Creationism = Science Illiteracy

[JLives]

My question is this: Why is creationism so important to atheists? Almost every thread I've ever read about creationism was started by an atheist, and pretty much every one of them makes assumptions that aren't inductive of the general population and/or takes the worst case and most ignorant of the lot and castigates them as typical among theists in general.

In some schools, mainly in the US, it is being forcibly taught as a viable "alternative" to evolution. That is not acceptable on any level in a science class for any reason. Forcibly, as in the religious groups have taken over the school districts in order to vote it in to the text books.

[zzontar]

Glacier wrote:
Even evolutionists that spent their careers studying biology have, after seeing the amazing complexity of life, concluded that the science points to a creator.

Even if that is true and some FEW scientists decided that god was more compelling than their lifes work, it doesn't prove a god, nor does it prove that creationism is on par with science. It only proves humans are fallible which we already know.

If scientists found machinery on the dark side of the moon that was hundreds of years old yet there was no sign of life, would it be fallible to think it was left there by aliens with absolutely zero proof?

[JLives]

We all know cutter was making a sarcastic remark. We also know the point he was making is that no scientist anywhere can explain how life formed spontaneously. Given the 2nd law of Thermodynamics where everything goes to disorder, trying to explain how intricate and complex structures came in to being by natural processes is science illiteracy.

No scientist can say that. Yet. In the meantime, we can say "I don't know." Until we figure it out, or don't.

[JLives]

If creationism = scientific illiteracy, how come so many scientists of the past were bible believing men of faith?
I could give you a list but it's very long.

Because if they weren't they could be ostracized or murdered? Because we didn't have near the knowledge we do now? Because they wanted to score chicks? There are many reasons. It doesn't really matter though, the science has to be solid regardless of the scientists personal religious beliefs. If Newton started believing in a god, gravity doesn't cease to exist and we float away and the planets collide. Facts are facts.

[Nomaster]

I could give Orez a long list of Greeks too. BTW, they believed in other Gods.
I could give you lists of Indian inventors too. They believed in a list of totally different Gods.

[Nomaster]

Annexi wrote "I think the Genesis story and cutting edge science are quite possibly analogs of each other, 2 totally different knowledge pathways starting to converge. They are talking about the same essential nature of the cosmos."


http://www.gotquestions.org
Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)
God created the heavens and the earth. “The heavens” refers to everything beyond the earth, outer space. The earth is made but not formed in any specific way, although water is present. God then speaks light into existence. He then separates the light from the dark and names the light “day” and the dark “night.” This creative work occurs from evening until morning – one day.

Creation Day 2 (Genesis 1:6-8)
God creates the sky. The sky forms a barrier between water upon the surface and the moisture in the air. At this point earth would have an atmosphere. This creative work occurs in one day.

Creation Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-13)
God creates dry land. Continents and islands are above the water. The large bodies of water are named “seas” and the ground is named “land.” God declares that all this is good.

God creates all plant life both large and small. He creates this life to be self-sustaining; plants have the ability to reproduce. The plants were created in great diversity (many “kinds”). The earth was green and teeming with plant life. God declares that this work is also good. This creative work takes one day.

Creation Day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19)
God creates all the stars and heavenly bodies. The movement of these will help man track time. Two great heavenly bodies are made in relation to the earth. The first is the sun which is the primary source of light and the moon which reflects the light of the sun. The movement of these bodies will distinguish day from night. This work is also declared to be good by God. This creative work takes one day.

So explain how plants were created before THE SUN.

[Glacier]

No scientist can say that. Yet. In the meantime, we can say "I don't know." Until we figure it out, or don't.

A lot of atheists do, however, and then they think it's weird when others have another idea. It's not illiterate to propose theories about the unknown based upon what is known.

[JLives]

A lot of atheists do, however, and then they think it's weird when others have another idea. It's not illiterate to propose theories about the unknown based upon what is known.

The only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in a god. Other than that you will find a wide variety of atheists.

Claiming to know how abiogeneses occurred has no concrete theories but there are plenty of ideas. We may figure it out one day, but not now.

My personal theory is that the concept of "nothing" is a man made concept and there has always been a cycle of expansion and contraction. I don't think there has ever been "nothing" and that step into "something" never occurred.

[OREZ]

I could give Orez a long list of Greeks too. BTW, they believed in other Gods.
I could give you lists of Indian inventors too. They believed in a list of totally different Gods.

Again, so what? What does it matter which gods they believed in, they believed in gods and a creator. They were "creationists" weren't they? But it didn't stop them from making wonderful scientific discoveries and accomplishments. They weren't scientifically illiterate.
"Creationism=Scientific Illiteracy" is false.

[cliffy1]

And Quantum Physics and Mechanics are bridging the gap between science and what the ancient mystics have been telling us for millennium.

[youjustcomplain]

Correct, so in the context of this topic, how is it that creationism=scientific illiteracy if most of the foundation on which science stands was built by believers?

I have never made the claim that the title of this thread is accurate. Infact, I immediately stated just that when I first commented. Regardless, I do believe that creationism has nothing to do with science. To reply to the quote above though, I'd say that I don't think creationism is science illiteracy; I think creationists disregard some science in order to believe in fairy tales but all creationists are not illiterate to science.

[youjustcomplain]

If scientists found machinery on the dark side of the moon that was hundreds of years old yet there was no sign of life, would it be fallible to think it was left there by aliens with absolutely zero proof?

the dark side of the moon
Do you mean the side of the moon that is not visible to us from earth? Make no mistake about it, depending on where it is, different parts of it are in the dark or in the light, (the light being the sun of course).

If scientists found machinery though, without any signs of life...
What machinery, that we know of, exists without having been built by humans (or life in general)? The machinery itself is a sign of life, so how could you find machinery without signs of life?

Fallible only means that we're capable of making mistakes. We are all fallible.

But, that stuff aside, would it be fallible to think it was left there by aliens? Strange wording, but it would be strange for a scientist to conclude that a life form, other than from earth, could be responsible since they haven't proved alien life exists.

This is NOT to say that if we don't think aliens did it, and we don't know if we did it, that it must have been done by god though.

[OREZ]

Correct, so in the context of this topic, how is it that creationism=scientific illiteracy if most of the foundation on which science stands was built by believers?

I have never made the claim that the title of this thread is accurate. Infact, I immediately stated just that when I first commented. Regardless, I do believe that creationism has nothing to do with science. To reply to the quote above though, I'd say that I don't think creationism is science illiteracy; I think creationists disregard some science in order to believe in fairy tales but all creationists are not illiterate to science.

Thanks, I was aware that you didn't make that claim. I was just trying to get back to the original topic and get a clear response to it from you and anyone else who cares to indicate where they stand on in regards to that statement. Now I see your comment on page one:

This sort of thread title and content is why many theists really can't stand us atheists.

Personally I wouldn't say that I can't stand atheists I just object to simplistic statements (like the thread title) which are made by some of them.

Cheers.

[Nomaster]

Belief that a supernatural claim explains nature or the universe is anti science. Period.

How did this occur? Let me consult my ancient holy book.

[Nomaster]

Explain the bible' s claim that dry land and then plants were created( by a certain diety ) before the sun and other celestial bodies.

Photosynthesis, gravity....