ > “ **Many other facts are, as it seems to me, explicable on this theory. How strange it is that a bird, under the form of a woodpecker, should prey on insects on the ground; that upland geese which rarely or never swim, should possess webbed feet; that a thrush-like bird should dive and feed on sub-aquatic insects; and that a petrel should have the habits and structure fitting it for the life of an awk! and so in endless other cases. But on the view of each species constantly trying to increase in number, with natural selection always ready to adapt the slowly varying descendants of each to any unoccupied or ill-occupied place in nature, these facts cease to be strange, or might even have been anticipated.** ” You can find these quotes in [Chapter 15](http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter15.html). I apologize for the length, but I found them necessary considering the claim. Darwin was a creationist only in **Gaspode** ’s bizarro-world of alternative definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/144 "2001-03-08T01:52:31Z")
Hardcore In response to jab1’s comment that he found it difficult to understand how anyone could be a creationist and hold a belief in evolution you stated that the confusion was due to my mangling of a definition. You reference to Darwin was, I assume, intended to support this statement not to be the entire substance behind it. For this reason I mentioned other scientists who fit the definition of creationist as posted. If your comment on Darwin was the entire substance behind your statement you appears to be demonstrating an amazing ability to ignore all the other evidence on offer and concentrate on only one example. The example in question is also a bad one for you to choose. From The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: “Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them.” From The Biography of Charles Darwin: “After graduating from Cambridge in 1831, the 22-year-old Darwin was taken aboard the English survey ship HMS Beagle, largely on Henslow’s recommendation, as an unpaid naturalist on a scientific expedition around the world.” In other words by his own admission Darwin was a creationist while employed as a scientist. It apparently wasn’t until later in his life, and after the death of two close family members that he became an agnostic. My statement stands. Nothing to do with my bizarro or mangled definitions. Simple supported fact. Darwin was a creationist and a scientist. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/145 "2001-03-08T04:48:54Z")
What on earth in your post is supposed to support the view that Darwin was a creationist? The “I was quite orthodox” part?? Or the “quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality” passage?? Please clue me in, as I don’t quite understand the language in bizarro-world. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Gaspode_ > > > [@](#): > > > > “After graduating from Cambridge in 1831, the 22-year-old Darwin was taken aboard the English survey ship HMS Beagle, largely on Henslow’s recommendation, as an unpaid naturalist on a scientific expedition around the world.” > > \*\*In other words by his own admission Darwin was a creationist while employed as a scientist. \*\* Man, you are in dire need of a secretary. The word you posted was _naturalist_, not _creationist_, and they do not mean the same thing. At least not anywhere outside of the parallel universe of bizarro-world. (Hey, I’m starting to _like_ that pseudo-word!). > [@](#): > > \*\*Simple supported fact. Darwin was a creationist and a scientist. \*\* Simple supported fact. Gaspode’s grasp on reality is so tenous that he cannot formulate a reasonable argument, choosing instead to repeat disproven claims. > [@](#): > > \*\*If your comment on Darwin was the entire substance behind your statement you appears to be demonstrating an amazing ability to ignore all the other evidence on offer and concentrate on only one example. > \*\* Yeah… quite a statement from coming from someone who just ignored all the evidence from Darwin’s own writings. On the _slight_ chance that someone else still thinks that Darwin was a creationist, I offer more evidence from the man himself: > [@](#): > > _(from On the Origin of Species)_ > How inexplicable on the theory of creation is the occasional appearance of stripes on the shoulders and legs of the several species of the horse-genus and of their hybrids! How simply is this fact explained if we believe that these species are all descended from a striped progenitor, in the same manner as the several domestic breeds of the pigeon are descended from the blue and barred rock-pigeon! > > This similarity would be a strange fact, if species had been independently created and varieties had been produced through secondary laws. > > Such cases as the presence of peculiar species of bats on oceanic islands and the absence of all other terrestrial mammals, are facts utterly inexplicable on the theory of independent acts of creation. > > On the view of each organism with all its separate parts having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable is it that organs bearing the plain stamp of inutility, such as the teeth in the embryonic calf or the shrivelled wings under the soldered wingcovers of many beetles, should so frequently occur. > > These authors seem no more startled at a miraculous act of creation than at an ordinary birth. But do they really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth’s history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues? > > When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. But I bet these statements are right in line with creationist viewpoints on the Gaspodian homeland of (…wait for it…) _ **Bizarro-world !!!** _ Whatever. Feel free to ignore these quotes also and continue to look ridiculous. You could hardly do much worse. One can only hope this is not indicative of the quality of your scientific research. Darwin was a creationist about like I am a lesbian. You can fantasize all day about it, but the reality is unchanged when you’re finished. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/146 "2001-03-08T14:37:25Z")
