What do creation scientists believe

Great Debates
1

I understand what creationists don’t believe in, but not what they do believe in. So, here are some questions for you:

How old is the earth? What is the evidence?

When was the first man created?

What are the general dates for man’s arrival in various parts of the world?

Have the positions of the continents changed since the earth was created?

How old are the stars? How far away are the furtherst stars? Was light created “in flight” from distant stars?

When did dinasoars live and why did they die off?

Did all existing plants and animals get created as they are, or did they change over time?

What is reason simple organisms are found in lower layers of rock and more complex ones are found in upper layers?

2

I think all those answers are at the ICR’s website, aren’t they?

3

“Scientific” creationism isn’t really a very coherent set of ideas; sometimes it seems to boil down to little more than “anything but evolution”. On points 1, 5, and 6 (the age of Earth, the stars, and dinosaurs), there is a wide variety among creationists; believers in strict Young Earth Creationism (YEC) believe the entire Universe is 6,000 to maybe 10,000 years old, distant galaxies, humans, dinosaurs, and all, and was all created in six 24-hour days. On the other hand “gap theory” creationists (who believe there is a “gap” somewhere in the Genesis account(s) of creation, in which eons may have passed between God creating the heavens and the earth and other forms of life, and God creating man); or “day-age” creationists, who believe that the “days” in Genesis 1 are not literal 24-hour days but are much longer “ages” of unspecified length; will accept an ancient Earth and Universe (“Old Earth Creationism” or OEC). Generally speaking, the greatest resistance is to any notion of the evolution of human beings, and so even many OEC’ers will insist on a recent origin for humans, but even on that point I don’t think there is any unanimity. There are also proponents of “Intelligent Design” (ID) theories, some of whom accept much of evolutionary theory, including that humans are descended from non-human animals, but who insist that God must have intervened in the process in a scientifically verifiable way. (This is different from “theistic evolution”, which holds that God directs evolution, along with all other things, but does so through the agency of natural law in a way which can’t be directly addressed by science.) Although ID is very different from more directly anti-evolutionary forms of creationism, proponents of everything from the strictest forms of YEC to the most seemingly respectable proponents of ID will sometimes make common cause together against the “common enemy” of modern biology.

Given all these differences, most of the rest of your questions don’t have a single answer. Question 3 is going to depend on exactly how insistent the particular creationist is on a recent origin of humankind. Most YEC’ers would say that all existing humans are descendants of the survivors of Noah’s flood, and must therefore have populated the various parts of the world in the last several thousand years. OEC’ers might accept plate tectonics and continental drift, but YEC’ers will probably insist that all geologic formations be explained in terms of catastrophism, principally the effects of a literally worldwide Noachian deluge. OEC’ers will accept distant and ancient stars; YEC’ers may argue that their light was created “in flight”. At least some YEC’ers may argue that the stars aren’t actually as distant as modern astronomy claims, either. A “day-age” creationist would have no problem with dinosaurs having lived eons ago in a pre-human era; a YEC’er will probably claim dinosaurs and humans coexisted before the Flood, and cite everything from Biblical passages mentioning “behemoth” and “leviathan” to stories of the “Loch Ness monster” to support such a view. YEC’ers will probably be the most insistent that even non-human species did not evolve; but many creationists of all stripes use the notion that living things are divided into “kinds” rather than species or genera or some other recognized taxonomic classification. Thus, just about all creationists will speak of “microevolution” as being factual, but many will maintain that “macroevolution”–change between “kinds”–is impossible. But the creationists in general are notoriously hard to pin down regarding exactly how much taxonomic territory the non-human “kinds” may cover. The main sticking point is that, whether or not the big cats and the little cats are all one “kind”, or all the birds are one “kind” or all the beetles are one “kind”, chimpanzees and humans are not in the same “kind”. (And all hominid fossils are either “apes”, not in any way related to us, or are misinterpreted or perhaps deformed or diseased fossils of fully human persons.) Finally, while a “day-ager” or Old Earth Creationist may agree that the different sorts of fossils found in different layers of rock represent real historical eras with different creatures living in them, the Young Earth Creationist will resort to claims that the larger or more “advanced” creatures were able to make it to higher ground before succumbing in the Flood, or that the floodwaters “hydrodynamically sorted” fossils according to shape and size to produce the layers of the geologic record.

4

Wow. That’s a pretty good highlight summary, Buck!

5

MEBuckner, thanks for the great post. Creationists: what would you put in a science text next to the very specific time-lines that evolution and gradualism provide? How can you talk about creation science if there are no generally accepted theories and facts?

6

Do creationists think that the scientific community is perpetrating a big fraud?

Is everyone in the scientific community lying to you?

Please help me understand your way of thinking!

I have almost given up on you.

7

The Answer’s In Genesis. Or at least some of them might be:

8

MEBuckner said just about all that needs to be said. It might be worth noting that “scientists” with the Institute For Creation Research are required to affirm a statement that the Bible (King James translation) is the inerrant word of God and is correct in all aspects as to the origin of the universe and all that’s in it.

9

Hi,

First post. I’m pleased to announce that I am a bonafied creation science believer and can answer all your questions as to what I believe and why. :wink:

I am not a scientist, but a homeschooling mom, so I may have to take the time to look some things up to give you an answer before I shoot my mouth off… but if you truly are interested in asking me something, I’d be happy to explain why I think that creation is the only thing that makes sense and it takes extraordinary faith to believe in evolution!

…

"Suppose there were no intelligence behind the universe.

