Creationism - science fiction or fact? Christian or not?
459634
I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but obviously one can be christian and not think that the bible is meant to be read as literal truth in every word.  you'd go crazy reconciling the contradictions.
279734
What the Archbishop said was: "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." \n\nSo in essence he's suggesting it's not comparing like with like to compare Creationism with Darwinism.\n\nHe's also trying to avoid division in the Church of England at a time when the Church's role in an increasing secular society is being marginalised.
679573
Creationism is dead...if it was ever alive to begin with.\nIt was conjured up in Seattle think tank by Brainiac spilling coffee on floor.\nCan't wait for the next publicity stunt in the religious arena.\noh yeah....I forgot about the Da Vinci Code.\nremember...its fiction.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
22364
Planets form from the same dust cloud that forms a star.\n\nPlanets are round because rock is not strong enough to hold its shape under its own weight.  \n\nIntelligent design is a variety of the pseudoscience of creationism, which was created by Christian fundamentalists.\n\nThe Christian doctrine of creation, as understood by mainstream Christians, teaches that God created and sustains the universe. It does not specify whether the original creation was accomplished by divine creation (creation ex nihlo), the Big Bang, or by another means.\n\nFundamentalists believe that the Bible is inerrantly and infallibly true. They fear that if any aspect of the Bible is not "literally true" (that it doesn't mean what they interpret it to mean), then the salvation promised by Jesus was a lie.\n\nThis extreme belief, coupled with general knowledge of science, has led fundamentalists to create a set of beliefs to rationalize their interpretation of the Bible with their knowledge of science. That set of pseudoscientific beliefs has evolved from creationism to scientific creationism, to intelligent design.\n\nBy far, the large majority of Christians believe in the spiritual truths revealed in the Bible, including Jesus' promise of salvation, even though they believe that the Bible contains factual errors, such as referring to the "four corners" of the earth.  \n\nThus, by a wide margin, most Christians believe in the doctrine of creation, but do not believe in the pseudoscience of creationism, whatever name it goes by.
124342
I am a Christian, and I believe the world was created by God. Every finest detail was His idea.\n\nLet me staff my point. Scientist of today believe in evolution. This theory states that everything you see today was created by chance. It states that right in the beginning, a little one-cell'ed animal fell into the ocean by accident. This animal started to grow and learned to swim and to have kids. Later on, it found out that it could live on land, and (over millions of years) grew feet to walk on. The evolution process went through all the different stages of animal life, and at last humans came into existence.\n\nMy first objection towards this is that, if humans were evolved, two humans had to be "evolved" or "born" at the very same time for humans to continue to exist. It is insane to think that mankind came from only the evolution of one man. There had to be a number of men which "evolved" at the very same time. Now that is a lot asked.\n\nI want to tell you a story which Sir Isaac Newton used to prove that evolution is false. One day, one of his friends (a devout evolutionist) was sitting at Sir Isaac's desk. Sir Isaac was busy doing some work. The friend was busy admiring a very beautiful model of the universe which stood on Sir Isaac's table. \nThe friend then asked, "Who made this thing?"\n"No one," replied Sir Isaac bluntly.\n"No, really, tell me who made this thing. It is very beautiful." said the friend.\nTo which Sir Isaac replied, "All the pieces of that model were just lying around here, and they all just started to drift toward each other, and one day when I came here, this beautiful thing was standing on my desk!"\n\nI think Sir Isaac really answered the question.\n\nHope I helped you out on that one...
