What is Creationism?

One significant difference between YEC and theistic evolution, and many other points of view, is that
YEC believe in descent with modification while others believe in ascent with modification as the general rule.Take cats for example. YEC believe there was an original Cat Kind which has diversified into the many different cats we see today, from tabby to tiger, generally by loss of genetic information as each adapted to different environments. Others believe that the cat family came from a non-cat ancestor, ultimately the same microbial ancestor as all other creatures, with production of much new genetic information, features, and body plans.This of course is a generalisation and I know that evolutionists agree that genetic information can be lost, as shown in Lenski's LTEE, I am talking about the overall scope rather than particular instances.So since we believe that all species of cats today came from a common ancestor we do in a restricted sense believe in evolution and speciation. This is why examples of adaptation and speciation are of no particular concern to us.New species? So what?
Cit+ trait in E. Coli? Meh.
Finch beaks changing size? Ho hum.
Trinidad guppies? Yawn.
London Underground Mosquito? So?

Some YECs believe. Nope. And indeed new genera. At this rate we'll have you admitting to new families any year now. "Sure, cats and dogs have a common ancestor, but this is only 'descent with modification', a phrase which Darwin only used twenty times in the Origin of Species to refer to evolution. So it barely counts."

Well, I cannot tell who you mean by "many other points of view" and "while 'others' believe in ascent with modification"Are the "others" you are talking about here those of us who are disputing what you have to say about evolution?If so, then you are incorrect about us and incorrect about what we are saying about our view of evolution. The evidence leads us to conclude that cats are descended from a Carnivore common ancestor and a Mammalian common ancestor, and a vertebrate common ancestor, and on back to some Animalia common ancestor. Carnivore PhylogenyNone of this is based on beliefs, but rather evidence.Belief in the "production of new genetic information" completely belongs to creationists. OK, but what are you doing here then? You just popped in to tell us how bored you are about evolutionary biology?Thanks, good to know.

All of that diversification in the short time after the flood and before Greeks and others started observing natural history?That's got to be 1) faster evolution than any scientist has ever proposed, and 2) an amazing screeching halt to the diversification when folks started looking.And as I asked back in Message 45 how do you address the dating problem? How do you compress all of these changes into what can't be more than two thousand years?

Crocoduck? Now THAT would get my attention!!!!! HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

At least it doesn't have 4 legs, that would be the work of Satan.

Logical fallacy of equivocationbiology descent as in descendants, offspringyou descent as in going down stairs (to go with ascent going up stairs)Argument shotEnjoy

"Rational belief" is an oxymoron.

The problem is that it is just a religious belief and has no scientific relevance. Creationists can't measure, define, or demonstrate what information is with respect to genetics. It is just a throw away term to give the impression that they have an answer when in fact they have none.

If you expect every question to eventually be answered by evidence, you will be waiting for an eternity.The only difference between you and I is that I decided to believe and you decided it was unproductive and unsatisfying.I believe that science and evidence will not be enough to carry our species, while you evidently think that it is all we have. You have essentially given up on belief.

The problem with belief is which belief? And how do you decide?A google search shows there are about 4,200 religions in the world today.It also shows there are upwards of 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today.Without evidence, how can anyone decide which (if any) of these is the "true" one?

Yes, if you want a good answer, it may take a while. But if you want just any old bad answer, I can give you six off the top of my head. Yes, I find random bad answers unsatisfying. (By the way, "random bad answers" would be a good definition for creationism.)

First I would need to ask which "Wiki" you quoted and why no link? BTW, Wikipedia' article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps points out that the term was created by theologians " to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence."BTW, I see that you were not quoting Wikipedia, but rather their quoting of one R. Laird Harris, a Presbyterian minister. You should have also informed us of whom you were quoting rather than misattributing that quote.But that doesn't really matter, because I have repeatedly seen creationists rely on "God of the Gaps" thinking, especially the "intelligent design" movement, though the ICR would frequently go there as well. They seem to hold the position that if you present a natural explanation for something, then you are denying God; eg, that if evolution is true, then God doesn't exist. For example, I read an essay by Phillip Johnson, the lawyer co-founder of ID, in which he expressed his opposition to evolution because "it leaves God with nothing to do." Sheer idiocy, which is shared by far too many creationists. I view these gappists as "fake creationists"; they don't really believe in the Creator, but rather only in their own inadequate theologies for which they will go to the ends of earth to protect from reality.A real creationist would not say that naturalistic explanations disprove God, but rather that their Creator God is behind all those naturalistic processes. There is no conflict between evolution and creation. The only conflict comes when one tries to misinterpret and misrepresent evolution and creation. When one tries to insert whatever contrary-to-fact beliefs that their theology demands. When one resorts to "God of the Gaps" theology instead of a "God as Sovereign over Nature" theology.A Creator does not fly in the face of evidence. The "creators" that creationists want to invoke do -- "creators", because there are so many different creationist theologies, such that I feel that we should call them "Legion" (yes, I do wish to invoke the demonic connotation there). Bad theology is a big problem which does so much personal and social damage and I see so much bad theology among creationists.As I've already said, the definition of "creationist" is "anti-evolution" (and anti-any-science-they-think-conflicts-with-their-theology, but then they misrepresent all those ideas as "evolution", so "anti-evolution" should suffice). I've seen many creationists try to tie you down to a more specific definition of "creationist" and then they would claim to not fit that definition -- I'm sure I saw Dredge do that to dodge the label of YEC by claiming that he accepts an old earth, but everything else was still according to YEC theology. And you will find IDists (or those using that as a smoke screen) who will try to exempt themselves by claiming to not be young-earth. But still, the fundamental definition of "creationism" is opposing evolution and whatever other science because of their theology or even just some kind of philosophical discomfort.There's a filk song, The Word of God whose refrain is: "Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world." When AOL used to host websites, I encountered a Christian grandfather (since passed away, I'm fairly sure) who wrote about The First Testament. The First Testament is Nature, God's Actual Creation. The Second Testament was the Bible whose purpose was to guide Man to the First Testament. I once tried to point our member, Faith, in that direction, that "God wrote the rocks, God wrote the world." She quite literally could not understand that idea and rejected it outright, refused to even consider it. A true creationist would have understood it; a protector of one's own theology would not.There's also an issue about answering questions. I think you have another reply about that that I can reply to.

