[RD] What motivates creationism?

[Manfred Belheim]

God promised Noah that He would not destroy the earth again BY FLOOD. That's where we get rainbows from (Genesis 9). The next time God destroys the earth, it will be by fire. Global warming falls right into that; as do asteroids, or nuclear weapons.

Wow, what a wonderful promise. I can see why people worship him.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the OP's answer might be as simple as they want the Bible to be true (in the way that they read it). And so they deny things that imply that the Bible isn't true.

 

[Lexicus]

Wow, what a wonderful promise. I can see why people worship him.

A violent, patriarchal God for a violent, patriarchal people.

I think the OP's answer might be as simple as they want the Bible to be true (in the way that they read it). And so they deny things that imply that the Bible isn't true.

My answer too.

 

[timtofly]

I think the OP's answer might be as simple as they want the Bible to be true (in the way that they read it). And so they deny things that imply that the Bible isn't true.

What motivates people to want the Bible to be true?

What motivates people to want the Bible to be false?

The issue was not one sided.

 

[Lexicus]

What motivates people to want the Bible to be true?

What motivates people to want the Bible to be false?

The issue was not one sided.

Are you trying to imply that people believe in scientific theories like evolution because they want the Bible to be false?

 

[thecrazyscot]

What motivates creationism and intelligent design "theory"

You need to clarify exactly what you're talking about, because creationism as it's usually understood by people is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, while intelligent design on the whole isn't.

In regards to creationism, there are several different schools of thought.

1. The first is a literal interpretation of Genesis - i.e. "young earth creationism", or the belief that God literally created everything in 7 days. This has several motivations. First, the fear that if Genesis can't be taken literally, how can the rest of the Bible? (never mind that we Christians have never taken the whole Bible literally...) Second if Genesis isn't literal the theological problem arises of the centrality of Adam and Eve and how sin entered the world...where did creation "go wrong" thus necessitating the need for Christ? Most young earth creationists I know view this as an insurmountable problem, but obviously Christians who subscribe to other theories don't.

2. The second is, and I forget the exact term, but I'll call it "long-day creationism", wherein the interpretation for the sequence and detail of events is the same, but each day represents an epoch or some long period of time rather than a literal day. IMO this is a cop out as some pretty elaborate explanations are required for say, why the plants were able to survive for millions of years without a sun.

3. Third is my personal view, which is the literary interpretation. In other words, Genesis was never supposed to be a scientifically accurate account, rather it was a story God communicated to the Israelites in order to communicate some important truths. Besides, the cosmology laid out in Genesis very much resembles other ancient representations of the cosmos. However, this interpretation still very much holds to intelligent design.

There are other interpretations but I think these are the main ones.

Intelligent design is simply the idea that God is the creator, and that what exists now exists purposefully, not accidentally. If God truly exists as an all-powerful being, than He certainly could have simply spoken everything into existence as it is now. Or alternatively, he could have simply guided evolution. Either method would work just as well for an omnipotent being.

Evolution and ID are perfectly compatible.

So in many parts of USA and probably elsewhere (not going to make fun of USA here, just laying ground for the topic), there are people in science and education ministry whatchamacallits for example saying global warming isn't real because god's promise to Noa of not destroying the earth again,

Global warming does not have anything to do with intelligent design, so that would be a different discussion altogether.

and there's been made school textbooks teaching intelligent design instead of or as an alternative to evolution.

Again, confusing things. Are the textbooks teaching creationism or ID, which is perfectly compatible with evolution?

I believe in the separation of church and state, so state run schools really should teach common scientific knowledge rather than theological beliefs. That being said, I have absolutely zero problem with religious private schools or homeschoolers having scientific textbooks which teach intelligent design.

1. Scamming for money
This feels kinda odd, because there are a lot other things you could do to try and get easy money, I'd reckon. Getting into religion and quasi-science seems like a mess.

Sure, there are people who get into religion to get rich, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people, so this question is mostly just insulting.

Belief in a deity that created the world far, far predates evolution or modern scientific theory, so really the only question actually worth discussing is your second one.

2. Genuine belief
Isn't it kinda weird as a devout christian to try and play by other rules? And if you know what you do is messed up (that say intelligent design is something you just made up, but you do believe in god), isn't that kinda immoral?