682614
Spock please don't be angry at me.i don't understand your question fully.can you please go into a little more detail how Christians reading Genesis proves Jim Darwinism right.i did some homework and typed Jim Darwin in my web browser and can't find one article on him.the only place he is listed is on yahoo groups.i expected to find Jim's teachings or his book but after countless searches i can't find anything on him.my conclusion is Jim Darwinism is a fun group where people can get to together and make up a funny religion.i guess this is his fantasy.though i don't understand why he would get hate mail.as a believer,I'm taught not to judge other people unless i be judged myself.i can't imagine Jim Darwinism ever becoming a legitimate religion because no-man can declare he is a God.for if you have a man who calls himself a God,this is not religion but a cult.we have seen to many cults where the "God" sucked money out of people and led them to suicide.Waco comes to mind.not to mention Christian rev. who exploit the tithe to their advantage.i loved reading his made up saint and creation theories.it was so funny!we still need evolution taught side by side with intelligent design because atheist's don't believe in God.\n                   God Bless
396923
Creationism is based in religion, but there is scientific backing..  The scientific evidence for it is called Intelligent Design and offers a great deal of evidence for a creator.  "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe give a great scientific refutation of macro-evolution (species into species evolution).  If science is the search for truth then all avenues must be explored.  I'm a creationist and a scientist, the best science I've seen supports a creator.  Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution have major flaws and gaps, how did the information in living beings come about.  When we see an ordered room, machine, book, etc. we know an intelligent agent was at work.  Same in nature.  If evolution didn't create things, then there was a creator.  As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true."
181725
depending on who you ask....\n\ni'm a christian, who's looked into and studied the past and how to explain the existence of dinosaurs and how it could correlate with the bible.\n\ni believe the earth was made in 6 days and adam and eve and the "dinosaurs" were made.  and like someone else said, basically back then the earth was like a huge greenhouse... everything was much larger than they are nowadays.  and also like someone else said, there has been proof found that humans coexisted with dinosaurs (that link above).  and there is also proof that carbon-14 dating can be highly inaccurate (they tested a bone and the skin attached to it... they came up with millions of years difference between the skin and bone of the same animal!!!).  so just because all these scientists say this stuff doesn't mean that the bible can be easily discounted...\n\nscience is what you make it and can be easily skewed... i know this, i'm a science major!!!!  also from all my science classes... i really really don't find the whole evolution idea plausible.... to me, personally, having a belief in a superior being creating everything is more likely than everything evolving from an amoeba.  but hey, that idea runs better with other people and they have no room for believing in a being and hey, that's their choice.\n\nso i personally think that when the floods came (also when that greenhouse effect i mentioned earlier ended) that maybe the dinosaurs habitats were too effected that they died out and became extinct?\n\ni do agree with animals and such becoming better adapted over time.  i mean, we have too... if the environment changes, we need to keep up, otherwise we'll go the way of the dinosaurs.\n\nand for reference, the bible puts the earth at around 12,000 years old.
263310
ROFL, typical responses that you were probably expecting given your question.  You have logged onto a site where it seem many literalist fanatics like to reside.  The vast majority of christians in my country, the UK, do not believe or wouldn't even entertain the idea of creationism -As a whole, thankfully, we are a country of ardent Evolutionists.  I cannot say the same for the US, maybe some US citizen can.\n\nThere is a massive amount of research and findings that support the evolution theory, but it is that, a theory.  In fact almost everything in science is a theory, Science isn't math.  Scientists want to know the truth, most don't care whether evolution is the correct theory or not, they just want to know the answer.  At present based on all the available work done world wide, the scientific community and most european societies accept that evolution has the best foundation, evidence and answers to how we and world got here.  They have spent the most time looking at it too.  There is no accepted peer-review paper on why creationism is true or even worthy of investigation. \n\nWhy would I accept a book that was compiled by a roman for political means as the truth to all things, because the book itself tells me too, please come on.\n\nDarwin sat, thought and observed.  Since his theory has been constantly looked at, and 9 times out of 10 the evidence supports it.  For those 1/10, we just don't know the answer yet, ID and creationism is not the answer; I will not be jumping to conclusions prematurly.\n\nour science isn't perfect and we often tear down pre-existing theories.  Evolution will be no different.  The fact that it has lasted since its conception is a testament to it's probable correctness.\n\nScience itself will tell you that given all the evidence Evolution is still the best theory they will endorse for how we all got here.  And in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to prove evolution to me.  Despite looking, and reading throughourly creationist arguments and evidence, not one of them even remotely made me doubt evolution.  The evidence for evolution is quite simply overwelming.\n\nWe cannot and should not accept old ancient texts versions simply because they are there, and others do.  It should be demonstratably true, and the evidence should match the hypothesis.  Creationism doesn't even come close to a science.
