|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will Creationism be seen as heretical?
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I’m no theological scholar, and I’m not sure how heresies are defined, but I wonder if Creationism will be seen as a heresy in a few centuries time?
Longevity seems no barrier to a once accepted position being seen as heretical, or number of adherents. I’m no expert but Manichaeism was long-lived and a serious belief system held by millions, but is now accepted as a heresy.
Given the pressures on Creationism from more mainstream theology backed up by continuous refinements of existing scientific theories and new discoveries, I have no doubt that it will wither on the vine over the decades and centuries ahead. There will be pockets of resistance but these will shrink, and just like the heresies of old, it will spring up again in patchy brush-fires now and again.
But are there similarities between Creationism and what are now heresies? At some point the followers of Arianism must have thought they were on the true path, but with hindsight we can spot where it was flawed and which led to being declared heresy. Are there similar built-in flaws in Creationism that may lead onto such a declaration?
I don’t know how such a declaration is made. Is it via the Pope or a council of theologians?
Anyway, I thought it time to introduce a more spiritual element to Purgatory as there seems to be a lot of political issues on here at the moment.
Of course that presumes that the Hosts don’t view the thread as a Dead Horse. I don’t think it is as it’s not about the rights and wrongs of Creationism, but is more about heresies. However, I’m sure the Hosts won’t be backwards about coming forwards and if it gets put in the Stables of Rest then so be it.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'd have thought probably not.
No Council capable of making authoritative statements has met since 787, and there are some denominations in the east that only accept some even of those. It would be a wonderful thing if somebody could get together an 8th Council, but it would be such a wonderful thing that I hope it would have more important things to deliberate than fringe issues.
Besides, does having an odd view, or any particular view for that matter, on Creationism go to the core of the faith in the way that being an Arian does?
[ 07. December 2012, 11:01: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I feel the same way. The thing that is more likely to go out the window is the concept of "heresy" itself.
With so many belief systems in an increasingly flat world the heresy label is a needlessly offensive remnant of medieval Christianity.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano
I’m no theological scholar, and I’m not sure how heresies are defined, but I wonder if Creationism will be seen as a heresy in a few centuries time?
It depends what you mean by 'creationism'.
If by 'creationism' you mean "the doctrine of God as the Creator of the universe", then if that becomes heresy, I would suggest that 'heresy' has become a farcical and meaningless word. Why not suggest that "belief in the existence of God" should be classed as a heresy?
If you are referring to some particular interpretation of empirical data that is based on a literal reading of the Bible, then I suppose you would have to say that a literal way of reading the Bible should be considered heretical. It would therefore be incumbent on you to propose an alternative. Are we to read the entire Bible in a completely symbolic allegorical way, for instance? Hardly.
(As a matter of fact, Jesus himself assumed the creation account of Genesis to be historically true, in the sense that God actually created humans as humans, hence the reference to "one flesh" in the context of marriage. Are the words of Jesus to be considered 'heretical'?)
If you are suggesting that the findings of what is (often inaccurately) termed 'science' should dictate the definition of heresy, then I would suggest that a strict demythologising of science should be undertaken before such a position is reached. By 'demythologising' I mean purifying 'science' of the myth of philosophical naturalism. Once that has been done, then I suggest creationism may not look quite as implausible as we are currently led to believe by those who relentlessly insist that empirical data should only be interpreted in a particular way.
Conclusion: it's pretty obvious that creationism can never be heresy any more than the existence of God or the words of Jesus can be 'heresy'.
quote:
Given the pressures on Creationism from more mainstream theology backed up by continuous refinements of existing scientific theories and new discoveries, I have no doubt that it will wither on the vine over the decades and centuries ahead.
I think the exact opposite. The advance of science makes the ID theory far more plausible than the establishment naturalistic idea, which is becoming more ludicrous and far-fetched by the day, as far as I can see. In fact, ID / creationism (of all degrees) has enjoyed something of a revival over the last twenty years. It's certainly not withering.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
It would seem to me that to be considered heresy a teaching would first need to be shown to be contrary to Scripture. Creation is taught by Scripture irrespective of scientific thought at any given time. The fact is that no one was actually there to observe and document what actually happened, so at best we are left with theories, or educated guesses informed by scientific discovery. Even that requires a certain amount of faith, or reliance on the unseen Hardly the basis for regarding anything as heresy. The theological emphasis remains the same: God pre-existed all things, and had something to do with the creation of the material world.