Explain how Christians play by other rules? And the rest of the question is pretty badly garbled so I'm having some trouble understanding how it relates to genuine belief?

A violent, patriarchal God for a violent, patriarchal people.

 

[Lexicus]

Evolution and ID are perfectly compatible.

ID is compatible with everything and anything, which is why it isn't science.

Surely you're not going to dispute that the culture(s) that produced the Old Testament and the character Jehovah were violent and patriarchal?

 

[thecrazyscot]

ID is compatible with everything and anything, which is why it isn't science.

Did I miss where I said it was?

Surely you're not going to dispute that the culture(s) that produced the Old Testament and the character Jehovah were violent and patriarchal?

Simply rolling my eyes at your lumping 3,000 years of belief (EDIT: and billions of believers) into a tidy bucket. Discussion as to the character of God isn't within the scope of this thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does there necessarily have to be any ulterior motive beyond simply believing it to be the truth? I mean I'm sure in some cases there are ulterior motives, but the question seems to imply that there can only be ulterior motives.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

From what I've heard almost every week from creationists, they do seem to take every opportunity to show how everything in nature disproves evolution. I've even heard that the fact that motherhood exists proves that evolution cannot be true.

It seems to fit three ideas.

The first is that the natural world is so varied and complex, it's impossible for it to appear randomly, so it must be created. They compare it to how people invent things like aeroplanes (they say things like the plane didn't evolve). They use things like animal instincts and migrations to prove that such behaviour is created, because an animal is born with that knowledge instead of learning it. They also dismiss any science that disagrees with their view as false, such as anything that dates the Earth and that fossils are hoaxes.

The second is evolution was just another thing invented by intellectuals to prove themselves better than everyone else.

The third, which is the one they bring up frequently, is how evolution is the basis for Nazism and their ideas of a master race. They keep bringing up a quote from I think Goebbels about how if they didn't kill off everyone that's inferior, they're "sinning against natural selection".

 

[Lexicus]

Did I miss where I said it was?

Well, I wasn't arguing with you, just pointing it out. The express purpose of ID is to make creationism sufficiently vague that it can accommodate any scientific discovery, which makes it unfalsifiable, which makes it not science. Really kind of a Catch-22 for the creators of the 'theory.'

Simply rolling my eyes at your lumping 3,000 years of belief (EDIT: and billions of believers) into a tidy bucket. Discussion as to the character of God isn't within the scope of this thread.

Well, that wasn't exactly what I was doing, though I do find it a bit funny that you apparently think those 3,000 years of belief and billions of believers were not, in the overwhelming majority, violent and patriarchal.
Human history is essentially violent and patriarchal. Arguably civilization itself is inherently both violent and patriarchal.
That was, thus, not so much an attempt to lump anyone or anything into a tidy bucket, as to explain one of the reasons I think this whole Old Testament meme appealed (appeals) to many of those billions of believers over 3,000 years of history.

The third, which is the one they bring up frequently, is how evolution is the basis for Nazism and their ideas of a master race. They keep bringing up a quote from I think Goebbels about how if they didn't kill off everyone that's inferior, they're "sinning against natural selection".

Ironically, Darwin himself rejected this barbarous interpretation of the theory despite living in the unenlightened 19th century. You should check out "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot" by SJ Gould if you are interested in reading more about social Darwinism and its relationship with actual evolutionary science.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I think this is relatively simple.

Quite simply, children might be influenced by what their teachers tell them. Combine that with a rebellion against the parents that comes later… you can see where there’s serious anxiety that they’ll reject creationism entirely if evolution is taught as the one truth.

So, intelligent design comes into play. By being taught alongside evolution, it leaves the door open for something besides pure chance to have made the universe the way it is. The student is presented with both choices, and can now deduce for themselves whether to believe creationism or evolution.

It’s sort of like the Fairness Doctrine or Equal Time Rule in politics applied to science.

I’m not saying whether I agree with teaching intelligent design, just how I can see where the idea and the many people pushing it come from.

 

[tetley]

What motivates people to believe intelligent design is incompatible with science? Any time you visit a parking garage, it is full of intelligent designs, yet no one disputes that.

 

[Lexicus]

I think this is relatively simple.

