# In defense of creationism(ish) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2002, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215 "2002-04-12T13:00:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tapioca\_tundra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@tapioca\_tundra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapioca_tundra)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/81 "2002-04-24T11:18:30Z")
Darwin’s Finch, now you’re nipicking;) the system is irrelevant to the bird left standing. > [@](#): > > That’s because the survivors were not selected against. Get that part: the survivors were not selected against. And that “same genetic information” now plays a different role than it did before. No Finch, you missed the point. You were trying to say the environment **after** the selection process that determined the correct phenotype was a change for the bird with the correct phenotype. I was merely pointing out that the event and selection took place before what you want to consider to be a change. Even still, as I pointed out, even with greater opportunity for reproduction for the surviving phenotype there is no change. That phenotype was there all along. The ROLE of that phenotype didn’t change at all. In this case, we can use a large beak phenotype in order to break the seeds. The function of this phenotype didn’t change before or after the selection that affected the former member of the population that was selected against. > [@](#): > > Only those genes which are expressed, and how they are expressed, matter. Thus, “phenotype”. Yes, and only those phenotypes present during a selection event matter. Again, …nevermind. Every definition I have of adaptive radiation includes speciation (of course, its in the context of evolution). It’s there for a reason, yes, but it’s there. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/82 "2002-04-24T17:57:52Z")
Just a thought to drop in here, because I keep seeing two terms used interchangeably which really shouldn’t be. Truth does not equal Fact. Creationists believe that the bible is true. Fine, no problem. Creationists believe the bible states fact. Big problem. Truth is a matter of belief. If I say something honestly believing I’m correct, I have told the truth, regardless of actual fact. Example: A friend tells me we will meet somewhere at noon on Tuesday. Later, I confuse that appointment with another one and I forget and think it was 12:30. So I show up at 12:30, late and say “I’m sure you said 12:30.” If I believe it, I’m telling the truth, even if I’m factually incorrect. Creationists believe that the bible is (more or less) literally correct. They pass along their beliefs in good faith, therefore they are being truthful. They are not, of course, according to huge amounts of evidence, factual. When I was a kid I learned about evolution and the big bang and it struck me that the bible, while not factual, was nevertheless pretty creative, and even a crude but not totally baseless report of what did happen. After all, the people who came up with the story of creation were only working from observation of the world around them, and still came up with concepts that aren’t totally different from modern ideas. I don’t believe in the bible myself but I’m still impressed by the imagination of the people who wrote the story. ---
**Author:** ![papertiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce73a5/32.png) [@papertiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/papertiger)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/83 "2002-04-25T17:41:12Z")
The point has been proven: random mutation has turned this thread into a MONSTER! Flee, flee the terrible debate before your very minds are torn asunder. 🙂 btw I love getting you evolutionists started ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/84 "2002-04-25T20:01:05Z")
btw I love getting you evolutionists started \*\* [/QUOTE] By “you evolutionists” you mean, of course, we who don’t use one text as the explanation of everything, right? Sorry, couldn’t resist. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/85 "2002-04-26T01:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Scientists don’t "get around’ the probability issue, because it isn’t an issue with them. It’s an issue with Creationists that the scientists are then forced to address, lest ignorance spread. > [@](#): > > Who explained evolution to you that way? > [@](#): > > Atoms and molecules aren’t scrabble tiles and they don’t combine at random. They combine in accord with well established chemical rules Just to CMA, I was using the {Corny} Scrabble tile reference (used by and old professor) to counter Creationists arguments that the probability of evolution is highly unlikely. He used the metaphor to simply point out that even the longest odds imaginable (Spelling out the whole dictionary via randomly selecting each letter until the correct sequence occurs) will eventually happen, even if it takes millions of years…just as years as it took for evolution to occur. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/86 "2002-04-26T05:02:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JohnBckWLD \* > \*\*Just to CMA, I was using the {Corny} Scrabble tile reference (used by and old professor) to counter Creationists arguments that the probability of evolution is highly unlikely. He used the metaphor to simply point out that even the longest odds imaginable (Spelling out the whole dictionary via randomly selecting each letter until the correct sequence occurs) will eventually happen, even if it takes millions of years…just as years as it took for evolution to occur. \*\* And I agree with you on that. It is a misuse of probability to use probablity on an event that has _already happened_ and then claim that a supernatural cause is required because the event is highly improbable. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/87 "2002-04-26T05:36:37Z")
In addition to what **David Simmons** said, the Scrabble analogy is flawed because it assumes that evolution is working toward a goal: e.g., spelling out the entire Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. While we may have the evolutionary equivalent of the dictionary now, if you reset the clock and start over from scratch, you’d very likely get a very different result - possibly a Danielle Steele novel, for example. Indeed, for all we know, life as we know it _is_ the Danielle Steele novel… ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215/88 "2002-04-26T14:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > Indeed, for all we know, life as we know it _is_ the Danielle Steele novel… \*\* Could this be the reason that there are those who wonder whether life is worth living? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-creationism-ish/103215.md?page=4)