37439
Reporting from Argentina :-)\nThere is no such debate here. I work as a teacher and I've been both in public and private colleges, and also in a religious (catholic) one. \nEvolution is accepted and taught everywhere that I'm aware of. \nAlso, the only creationists I know belong to christian evangelist minorities. Two of my best friends are creationists and we've never argued over the matter.\nCatholics here are not intransigent or bigoted; I'm sure there are some who believe in a litteral interpretation of the Bible, but they keep to themselves. \nI'm aware of the debate in the USA, mostly because  in the Evolution course I took we used US textbooks and they had whole chapters about it. We skipped those ;)\nI think it's very sad.
771125
Creationism.  Although largely faith based there is also substantial evidence for creation....\n\n....as well as hardly any evidence for evolution....
451517
My dads a christian minister, and he believes in evolution - he says that the creation story in the bible is like a parable, but in acutal fact it took much much longer than 7 days to create everything, and evolution is part of god's plan - it's how he created everything.  He says that evolution cannot be agrued with, as there are no holes in the 'theory' - it is a fact, not a theory,  so the only sensible way to look at the creation story is as a parable.
154015
The existence of dinosaurs is a scientifically proven FACT. The Bible is a traditional compendium of narratives spanning many centuries. Belief in the Bible is a matter of FAITH.\nIf you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there's no place for dinosaurs. Or you could come up with some laughable (from a scientific viewpoint) and wild theory such as the ones mentioned above.\nIf you are able to understand that the Bible holds so many much more important messages and ideas, and that it was composed in very different historical and cultural circumstances (and some parts are just not applicable today), then you can approach paleontology and evolution without feeling that you're condemning yourself.  \nFaith and science are not incompatible.\n\n------------------------------------\ncanislupus, that was _awesome_ lol!\n\nHowever, I've answered in earnest, I hope the asker is not offended by the joke.
16854
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
106520
Creationism was created to protect Fundamentalist's belief in the inerrancy of scripture.  As they see it, the Bible is inerrantly true and if any small part of the Bible, even one word, were to be proven false, then all of the rest of the Bible, including it's spiritual truths, would be called into question.   \n\nThis understanding of the Bible does not make sense to very many people.  Most everyone can see that the Bible is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, myth, and legend.  Further, hardly anyone believes that an error in the Bible's statement of fact casts doubt on its expression of spiritual truths.\n\nThe Fundamentalists and their ilk, the Evangelicals, are way out in la-la land on this.
669415
>>>>Is Creationism really science?\n\nNo. Science requires that a theory be potentially able to be proved wrong by readily collected data. Nobody can provide a list of observations that would falsify creationism. Therefore creationism fails the basic test for being science.\n\n>>>> Is it totally based upon relegious beliefs from the >>>> Bible....\n\nNo, it is mostly based on tradition and superstition. The majority of people who base their religious beliefs on the Bible are not Young Earth Creationists.\n\n>>>>>what is the basis of Evolution?\n\nObservational evidence and repeatable experiments. Over a hundred years of observational evidence and repeatable experiments.\n\n\n>>>Does it have a basis beyond observation?\n\nNot really, unless you want to consider the observation of experimental results "Beyond observation". All science is based on observation of evidence.\n\n>>>> By definition can science, or scientific investigation,\n>>>> include observations beyond the five senses?\n\nOf course it can. Science routinely investigates things like  ultraviolet light or the population dynamics of bacteria or the interactions of subatomic particles. None of those things can be observed with any of the five senses.\n\nScience has no problem with accepting observations beyond the five senses.\n\nThe only requirement is that either the observations be replicable or the conclusions be falsifiable. If disinterested observes can repeat your observations you can use the observations of a Native American spirit guide and still be engaged in top level science.