Quite simply, children might be influenced by what their teachers tell them. Combine that with a rebellion against the parents that comes later… you can see where there’s serious anxiety that they’ll reject creationism entirely if evolution is taught as the one truth.

So, intelligent design comes into play. By being taught alongside evolution, it leaves the door open for something besides pure chance to have made the universe the way it is. The student is presented with both choices, and can now deduce for themselves whether to believe creationism or evolution.

It’s sort of like the Fairness Doctrine or Equal Time Rule in politics applied to science.

I’m not saying whether I agree with teaching intelligent design, just how I can see where the idea and the many people pushing it come from.

Well, it's silly because you're comparing apples and oranges. Intelligent design is just a topic of philosophical speculation. Teaching it "alongside" science is ridiculous because it implies that these are competing explanations, when in reality (as has been explained by thecrazyscott) ID is a philosophical tool specifically designed to make creationism compatible with evolution (I think most of us are agreed that evolution along with other science, most notably geology, explodes a literal reading of Genesis as a science textbook).

In short, evolution is not a philosophical tool - it's philosophical significance largely resides in the fact that it provides a non-magical explanation for the diversity of living things, but since the proponents of ID in the schools are already implicitly rejecting a worldview based on magic (hence trying to give a 'scientific' veneer to the fundamentally magical event of Creation) they are attempting to contest philosophical ground they've already implicitly conceded.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well, it's silly because you're comparing apples and oranges. Intelligent design is just a topic of philosophical speculation. Teaching it "alongside" science is ridiculous because it implies that these are competing explanations, when in reality (as has been explained by thecrazyscott) ID is a philosophical tool specifically designed to make creationism compatible with evolution (I think most of us are agreed that evolution along with other science, most notably geology, explodes a literal reading of Genesis as a science textbook).

In short, evolution is not a philosophical tool - it's philosophical significance largely resides in the fact that it provides a non-magical explanation for the diversity of living things, but since the proponents of ID in the schools are already implicitly rejecting a worldview based on magic (hence trying to give a 'scientific' veneer to the fundamentally magical event of Creation) they are attempting to contest philosophical ground they've already implicitly conceded.

Oh, I know it's apples and oranges.

The topic of discussion was why a lot of people fight so hard to implement intelligent design, so I answered. Concerned literalist parents want to be sure their children aren't led to reject creationism.

Yes, intelligent design and evolution can complement each other, but the reality is that evolution, as taught, tends to imply that it all happened on its own over time. In other words, an excellent way to contemplate rejecting the idea of a Supreme Being. Or at least, rejecting the Supreme Being as discussed in various religious texts that have something else to say about the matter.

Evolution is compatible with God, but it certainly is not compatible with a literalist Abrahamic God, because those texts clearly do not include evolutionary development. And ultimately, it is literalism that sponsors intelligent design more than anything, because it is the least flexible.

 

[MobBoss]

I think the OP's answer might be as simple as they want the Bible to be true (in the way that they read it). And so they deny things that imply that the Bible isn't true.

Partly. I think it is human nature to pursue knowledge, but to also try and explain that in which you are not knowledgeable.

In this context it doesn't mean the bible isn't true, but our ability to grasp it/explain it is limited.

For example, I certainly believe in a God that created all things. That doesn't mean i'm locked into thinking the universe/world is only 6000 years old (or whatever number it is), nor does it mean I don't believe in evolution - I simply choose to believe in a God that could design beings capable of evolving.

People want to believe in a higher power, but truly lack the capacity to comprehend what said higher power is capable of.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Well, I wasn't arguing with you, just pointing it out. The express purpose of ID is to make creationism sufficiently vague that it can accommodate any scientific discovery, which makes it unfalsifiable, which makes it not science. Really kind of a Catch-22 for the creators of the 'theory.'

Well, it's silly because you're comparing apples and oranges. Intelligent design is just a topic of philosophical speculation. Teaching it "alongside" science is ridiculous because it implies that these are competing explanations, when in reality (as has been explained by thecrazyscott) ID is a philosophical tool specifically designed to make creationism compatible with evolution (I think most of us are agreed that evolution along with other science, most notably geology, explodes a literal reading of Genesis as a science textbook).

