Are Creationists Shooting Themselves in the Foot?

[Yiab]

Well, as far as I can see, the answer to my above question is obviously yes, but the interesting question is whether or not creationists are shooting themselves in the foot it more ways than one.

To me, the obvious way creationists are trying to shoot themselves in the foot is that creationism is a blatant attempt to begin dismantling science, which if it happens would likely result in reduction in progress of technology and medicine which could benefit everyone, creationists included. Basically, creationists are attempting to shoot scientific progress in the foot and hurting themselves in the process.

Less obviously, though, is that creationists might be shooting themselves in the foot if they turn out to be correct.
As good skeptics, we cannot dismiss the possibility that there might, at some point in the future, be evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a god and that the creationist idea is basically correct. Clearly we do not have this evidence now, so there is no good reason to believe it will actually ever appear, but if it does exist, let's consider the way the scientific community might react upon its discovery.
Without these political and legal battles around creationism, science might easily accept actual evidence of external intelligent design, whatever form it might take. Taking into account the current state of affairs and the fact that many scientists in the future will be aware of the attempt to force an idea into science without evidence, though, future scientists coming upon evidence supporting the existence of an interventionist designer deity will be less likely to accept it as such and significantly less likely to be able to present it successfully to the scientific establishment.
So basically, it seems to me that creationism is also scientifically shooting itself in the foot.

 

[JAStewart]

I find it much harder to think there will ever be an explanation for Creationism than an explanation for a Deity, simply because Creationism is based on faith (& gaps in Evolution), and perhaps, if we are assuming that a Deity has been proven, the belief in the Deity and Evolution is correct to the extent that the Deity created 'everything' (The Universe, our world) and Evolution naturally occurred.

I say this as an atheist, by the way.

 

[Fnord]

On the one hand, there is an underlying opinion among my fellow Christians that skepticism is a tool of Demon Science.

On the other hand, now that I've been selected as an elder in the Presbyterian Church (for my "Critical Thinking" skills), I can do something to change that.

On the gripping hand, the more attention that the Fundies attract to themselves, the more they repel reasoning people away from the Primary Fundie Cause, which is to recruit and train more Fundies.

 

[Cainkane1]

This is why I kept getting kicked out of godtube. I tried to make them think outside the box.

 

[T'ai Chi]

To me, the obvious way creationists are trying to shoot themselves in the foot is that creationism is a blatant attempt to begin dismantling science,

Newton, by all accounts, would be a Creationist. Was he dismantling science? Looks more like he was building it.

 

[Mobyseven]

Newton, by all accounts, would be a Creationist. Was he dismantling science? Looks more like he was building it.

Fun fact: Newton died 82 years before Charles Darwin was born, and 132 years before The Origin of Species was published.

 

[Zep]

Newton, by all accounts, would be a Creationist. Was he dismantling science? Looks more like he was building it.

Fun fact: Newton died 82 years before Charles Darwin was born, and 132 years before The Origin of Species was published.

In short, Tai, everyone was nominally a "creationist" before the theory of evolution was developed.

 

[catbasket]

Off topic, apologies.

On the one hand...

On the other hand...

On the gripping hand...

Sounds familiar. Moties?

 

[hgc]

The only thing that matters to Creationism is that its adherents keep plugging away. The only way they can shoot themselves in the foot is to stop, at which point they whither. No sense, no logic, no honesty, nothing else matters.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

In short, Tai, everyone was nominally a "creationist" before the theory of evolution was developed.

But the fact of evolution was recognized by many before Charles Darwin's theory came along. Lamarck was obviously convinced of the fact and Charles' grandfather Erasmus wrote about evolution. The work of Linnaeus between 1735 (only 8 years after Newton's death) and 1755 certainly brought the concept of evolution in to debate.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Zep wants to be a historical revisionist and claim that before Darwin there were no atheists?

Wow. Gotta love the logic* there.


* where "logic" means Zep's logic.

 

[Mobyseven]

Zep wants to be a historical revisionist and claim that before Darwin there were no atheists?

Wow. Gotta love the logic* there.


* where "logic" means Zep's logic.

In short, Tai, everyone was nominally a "creationist" before the theory of evolution was developed.

Sorry T'ai, I couldn't find the part where Zep claimed the Darwin developed atheism. Mind pointing it out?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

As good skeptics, we cannot dismiss the possibility that there might, at some point in the future, be evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a god and that the creationist idea is basically correct. Clearly we do not have this evidence now, so there is no good reason to believe it will actually ever appear, but if it does exist, let's consider the way the scientific community might react upon its discovery.

A little semantic point. Small C "creationism", that is the idea that a deity set life in motion, is unevidenced, but unfalsified. "Creationism" with a large C, that is the Earth is about 6,000 years old, that a global flood occured about 4,000 years ago and that all animals were seperately and specially created has been falsified.