Biblical (Hebrew) thought does not require exact consistency, precise attention to detail, or scientific proof or approval to make it's theological point through story. To get bogged down in arguing details for either position, it seems to me, is a pointless dead horse.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Assuming by "creationism" you mean "Young Earth" (because of course anyone who believes in God has to be a creationist of some sort), no, why should it?
As far as I know none of phlogiston theory, egocentrism, the Hollow Earth, scientific racism, ether, vitalism, spontaneous generation, etc etc have ever been declared heresies So why this?
[ 07. December 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
Even that requires a certain amount of faith, or reliance on the unseen Hardly the basis for regarding anything as heresy.
Well, actually that is the basis for regarding anything as heresy. It is all questions of faith and reliance on interpretations of the unseen.
Heretical ideas are heretical because of what they imply about God. The Church chooses to reject that implication not because it has been definitevely and scientifically proven to be untrue, or that eyewitnesses have recorded otherwise, but through faith. The councils rejected Arianism because it implied that the Son was not God, but was created by God, which followed that one of the persons of God had a beginning. This was heresy because it contradicted the Church's understanding of Christ in that He does not have a beginning, that he is God Himself.
For creationism to be declared heretical, the Church as a body needs to reject it because of the implications of what it says about God. Something that is very unlikely since all it says is that God created the World, a very orthodox position indeed.
Creationism may be declared to be scientifically untrue, but heresy it is not.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Around here, it's defined as a Dead Horse. Down you go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Assuming by "creationism" you mean "Young Earth" (because of course anyone who believes in God has to be a creationist of some sort), no, why should it?
As far as I know none of phlogiston theory, egocentrism, the Hollow Earth, scientific racism, ether, vitalism, spontaneous generation, etc etc have ever been declared heresies So why this?
Of course, none of those theories were derived from some particular interpretation of scriptures. A better example would probably be geocentrism which is also, as far as I know, not considered heretical.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It seems it would be heretical to make a test of fellowship about it. The Ethiopian eunuch, when he sought baptism, was not questioned about his beliefs on the topic. It seems it would be very sinful and divisive to ask of others one thing more or less than what was asked of the first Christians.
Sometimes I've heard it explained that the bible is like the owners manual that comes with a car. All the manuals I've read tell how to succesfully operate the car but none tell very much about how the cars got here. However, it appears to me that the cars were designed by someone and the manual knows what it is talking about even though it just tells how to operate the car and not where cars come from.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Heresy contradicts the Creed. The Creed clearly states, "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth." Believing God created the heaven and earth doesn't contradict the Creed. On the contrary, believing anything else is heretical. That said, the Creed doesn't explain how God made heaven and earth or the age of the earth. Theologically, all views from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution are orthodox.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The advance of science makes the ID theory far more plausible than the establishment naturalistic idea, which is becoming more ludicrous and far-fetched by the day, as far as I can see.
Now that we are in Dead Horses I can point out that this statement is not only clearly false but also complete nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Assuming by "creationism" you mean "Young Earth" (because of course anyone who believes in God has to be a creationist of some sort), no, why should it?
As far as I know none of phlogiston theory, egocentrism, the Hollow Earth, scientific racism, ether, vitalism, spontaneous generation, etc etc have ever been declared heresies So why this?
Of course, none of those theories were derived from some particular interpretation of scriptures. A better example would probably be geocentrism which is also, as far as I know, not considered heretical.
And which I mentioned in my post before I stupidly used a bloody speekchucker on it. "Egocentrism". Pah!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oh. I rather like the idea of egocentrism as a heresy.
(My spoolcatcher has just suggested changing it to "ethnocentrism", which I think is the heresy of Phyletism.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawking Dawkins
Apprentice
# 17457
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I’m no theological scholar, and I’m not sure how heresies are defined, but I wonder if Creationism will be seen as a heresy in a few centuries time?
Longevity seems no barrier to a once accepted position being seen as heretical, or number of adherents. I’m no expert but Manichaeism was long-lived and a serious belief system held by millions, but is now accepted as a heresy.
Given the pressures on Creationism from more mainstream theology backed up by continuous refinements of existing scientific theories and new discoveries, I have no doubt that it will wither on the vine over the decades and centuries ahead. There will be pockets of resistance but these will shrink, and just like the heresies of old, it will spring up again in patchy brush-fires now and again.
But are there similarities between Creationism and what are now heresies? At some point the followers of Arianism must have thought they were on the true path, but with hindsight we can spot where it was flawed and which led to being declared heresy. Are there similar built-in flaws in Creationism that may lead onto such a declaration?