Yes, ID is a philosophical tool designed to integrate modern science with religion...but just as a side note that doesn't mean it's an illegitimate or wrong tool.

In short, evolution is not a philosophical tool - it's philosophical significance largely resides in the fact that it provides a non-magical explanation for the diversity of living things, but since the proponents of ID in the schools are already implicitly rejecting a worldview based on magic (hence trying to give a 'scientific' veneer to the fundamentally magical event of Creation) they are attempting to contest philosophical ground they've already implicitly conceded.

The beginning of the universe is a fundamentally magical event, as science simply cannot explain it. Evolution only describes what happens afterwards; intelligent design simply assumes God guided the evolutionary process in some way. What ground has been conceded?

Tbh, this is all a secondary discussion anyways as the foundational assumption is in regards to the existence and nature of God. All these discussion boil down to that anyways.

Well, that wasn't exactly what I was doing, though I do find it a bit funny that you apparently think those 3,000 years of belief and billions of believers were not, in the overwhelming majority, violent and patriarchal.
Human history is essentially violent and patriarchal. Arguably civilization itself is inherently both violent and patriarchal.
That was, thus, not so much an attempt to lump anyone or anything into a tidy bucket, as to explain one of the reasons I think this whole Old Testament meme appealed (appeals) to many of those billions of believers over 3,000 years of history.

I'm not going to drag the thread this far off topic. If you'd like to discuss it further I'd be happy to in a different thread.

 

[Lexicus]

The topic of discussion was why a lot of people fight so hard to implement intelligent design, so I answered.

Yes, I think your answer was quite good in that it got at the thinking of a lot of people on this issue, particularly the issue of ID in the schools.

Yes, intelligent design and evolution can complement each other, but the reality is that evolution, as taught, tends to imply that it all happened on its own over time.

Well, this I'm not sure about. We did a bit of evolutionary bio in my high school class and I don't remember the unit being particularly big on the philosophy of it all. I can't even remember whether my teacher was religious or not.
To my mind, evolution is simply an observational fact. We know that organisms die and that they grow and change over generations - we could not have domesticated animals and plants and not known this. We could not have failed to notice that people who are related resemble each other more than people who are unrelated.

The question is what are the philosophical implications. If you basically concede that magic is not real, evolution should be pretty philosophically inert. It is simply a physical process explaining how life diversifies in the course of adapting to its environment. It asks, and answers, no metaphysical questions.

It's only if you are unwilling to dismiss the existence of magic that evolution becomes a philosophical hot potato.

 

[timtofly]

Are you trying to imply that people believe in scientific theories like evolution because they want the Bible to be false?

I was implying that, that was what El_Machinae was implying. The Bible was taught in education and even public education for at least 300 years before Darwin was born. It was still taught 100 years later. I may be wrong, but Darwin's search for knowledge arose out of such teaching. Whether or not his effort changed his view on the Bible, it certainly set a precedent to eventually divorce the biblical account from public opinion.

I daresay that without the theory, most scientist would not make it an issue at all. Even with the theory, it was not until teaching it was threatened, that it became an issue, regardless if it was on purpose or not.

I am still curious why a literal reading, or even a figurative reading of Genesis contradicts evolution. It is how human's interpret either view, just to make it seem contraversial, that tends to motivate either side. That is a clash of culture and or interpretive ideology.

Technically if one accepts God as a reality, creation is not magic either.

 

[tetley]

A better understanding of what science is would be in order: the scientific method. Hypothesis, experimentation, observation. The theory of evolution and the Big bang theory, while science (because they fall under hypothesis), is THEORY. People have this idea that because they're following science, that that's rock solid, and that's not the case. Do people really base their religion--or their "ability to rise above religion", as they prefer to think of themselves--on a THEORY? That is just as flimsy a house of cards as the religion they are claiming as debunked.

Plus, science is all about action and reaction. But at some point, some action has to be first. Something has to come out of nothing. Call it magic if you will, but science isn't doing any better. It's like this:

"Something has to be first. Something has to magically appear out of nothing, or none of all this would exist.".
"There is no such thing as magic."
"Then how did the very first form of energy or matter come into existence?"
"I don't know."
"Then you don't know for a fact that there is no magic, do you?"