In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the byproduct of some atoms within my skull.

But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else.

Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." - C.S. Lewis

10

So you begin by admitting that you don’t know enough about the subject, but you still feel qualified to say that creationism makes more sense than evolution?

11

Valerie wrote:

You poor dear. Before you are pummeled, allow me to welcome you to Straight Dope Great Debates.

[…on preview…]

Oops. Too late.

12

—Thought is merely the byproduct of some atoms within my skull.—

There is no reason to conclude that that is the only possible explanation, SIMPLY because you posit that no one designed your brain (indeed, even evolution suggests that your brain is the result of a specific and historical process, not simply a random collection). For all anyone knows, it could be the byproduct of etherions moving about in a mystical realm.

But if it isn’t a product of SOME process, then what is it? Simply saying that God designed your brain doesn’t in the least explain what thought IS, or even help you determine whether thoughts are just the byproducts of atoms in your skull. Your brain could just as easily have been designed to think BY a God that used atoms in a particular way to produce thought processes.

(by the way, would you think that “a hunk of metal” is a helpful way to describe a computer when talking about what it can do?)

—But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else.—

No one is trying to make you be an atheist. Even a totally undirected process of evolution could be equally consistent with a god designing everything: because presumably a god would know the exact outcome of any sort of set of initial conditions it created.

Regardless, you cannot make a conclusion like “my brain was designed for thinking” just because you don’t happen to LIKE some of the potential implications. What does that have to do with anything? I don’t like it that a mass murderer rules Iraq… but that doesn’t change the fact that one does.

—But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?—

What do you mean by “true” in this context? Do you mean that the arguments you might make can validly lead to true conclusions (I would argue that they would be regardless of anyone “thinking” them or not, since truth is an operational definition)? Or do you mean that your thinking is “real”?

How can you trust that your own thinking is “true” (whatever you mean by that) right now?

13

Welcome!

I would like to ask what “extraordinary faith” is involved in the following:
[ul]
[li]Fact: All organisms have the capacity to produce more offspring than can possibly survive, given the limited resources available.[/li][li]Fact: All organisms vary in some way from one another, even from those of the same species.[/li][li]Fact: At least some of this variation is demonstrably heritable from one generation to the next. [/li]
[li]Given the above, those offspring which do survive are more likely to do so because their traits allow them to outcompete others for the limited available resources, as well as survive the variations in whatever environment they find themselves in. These organisms will then pass those traits on to their own offspring; over time, a population will thus change such that the individuals comprising that population are best able to survive in that environment.[/li][/ul]

Also: which aspect of evolutionary science do you feel is most contrary to your faith? Is it the scientific process in general? Is it the supposed materialism inherent in evolution? Is it the idea that you are but an animal (a very unique animal, perhaps, but an animal nonetheless)?

And: what specific aspects of “creation science” do you feel make more logical sense than does evolution?

14

Also, to be fair, Apos, the sections you are responding to where noted as being attributed to C. S. Lewis. valerie may well believe those same things, but such is not necessarily the case.

15

Well, as I understand it, as soon as they get creation science in all the classrooms (and evolution out) they plan to go after the clearly fallacious “round earth” theory and then clean up that misapprehension people have that Earth is not the center of the universe.

16

I do not “believe” in evolution. That’s the whole point - it is not a matter of belief, or faith. It’s a matter of looking at the evidence in the light of the theory. Darwinian theory is not a religion - it is open to question and modification, but modification based on observable evidence and research. Creationism admits no arguments, no modifications, no questions, which is what makes it so bloody scary.

17

Oops, I missed that first " mark and assumed the last line was just a single line sig. Apologies to valerie for assuming those were her own words.

Of course, now that I see the passage as being a whole, including the final summary passage “Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” my estimation of the validity of the argument has only dropped further.

18

I’m going to throw in my couplapennies. I guess I ascribe to the “God started it and thing progressed from there” theory.

I can’t help but believe, as a church-going Christian, that God did indeed start the whole shebang. Might even have been a Big Bang. On the other hand, as a person with an interest in Zoology and a curiosity for Archeology, I have to discount the Recent Creation Theory.

What I believe is this. God did create the universe. This happened in six divisions of time, which do not correspond to Earth days. God created the plants and animals, not as we know them now, but as very basic prototypes, capable of changing with the enviormental conditions. For instance, the horse was always a horse, but it passed through stages, ranging fron Eohippus to Thoroughbred.

I believe God created humans, but again, not nessacarily as we are today. There is evidence that Man originated in one very small area, probably in Africa. This seems to lend credence to Adam and Eve. Since people have changed quite a bit in just the last couple of thousand years (stature, life expectancy etc.) I don’t really have a problem believing Mankind has gone through major change in the last couple of million years. Again, as with animals, a man was always a man, just not the version we are today.

There is evidence of a flood in the area mentioned in the Bible, about the right historical time. It may well have wiped out everything in the area. I think it’s possible the “World destroyed” meant only the World known to the people involved at the time.

Please, you guys, stomp on me lightly. It’s my birthday!

19

Good response, Finch! Thanks.

20

I had an encounter last night with a chap (one of the leaders of our church) who tends toward fundamentalism and is a creationist; he neatly deals with the weight of scientific evidence by saying “evolution is a lie of satan, why should I listen to any arguments in support of it.”

I was going to point out that this is not unlike sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA, Can’t hear you, LA LA LA”, and that we would never discover truth of any kind were we to do this, but I’m a little under the weather at the moment and I was not up for a fight.