I don’t know how such a declaration is made. Is it via the Pope or a council of theologians?
Anyway, I thought it time to introduce a more spiritual element to Purgatory as there seems to be a lot of political issues on here at the moment.
Of course that presumes that the Hosts don’t view the thread as a Dead Horse. I don’t think it is as it’s not about the rights and wrongs of Creationism, but is more about heresies. However, I’m sure the Hosts won’t be backwards about coming forwards and if it gets put in the Stables of Rest then so be it.
A thing can only be heretical from a religious point of view. In the future when all religion has been out grown, all you will have are scientific theories and hypotheses.
Creationism will have been relegated to the same status as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson and the Grimm brothers.
--------------------
Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.
Posts: 4 | From: Lytham | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
If a heresy leads people away from the Faith once delivered, then yes - YEC is a corrosive doctrine, denying the comfort of the Church to those who are told they have to believe it, but can't, and those who are in the Church, but can no longer accept YEC.
It's not just bad science, but bad theology. While there probably isn't a Council which could meet to anathematise it, it'd be helpful for church leaders to condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Oh. I rather like the idea of egocentrism as a heresy.
I suspect its technically one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Church leaders should strongly condemn all such claims. YEC is not essential Christian doctrine and shouldn't be taught as such. However, neither is it heresy. Proponents of YEC are neither more nor less orthodox Christians than those who reject YEC based simply on their belief in YEC.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm not sure car manuals are a good analogy. Translated from a foreign language by someone without a good command of either the source or the final grammar; containing matter referring to features of models which are not the model the owner actually has; with a disclaimer suggesting that features may have changed since the printing; and having very little guidance about how to drive the thing.
As for YEC teaching only saying about God that He created the world, it actually says that he did so building into its nature a huge number of misleading features designed, apparently, to lead many people to hell. It says that in his works, he lies. That has to be heresy, doesn't it?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I was raised in fundamentalist churches and didn't start believing in evolution until I was in college and never heard anybody claim God planted fossils to purposefully deceive people only read others who said the claim was made in the past. That said, no, it isn't heresy. With a few notable exceptions (Pelagianism for instance), heretical doctrines deny either the full humanity/divinity of Christ or the Trinity.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
[QB] I'm not sure car manuals are a good analogy.
It seemed ok at the time I wrote it. Please forgive me for a clumsy oaf.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If a heresy leads people away from the Faith once delivered, then yes - YEC is a corrosive doctrine, denying the comfort of the Church to those who are told they have to believe it, but can't, and those who are in the Church, but can no longer accept YEC.
It's not just bad science, but bad theology. While there probably isn't a Council which could meet to anathematise it, it'd be helpful for church leaders to condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
I think the definition of heresy can be articulated more clearly. The dividing line between "possibly wrong" and "heretical" is illustrated in the history of the ecumenical councils. More than The Faith, an heretical doctrine was one that undermined the Gospel of divine love and salvation (and a fairly universal possibility of salvation at that). Their rejection of adoptionism and the like was based on exactly this. It was seen directly as a pastoral matter.
So the test is, does YEC fundamentally alter our understanding of salvation or the nature of God? Certainly when you get to deliberately placing fossils, it makes God look a little perverse but I don't see it as having an impact on salvation.
Then you come to the use of certain non-ecumenical doctrines like YEC as a barrier to entry to the church. I would suggest you are on desperately thin ground if you do this.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
[QB] I'm not sure car manuals are a good analogy.
It seemed ok at the time I wrote it. Please forgive me for a clumsy oaf.
Not at all clumsy - as I understood your post, you were quoting. And I was in a silly mood.
Maybe a Haynes manual! But that might suggest a need for consulting the Talmud.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankenstein
Shipmate
# 16198
|
Posted
If one takes the description of Creation in Geneses as a simplified explanation for a very complex matter, there is no problem.
The Trinity is generally seen as being beyond human understanding and therefore only capable of being explained in simple terms.
The question is not whether God created the Universe but how.
--------------------
It is better to travel in hope than to arrive?
Posts: 267 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The question is not whether God created the Universe but how.
Well - that depends on who you are. I don't doubt that God created the universe, but it isn't a 'given' just because some of us believe it.
And Welcome to the Ship - good to have a monster aboard. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If a heresy leads people away from the Faith once delivered, then yes - YEC is a corrosive doctrine, denying the comfort of the Church to those who are told they have to believe it, but can't, and those who are in the Church, but can no longer accept YEC.
