0
Scientists generally have no argument with the notion of creation, as long as it does not conflict with known scientific facts. However, creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that insists that science is wrong and that the earth was created exactly as its proponents believe The Bible literally says it was.
The Bible itself is the greatest enemy of these creationists. First of all, there are two, incompatible creation stories in Genesis, at 1:1-2:4a and at 2:4b-20. Creationists ought to decide which creation story it is that they support - the first one, which states that man, both male and female, was created last of all living things, or the second story that says that Adam was created first, then all other living things, and then Eve. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms. Anything less than this can not be compared with science.
The second creation story appears to place creation some six thousand years ago, yet science has shown that the world is approximately 4.54 million years old. Some creationists accept the great age of the world, and say that the 'day' of the first creation story is really intended to mean an indefinite period, even though experts in the Hebrew language say there is no reason to interpret the text in this way. And a problem with this is that the scientific creation of the world was never so simple and linear that it could fit the creation story, no matter how interpreted.
The first creation story also suffers from the problem that creation is supposed to have occurred in an impossible sequence. As the early Church Father, Origen, had to say on this (On First Principles, 3.1.1): "Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of life' ..."
Much of the evidence against creationism is the evidence for cosmology and evolution. There is so much evidence that science has the explanation for what really happened, that creationism must remain a convenient religious discussion only.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is creationism credible?
There are at least two, quite different forms of creationism, and the question of whether creationism is credible must be applied separately to each. No doubt, both Young-Earth creationism and Old-Earth creationism are credible to their proponents, but the question must be whether they are credible to other well informed people.Young-Earth creationism holds that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, usually around six thousand. However, science has proven conclusively that the world is billions of years old, so this can not be credible. Because of the overwhelming evidence that the world is certainly more than six thousand years old, some Young-Earth creationists have adapted Young-Earth creationism by saying that each of the days stated in Genesis chapter 1 was really an almost indefinite period of time. According to this version, the world could be many thousands of years old. This not only undermines the standard Young-Earth creationism argument, but it is even less credible, given that there is no supporting evidence for this, not even biblical evidence.Old-Earth creationism accepts the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth, so from this point of view it is more credible than Young-Earth creationism. Nevertheless, some Old-Earth creationists say that God created all living things just as they are today. Others accept that species evolved, but say that this was not the result of natural selection but Intelligent Design. Both versions of Old-Earth creationism fail in the face of scientific evidence, although Intelligent Design is more sophisticated and therefore somewhat more credible. Intelligent Design is also claimed by some Young-Earth creationists, perhaps because it has captured the imagination of a proportion of the population, but it seems inherently an Old-Earth creationism concept.Ultimately credibility comes down to whether a hypothesis is compatible with the scientific evidence. Creationists do not put forward scientific evidence to support their hypotheses, instead proposing various ways in which they believe they can undermine the evidence for evolution. Occasionally, scientists respond (eg. Dawkins, Perakh, et al)and demonstrate the failure of these arguments. So, to be credible, creationism has to adapt further, until its claims are at least somewhat consistent with the scientific evidence.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
When was creationism done?
When Charles Hodge wrote "What is Darwinism?" in 1874 and argued that evolution can not explain the complexities of the eye is when creationism was first used as a tool against evolution. Before that, Thomas Aquinas and later William Paley used the design argument to 'prove' God's existence, as a small group in the United States are doing today, and the story of Creation was believed to be literally true by all Christian sects. However, it was not called 'Creationism' as there was no opposing theory at the time.
Who will give a guest lecture on Creationism?
The Institute for Creation Science and Answers in Genesis are just two organisations that have speakers available to give lectures on Creationism.
Why is creationism considered pseudoscience?
Creationism is considered a Pseudoscience because it is impossible to prove that a divine being created a world, because we cannot study divine beings. Science only deals with things that can be observed and reported, and is based on facts, not beliefs.
What is atheistic creationism?
Atheistic creationism is the view held by a number of idealist and Buddhist philosophers especially in the 19th century and the early 20th century. Basically every object and thing in the universe even down to the smallest atom is a mental creation, created out of mind. Minds are indeed the creators of the universe. But unlike George Berkeleys subjective idealism which was theistic for atheistic creationism there is no divine mind, there is no God. All creations were created from human minds or other forms of life.
Is there evidence for progressive creationism?
No.
What is a scientific view on creationism?
The scientific view on creationism is that there is no scientific evidence supporting it.
Does creationism disprove adaptation?
Minor adaptations and changes, as can be observed in living things today, are of course not denied or disproved by Creationism. What Creationism does deny is the notion that Evolution could bring about new species or even new organs.See also:Is there evidence against Evolution?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
Why is creationism not considered to be a scientific theory?
To be technical it is supported by no evidence, is internally inconsistent and is not falsifiable.
How come creationism isn't taught in public schools?
Creationism is typically not taught in public schools because it is considered a religious belief rather than a scientific theory. Public schools aim to teach science based on evidence and the scientific method, which includes the theory of evolution as the foundation of biology education. Teaching creationism in public schools can be seen as promoting a specific religious viewpoint, which goes against the separation of church and state principle in the United States.
Do atheists believe in creationism?
Generally speaking, the answer is no. See also:Is there evidence for Creation?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
What are the key components of creationism?
Answer: Key components of creationism would include the following:1. Clear statement of presupposition or bias -belief in the infallibility of the Bible and its historical record of what happened in the beginning.2. Following from this a continual search for and presentation of evidence which supports this view in literally every area of science.3. A constant critique of evolutionary explanations in comparison with 'real science.'4. Defence against many false representations of its position.Key areas of evidence: Age of the earth and universe (geology and astronomy), study of the fossil record and its evidence (palaeontology), study of biology and its evidences particularly around mutations and changes in living things.
Are atheists for or against the teaching of creationism v evolution?
Atheists are typically in favor of teaching evolution in schools, as it is supported by scientific evidence. They may be against the teaching of creationism in science classes, as it is based on religious beliefs rather than scientific data. Some atheists believe that creationism has a place in a religious studies or philosophy class, but not in a science curriculum.
In what testament of the Bible does it state the scientific evidence for evolution and creationism?
Bible is not empirical thus anything conceived within its story cannot be perceived as scientific evidence. For anything.
Do you think that Evolution and Creationism should be taught in school?
Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory supported by extensive evidence, and should be taught in science classes. Creationism, however, is based on religious beliefs and is not supported by scientific evidence, so it is not appropriate to be taught in a science classroom. It may be more suitable for discussion in courses on religion or philosophy.
Is creationism a myth or a theory?
Creationism is a belief system that asserts that the universe and living beings originate from specific acts of divine creation. From a scientific perspective, creationism is considered a myth rather than a theory because it lacks empirical evidence and does not adhere to the scientific method of investigation and naturalistic explanations.
What was the main counterargument against wegners evidence?
1 counterarguement.... there was no drift because all is just as it was created. This theory works under the premise of creationism which disregards all evidence of Evolution OR If you are asking for argument were used against the theory of continental drift; it was rejected because there was no mechanism known that could cause continents to drift. It was revived when the theory of plate tectonics provided this mechanism.