I think what Gaspode is saying by using the two quotes by Darwin, is that he was employed as a scientist (naturalist being a label in the 1830’s as one who studies nature, not the modern 21st century understanding of someone who belives that nature exists outside of deity, see synonym under materialist), while opening professing his Christianity (by the bible quoting to the rest of the crew). End Bizzaro Translation… Suffice it to say, that being able to quote a bible passage on the subject of morality doesn’t make one Christian, or Creationist… But there ya go… have at it… ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/147 "2001-03-08T14:37:42Z")
I think what Gaspode is saying by using the two quotes by Darwin, is that he was employed as a scientist (naturalist being a label in the 1830’s as one who studies nature, not the modern 21st century understanding of someone who belives that nature exists outside of deity, see synonym under materialist), while openly professing his Christianity (by the bible quoting to the rest of the crew). End Bizzaro Translation… Suffice it to say, that being able to quote a bible passage on the subject of morality doesn’t make one Christian, or Creationist… But there ya go… have at it… ---
**Author:** ![LateComer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5ac83/32.png) [@LateComer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LateComer)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/148 "2001-03-08T15:21:34Z")
3 things: 1. Whether or not Darwin believed in God is irrelevant. The majority of “evolutionists,” i.e., the majority of the educated people in the world, believe in God. In fact the quotes given by Gaspode seem to support this: > [@](#): > > I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. Note that Darwin says "Authority on some point of _morality_, not _science_. You do understand the difference, don’t you? If not, then please ask the Pope or maybe a Jusuit priest or 2. 1. Also, what’s all this about disproving evolution and creationism? Evolution is easily falsifiable. I can think of dozens of experiments to disprove it. Fortunately (or unfortunately) after 200 years (150 since Darwin) there has not been one piece of evidence that even comes close to disproving the fact of evolution. Say, fossils of cats in 5 billion year old rock? If any of you folks here can come up with this smoking gun that would disprove Evolution that 10’s of thousands of scientists in the last 200 years who have dedicated their lives to studying these things and collecting evidence and data couldn’t, you will be touted as THE GREATEST SCIENTIST WHO EVER LIVED. Guaranteed. Creationism, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable because it depends on the miraculous. 1. Stephen Jay Gould came up with a theory that is very different from traditional Darwinian evolution in terms of the mechanism and rate of change. Was he ridiculed and drummed out of the scientific community? No. Many “Creation Scientists” are “ridiculed” by “scientists” because their ideas are “ridiculous.” ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665/149 "2001-03-08T18:34:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > **Suffice it to say, that being able to quote a bible passage on the subject of morality doesn’t make one Christian, or Creationist…** **Navigator** , I completely agree with this statement and with your interpretation of what **Gaspode** is saying. In fact, you have neatly summarized the point I was trying to make to **jab1** – that **Gaspode** has completely morphed the definition of _creationist_ into something more closely akin to the word _christian_, or perhaps even _theist_. Of course, this type of wordplay makes a productive debate nearly impossible. I further submit that creationists have defined themselves in the public’s eyes by their vocal opposition to evolution, thereby restricting the common perception of a creationist to something closer to Gaspode’s statement - _“'One who believes in the creation of life by a supernatural force in six literal days exactly as described in the Bible and without any possible reference to other faith or belief systems, and who utterly rejects any concept of evolution.”_ I often question why they single out evolution among the concepts in science as deserving of such vociferous antipathy, hoping to provoke an introspective discussion. History is replete with examples of scientific advances resulting in conflicts with biblical literalists. Evolution is simply the latest (and hopefully the last) in a long, noble line. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-ignorant-or-brainwashed/55665.md?page=7)