Scientifically Creationists aren't just shooting themselves in the foot, they're going mouth over the shotgun barrell by rejecting biology, geology, astronomy/astrophysics, paleontology and medicine as we know it in order to protect their beliefs in a falsified theory.

 

[Slimething]

There's another way they're shooting themselves in the foot. Science and technology win wars. Full stop.

Their efforts, if successful, will dumb down the population and cripple scientific research in the USA. In the meantime, science in other countries that don't have this millstone around their necks will soon outdistance the USA's if it falls for this claptrap. The idiot zealots will then have their asses handed them during an invasion and see much of their "work" undone overnight as the new government most assuredly won't tolerate the BS that made the US vulnerable.

 

[Smiledriver]

Could someone explain the idea in the OP that Creationism is dismantling science. That was simply stated, not argued for.

Also, I apprieciate the distinction between Big C and little C creationism, being a believer in the latter it is a relief not to have to be the one who points it out.

 

[CFLarsen]

Zep wants to be a historical revisionist and claim that before Darwin there were no atheists?

Wow. Gotta love the logic* there.

* where "logic" means Zep's logic.

Gotta love the logic* where Darwinism is the cause of atheism.

* where "logic" means T'ai Chi's logic.

It's an old Creationist warhorse: Darwinism is blamed for every ailment in society: Atheism, communism, racism, the radical feminist movement, pornography, the drug culture...

Could someone explain the idea in the OP that Creationism is dismantling science. That was simply stated, not argued for.

Because science isn't a set of sharply separated explanations of how each area works. Biology is dependent on chemistry, physics, etc. Once you get rid of biology, you also have to dismiss chemistry. Once you dismiss chemistry, you also have to dismiss physics. Once you dismiss physics, you are right back on Flat Earth.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Could someone explain the idea in the OP that Creationism is dismantling science. That was simply stated, not argued for.

There's really a variety of attacks on science rooted in or represented by Creationism, but one of the worst is that it encourages believers to suspect all science that doesn't agree with their Biblical literalism as a conspiratorial effort to destroy their religion. I have seen numerous Creationists claim that evolution is a lie of the Devil. Unfortunately that view of science as evil atheist (or worse Satanic) conspiracy leads them to embrace other sorts of woo like anti-vaccination, Alt-Med or climate change denial.

Conversely, most of the creationists I know who are anti-Creationist argue very effectively against anti-vaccination, Alt-Med or climate change denial.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sorry T'ai, I couldn't find the part where Zep claimed the Darwin developed atheism. Mind pointing it out?

Doesn't creationist imply theist? If everyone was a creationist, no one was an atheist.

The idea that everyone was nominally a creationist until the theory of evolution was developed doesn't really work. Even though scientific study of evolution can only be traced back to about 1745 (Linneaus, Maupertuis, Erasmus Darwin) or so, the idea of evolution goes back a long way. No one can even be sure the idea isn't pre-historic. Anaximander and Lucretius wrote about it.

Like it or not, T'ai's point about Newton is correct. He was a creationist. And it's not accurate to try to claim that Newton was merely a creationist by default. Newton certainly thought it through.

 

[Wowbagger]

Could someone explain the idea in the OP that Creationism is dismantling science. That was simply stated, not argued for.

Science makes its ever-more precise discoveries about the universe through the testing of ideas, and measurements of results against predictions. Creationism has yet to come up with any way of testing its ideas, developing predictions, or measuring anything empirical.
Evolution builds a tree of life forms*, from which predictions can be made and tested. And it ultimately yields results in understanding life better, and ever more precisely.
(*either genotypic, phenotypic, or whatever combo they're using now)

If one were to teach that the non-testable, fallacy-and-opinion-based arguments of Creationism were considered validly scientific, that would have a huge, negative impact on what people think science is. And, progress would grind to a halt, once more.

Also, I apprieciate the distinction between Big C and little C creationism,

I can't help you there, but I will say this:

If one considers any form of creationism (capital or not) to be only of philosphical value, I would have no problem with that!

My only beef is when creationism tries to be sold as science, when it has no evidence or testability (, yet).

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Doesn't creationist imply theist? If everyone was a creationist, no one was an atheist.

Feel free to object to this comment as semantics, but I stand by my notation above that there is a difference between "Creationists" and "creationists". Small c "creationist" does imply thiesm, but being an anti-Creationist or being a "creationist" who accepts evolutionary theory does not make one an atheist as T'ai Chi seemed to be suggesting.

Anaximander and Lucretius wrote about it.

You rock! Not only are you familiar with Anaximander, but you know he was the first to suggest life coming from the sea.