Creationism = Science Illiteracy

[OREZ]

So what?

He didn't go to church or belong to a religion. Some atheists just don't get it. Agnostic is not synonymous with atheist. Geez, do we need to go over that again?

[Nomaster]

Charles Darwin didn't even identify himself as an atheist. He believed in God at the time he was writing "Origin Of Species"

Your statement is wrong. By the end of the voyage on The Beagle he was no longer a biblical literalist. He laughed at the Captain's religious views that the Bible was historically accurate and that all things were created as the Genesis chapters suggest.

[OREZ]

Good grief.

A person does not need to be a "biblical literalist" to believe in a creator.

Why is that so difficult for some people to understand.

[Nomaster]

Anyone doubting his atheism must read the detailed accounts of his life in Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin and Janet Browne’s two-volume, Charles Darwin. Darwin did refer to himself as an "agnostic" rather than an "atheist." However, his preference for the term "agnostic" seems to have been dictated primarily by his worries about offending people unnecessarily.

By the time he was about to marry Emma Wedgwood at the beginning of 1839, he had to confess to her that, like his own father and her father, he was an unbeliever. His father Robert had warned him not to let the womenfolk know the extent of his own unbelief.

[OREZ]

Why read that? Why not read his own autobiography?

[Nomaster]

Oh, you mean like this passage from Darwin's autobiography ?

ON THE BEAGLE: "But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true."

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fra ... wtype=text

[youjustcomplain]

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.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think the point is that people of faith are scientifically illiterate. The fact that there are scientists that believe in god is mystifying to me, but I know it to be true.

[OREZ]

Oh, you mean like this passage from Darwin's autobiography ?

ON THE BEAGLE: "But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true."

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fra ... wtype=text

Yeah, I've read that.

He doesn't say that he doesn't believe in a creator.

Like so many other people, you can't seem to understand that religion and belief in a creator are not always the same thing.

[youjustcomplain]

The theory of the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic, so any good atheist wouldn't buy that theory.

All science preformed that far into the past would have been done so by a person of faith as almost everyone believed in a god.

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.

[youjustcomplain]

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.

He doesn't say that he doesn't believe in a creator.

Like so many other people, you can't seem to understand that religion and belief in a creator are not always the same thing.

I never found that Darwin spoke all that clearly, but then, language has evolved over time. The passage above seems to indicate that he was a disbeliever, at some point.

I'm actually a little confused why the topic of Darwin's atheism, agnosticism or theism is even part of this discussion. We've gone off the rails !

[OREZ]

The theory of the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic, so any good atheist wouldn't buy that theory.

All science preformed that far into the past would have been done so by a person of faith as almost everyone believed in a god.

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?

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.

Correct again, it doesn't prove the existence of God and doesn't prove that "creationism is on par with science" but again, the topic asserts that creationism equals scientific illiteracy. There is no one "creationist" doctrine. It can mean anything from a literal interpretation of any creation story or myth which exists or it can mean generally speaking, intelligent design with no affiliation to any religion.

The assertion is a gross oversimplification and sweeping generalization.

[sooperphreek]

my question is this. why is creationism so important to believers? if god is sovereign then he can also be sovereign over a big bang or evolution. there is no reason to believe that the scriptures were literal 7 days. therefore evolution is entirely possible - and god is still god. for me when i see this argument i see believers fighting for control of the narrative. one which they have lost. and i think for good reason. the church controled every aspect of every persons lives at one point. when people gained freedom they found truths that the church was keeping from them. i have old friends that are believers that are so thirsty for the newest thing that they are falling for flat earth - hook line and sinker. and i feel sorry for them. they are so willing to put their faith in idiotic things because they are told it lines up with their faith better.

[OREZ]

my question is this. why is creationism so important to believers? if god is sovereign then he can also be sovereign over a big bang or evolution. there is no reason to believe that the scriptures were literal 7 days. therefore evolution is entirely possible - and god is still god.

Lots of believers think exactly the same thing. Again, I think some people confuse terms like "believers" and "people of faith" with religious people. There are a lot of believers and people of faith who are not religious.

[Glacier]

my question is this. why is creationism so important to believers?

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.

[annexi]

Someone can understand creationism and that same person can understand science. The two are not related. It's like suggesting that quilting understood in the context of basketball is a synergy that can shed new light.... No.

That is somehow a very entertaining comparison lol

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.