There are different kinds of questions. Quite different.This is bringing in another idea, the call to include "goddidit" into science. Bad idea. Very bad idea. And completely useless.A lot of discussion and philosophical waffling has gone into trying to decide what's scientific. As a professional engineer (albeit software, with which other engineers will take strong issue), I must protest, "Dammit, Jim! I'm an engineer, not a philosopher!" But practically speaking, the primary quality of scientific questions is "How does it work?" Not "why", but rather "how".Now, what does a "goddidit" "answer" do for a scientific "how does it work" question? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It actually does great harm, but wait for the next paragraph or the next one or few after that. If we ask whether God did it or didn't do it, what actual effect does that have on the question of "how does it work?". None whatsoever. Did Ganesha do it? Same outcome.But you may protest, "But if God exists, then why not acknowledge it?" Whatever use can including irrelevant facts have? My family's last dog was a Chihuahua-mix. My current car is a Honda Accord Hybrid. Those are true facts! Whatever relevance does that have to the question of how does a computer work? None whatsoever! There are multiple encylopediae of true facts that you could insist must be included in every scientific answer. What does it add to that answer to include those absolutely true facts? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. What does it subtract to leave out those same absolutely true facts? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. What effect does "goddidit" have on scientific answers? Absolutely none whatsoever. Except for the great harm it can do.First, let's return to an earlier theme. An actual creationist would believe that God created everything and is behind everything, so why would anyone need to state the obvious. A fake creationist would have a shit fit.What harm can "goddidit" do? Plenty! Actually, we covered most of that in an old closed topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY).First, if you answer a "how" question with "God did it", then you have not actually answered the question. You just answered a "who" question, but that does not respond to the "how" question at all. IOW, you just side-stepped out of the way of the real question. In case you don't know, real questions are extremely important, so you should avoid side-stepping them.Plus, there's a little side-rule of science: The best answers are the ones that lead to new questions. This reasoning was part of what immediately informed me that IDist Phillip Johnson's "rules of courtroom evidence" argument against evolution was pure and utter bullshit. Metaphorically, science is not a courtroom procedure, but rather science is a police investigation. We are looking for clues and we will follow clues to wherever they lead. We are not trying to make a case (courtroom), but rather we are trying to seek out the truth. We have these few clues, but we are sure that there are more clues out there. So those clues that lead to those more clues would be more valuable to us than clues that lead to dead ends. In that sense, "goddidit" leads to no new clues. Your entire investigation has arrived at a screeching halt. Do you see how that feels?Now to the most insidious part of "godddidit". You have a question about how the world/universe works. Some idiot proclaims "goddidit!" You don't accept that, but rather you want real answers. What are you actually doing? "GOD DID IT!!! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND????" In other words, "goddidit" is a way of closing any further investigation. To question "goddidit" is to question God Herself! You simply do not do such things and retain certain body parts.At this point, I feel that I need to remind you that I have been a confirmed atheist for more than half a century (ie, I became an atheist around the standard age of confirmation when I started reading the Bible and found it completely unbelievable).There are different kinds of questions. As we have already discussed, the scientific question are "how" questions as in "how does this work?". There are also the "how" questions of "how should we do this?" As our minister would say (Unitarian-Universalist), the truly religious question is "How then should we lead our lives?"Science works best for scientific questions, for questions of "how does this work?"Science does not work as well for the really important questions, the questions of "How then should we lead our lives?" For those kinds of questions, philosophy and theology work far better. Considering their severe limitations.The real problem is that the methods for addressing those kinds of questions, the really interesting and important kinds of questions, really suck big time.Science can't answer them, but neither can anything else.

Did you mean "no scientific evidence."?Hybridization evidence supports the hypothesis that all cats are closely related and belong to the same kind. "[T]here are many reports of hybridizations either occurring spontaneously or deliberately undertaken. Seven of the eight major cat lineages reported by Johnson et al. are linked by hybridizations. Only the Bay Cat Lineage has not been linked by hybridization to another lineage. Phenotypically, however, it is closely related to the Caracal lineage." The cat family - creation.com