It's not just bad science, but bad theology. While there probably isn't a Council which could meet to anathematise it, it'd be helpful for church leaders to condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
I think the definition of heresy can be articulated more clearly. The dividing line between "possibly wrong" and "heretical" is illustrated in the history of the ecumenical councils. More than The Faith, an heretical doctrine was one that undermined the Gospel of divine love and salvation (and a fairly universal possibility of salvation at that). Their rejection of adoptionism and the like was based on exactly this. It was seen directly as a pastoral matter.
So the test is, does YEC fundamentally alter our understanding of salvation or the nature of God? Certainly when you get to deliberately placing fossils, it makes God look a little perverse but I don't see it as having an impact on salvation.
Then you come to the use of certain non-ecumenical doctrines like YEC as a barrier to entry to the church. I would suggest you are on desperately thin ground if you do this.
Sorry, I missed this as I was poorly.
YECcies believe that YEC is a salvation issue, hinging on the inerrancy of the Word of God - if the Bible cannot be trusted in Genesis, it cannot be trusted elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, anti-theists take exactly the same line.
So, yes. YEC is a heresy. It stands between people and salvation.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
So the test is, does YEC fundamentally alter our understanding of salvation or the nature of God? Certainly when you get to deliberately placing fossils, it makes God look a little perverse but I don't see it as having an impact on salvation.
Does anyone genuinely argue that, or is it an allegation put about by those who want to mock brothers and sisters who I'd imagine most of us regard as sincere but misguided?
Oddly, although YEC doesn't IMHO fundamentally alter our understanding of God, arguing that he deliberately buried fossils to see if people would be misled by them, would. If we say that God is a God of truth, we do cause ourselves problems if we construct a theology which has him deliberately planting falsehoods in the earth.
If we place ourselves among those who think fossils have been buried to deceive, we also have to believe that it was the enemy came and sowed them there.
[ 15. December 2012, 15:18: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, yes. YEC is a heresy. It stands between people and salvation.
So anything is a heresy if it enables Professor Dawkins to use it to mock the Christian faith? Not perhaps a completely impossible definition of heresy, but an unusual one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, yes. YEC is a heresy. It stands between people and salvation.
So anything is a heresy if it enables Professor Dawkins to use it to mock the Christian faith? Not perhaps a completely impossible definition of heresy, but an unusual one.
No - Dawkins is not a believer, and as such, it doesn't matter to the Church what he says about the faith.
Senior Christian YECcies, on the other hand, have considerable influence over what is taught, or not taught, in both churches and schools, and they are corrupting the faith once received.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Senior Christian YECcies, on the other hand, have considerable influence over what is taught, or not taught, in both churches and schools, and they are corrupting the faith once received.
Are they? I don't think I've ever met one in any position of influence.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
So the test is, does YEC fundamentally alter our understanding of salvation or the nature of God? Certainly when you get to deliberately placing fossils, it makes God look a little perverse but I don't see it as having an impact on salvation.
Does anyone genuinely argue that, or is it an allegation put about by those who want to mock brothers and sisters who I'd imagine most of us regard as sincere but misguided?
I used to so regard them, until I started debating them and discovered that many of them will happily lie, distort and misrepresent to bolster their position. The best that can be said in some cases is that they're like a copper who's convinced someone is guilty but lacks suitable evidence to convict so manufactures it in order to secure a "rightful" conviction.
I haven't come across the "fossils placed by God" argument, but the Omphalos or "appearance of age" argument is used, which does raise the same questions about God as a perverse trickster. "Mainstream" Creation Science (sic) tends towards "no, the universe really does look young if you interpret the evidence properly", but then I've known creationists argue both lines simultaneously, which means confusion and inconsistency at best.
The issue of course is not that it gives Richard Dawkins another stick to beat religion with; it's that where it's the prevalent or default Christian position (and scarily I learn that such places exist), or even regarded seriously, it's a serious objection to anyone vaguely scientifically literate taking the faith seriously. Not many people are appealed to by Mark Twain's "believing what you know isn't true" definition of faith.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I remember being freaked out by creationists on an astronomy thread, where there was some discussion (and plenty of photos) of distant galaxies, quasars, and so on, and plenty of interesting discussion as to how such bodies are formed. But a couple of creationists dismissed it all and said, oh, they can't really be ancient/distant objects at all. When asked why, they had no reason really. The photos from Hubble were dismissed as 'must be something else'.
I found this disturbing, that someone could so glibly dismiss all this science, not by actually contributing any additional knowledge, but by dismissing knowledge already arrived at.
I expect there are creationists who do accept the existence of ancient/distant objects, but then they have to reconcile this with a relatively modern earth.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember being freaked out by creationists on an astronomy thread, where there was some discussion (and plenty of photos) of distant galaxies, quasars, and so on, and plenty of interesting discussion as to how such bodies are formed. But a couple of creationists dismissed it all and said, oh, they can't really be ancient/distant objects at all. When asked why, they had no reason really. The photos from Hubble were dismissed as 'must be something else'.
I found this disturbing, that someone could so glibly dismiss all this science, not by actually contributing any additional knowledge, but by dismissing knowledge already arrived at.
I expect there are creationists who do accept the existence of ancient/distant objects, but then they have to reconcile this with a relatively modern earth.
Do they think celestial objects are painted onto some sort of interstellar crystalline acetate?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think creationists find the ancient age and huge size of the universe problematical. It's very difficult just to deny it, in the face of all the astronomical research that has been carried out.
But if they accept the age and size of the universe, then the age of the earth itself becomes problematic, if we assume that it was formed by means of similar forces which formed other celestial objects.
I suppose then some YEC creationists have to see the earth as an exceptional case.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Creationism starts with "Genesis 1-3 are literal historical accounts." This is absolutely axiomatic, so any evidence you present must be being interpreted wrongly if the conclusion contradicts this. Therefore Hubble's pictures must be of nearby objects, OR the speed of light can't be constant, OR God created the light in situ, or SOMETHING, because the universe CANNOT be old; it just ISN'T.
This is, of course, why creationism cannot claim to be a science - it's not falsifiable; no null hypothesis can be entertained, nor any prediction that confirms the null hypothesis be suggested. That's why creationists always go quiet at the "what evidence would convince you that the universe is old" question; you might as well ask what would convince them that circles are square.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yes, but why are we getting excited about the iniquitous opinions of people and beliefs that so far as anybody we ever actually meet are concerned, are almost completely hypothetical? Unless all round me there are YECs wandering in disguise, as far as I know, round here they are about as rare as the Siberian Mammoth.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Creationism starts with "Genesis 1-3 are literal historical accounts." This is absolutely axiomatic, so any evidence you present must be being interpreted wrongly if the conclusion contradicts this. Therefore Hubble's pictures must be of nearby objects, OR the speed of light can't be constant, OR God created the light in situ, or SOMETHING, because the universe CANNOT be old; it just ISN'T.
This is, of course, why creationism cannot claim to be a science - it's not falsifiable; no null hypothesis can be entertained, nor any prediction that confirms the null hypothesis be suggested. That's why creationists always go quiet at the "what evidence would convince you that the universe is old" question; you might as well ask what would convince them that circles are square.
Some of the 'creationist astronomy' stuff available online is an absolute hoot. This is a jaw-dropper.
Complete rejection of stellar evolution would erode confidence in current understanding of stellar structure and would seem to repudiate much of physics as well. If creationists wish to scrap stellar evolution completely, then it is incumbent on us to rework stellar structure and/or physics in a convincing fashion.
This is from the creationresearch website, and you almost have to admire the chutzpah - 'would seem to repudiate much of physics as well'! Go for it, guys, lets have that reworking of physics by Monday please, at the latest!
Well, OK, God made these big lights, and some smaller lights - how am I doing so far? Then the big ones sort of shrink, and some of them blow up, presumably cos God is pissed. Hey, this stuff is easy. They look far away, but that's just an optical illusion, which astronomers haven't latched on to yet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Enoch; when I was at university the CU exec were almost entirely YEC, as was, as far as I could gather, the majority of the membership. This compares with when I were a lad, when it was definitely just a lunatic fringe.
My impression is it's on the rise, which is concerning. Real numbers are actually quite hard to get hold of though.
[ 16. December 2012, 23:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In the US, they attempt to get into the science syllabus in schools. I don't know if that is being tried yet in the UK, but we have to be prepared for it, and ready to resist. Defend science against the yahoos!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The question is not whether God created the Universe but how.
Well - that depends on who you are. I don't doubt that God created the universe, but it isn't a 'given' just because some of us believe it.
And Welcome to the Ship - good to have a monster aboard.
Frankenstein is the man, not the creature - how much of a monster he is is up for debate...
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
