Why don't creationists explain creation?

[chakka35]

Experts will explain evolution in as much detail as you want. They will admit to areas which are still unclear, but will often add "but we're working on it". The science claims to do nothing but explain how modern complex life evolved from very primitive life, and that it does with utter clarity and elegance. It claims nothing about the origins of the universe or (as yet) how that primitive life came about.

Not so creationists. Although their claim is the extravagant one of knowing how the whole universe came about, and all the life in it, they never offer a single word of explanation.
Ask a creationist what form his god takes, how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used, and you'll be treated with indignant amazement. "For heavens sake," you'll be told, " you don't ask questions like that of God! Behave yourself! Just believe it, that's all!". No explanation even permitted.

Instead, creationists spend much of their time knocking evolution, though what they expect to gain by that is beyond me. If evolution were to be discredited tomorrow it would have to be replaced by something equally rational, equally logical, equally supported by masses of evidence and equally explicable!
The idea that the only alternative is creationism is absurd: thinkers, when stymied, do not turn to the supernatural.

So why don't creationists drop their pointless and hopeless sniping at evolution and tell us all about their own subject?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Ah Waldo, so when you �quote� people �endlessly� this is called �articulate debate� yet when anyone else does it they are being �facetious�.

I don't believe I said any such thing. I am happy to categorically state for your general well being and gladness of heart that neither quoting nor length are problematic to me. I trust this makes you warm and tingly inside.

How very grown up of you.

Your evident dislike of me seems to be manifesting itself in what must be very disagreeable ways for you, Octavius, and I cannot believe you are proud of finding your hackles raised so often, given I am such a flea. I also note you attack me even when you don't actually disagree with my essential point, which I would suggest has gone past the tipping point somewhat.

Perhaps you could pray to God for a little bit of fortitude and cheek-turniness?

I would do the same, but sadly I am godless scum and probably possessed by demons.

Rarr. I am scary and cannot be bothered to be nice to people who insist the earth is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary. I don't play nicely. I refuse to dignify idiocy with politeness. Rarr... I am a mean boy; my mummy would be very upset at my poor manners but I don't even care because my soul is that corrupt and sometimes I use the wrong fork to eat my main course and I insist on using facts and evidence in discussion. I am more naughty than Aleistair Crowley. I listen to Mariah Carey records backwards at midnight on *your* stereo. (etc)

[dundurn]

This 'debate' seems to go on and on and there seem to be a hard core of contributors who seem unwilling either to let it drop or to permit the opposition to have the last word. A basic problem is that most of you seem to start out from mutually exclusive premises. The 'creationists' refuse to allow God to do anything other than their sort of miracles while the 'scientists' have shut their minds to any possibility of a purpose to the universe. If it ain't random, they don't want to know.

I sit unashamedly in the middle and disagree with both camps.

Let there be light. (There was a big bang!) The earth was without form and void. (It coalesced out of a primordial disk of matter around the Sun).Fish were created before land animals before Man. (Written several thousand years before any theory of evolution and slightly longer before Watson & Crick). At each stage of the process the position was self-sustaining - (God saw that it was good).

Now my problem is that unless you start out from a position of closed-minded denial of any possibility of the other side having a portion of right on their side, I cannot see how these two positions contradict each other in any meaningful way. I believe in a God-given creation. The fact that he used evolution to create our modern world and us, I don't find in the least worrying or objectionable.

[WaldoMcFroog]

You make a rather big assumption that any of us at the poles, regardless of which one, started off there and haven't, in fact, arrived there as a result of deeper investigation.

[jake-the-peg]

Would you find it objectionable then if someone wanted to teach in schoos that humans did not evolve and were created a few thousand years ago?

Because I would!

[Theland]

I am not a scientist, and I make no claim to understand science at the level being discussed.
I look to science for answers, and what do I find? Yes, two camps, one claiming that evolution is proven, and the other saying that if you breed dogs over and over and over and over and over and over again, you might get a bigger / smaller / long / short haired dog or whatever, but most certainly, you will get a dog!
To question this anomaly is to invite comments such as 'wilfully ignorant ... and he is!' But I am sitting in the middle looking at apparent faults in one camp, and being told I should be looking at faults in the other.
Then it is amusing to watch those with a 'mass meeting' mentality who look each way before raising their arm to vote, and maybe add a few barbed comments for flavour.
This section was like a wake yesterday, then I 'wilfully' stuck my head in the pillory and shouted, "Jesus Christ is Lord," and bingo, the mobs came tumbling out of the taverns to see who it was who was about to be stoned!
Cool eh?

[dundurn]

Waldo. I just don't understand why sitting at either end necessarily 'disproves' the other point of view. The 'creationist' view is more obviously 'closed', but I find the Dawkins view equally as irrational. It's beautifully logical but it's still discussing a mechanism as if it was a purpose.

Jake. Yes I would object because I find the evidence for evolution to be overwhelming. In particular I find it insulting to my intelligence and my concept of God to be told that fossils are put there as a 'test' of our faith or that the Grand Canyon was formed in anything other than a very long time. I also object, however to anyone telling me that because they have been able to use their (in my view) God-given intelligence to decipher a tiny part of the universe that that means there can be no purpose to it.

[jake-the-peg]

You see dundurn, you're in our camp!

I don't think most scientists care too much right now if people want to see the hand of God in the initial creation.

It's just the anti-evolution pseudo science that's put about that has to be stamped on.

It's not too bad in this country right now but if it's not challenged before you know it we'll be like the US and teachers will be being asked to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution

[Octavius]

I wouldn�t object jake, I think it is a belief system, along with many others that should be taught, explored and quesitoned (in RE lessons as has been said numerous times on here before) - but then I would also support teaching of the theory of evolution in Science lessons. It is certainly how I was taught at school, even though it was RC. Aint done me no harm.

Waldo, I would imagine that listening to Mariah Carey backwards is infinitely more bearable than the alternative.

[chakka35]

Er...would somebody like to try answering my question, please?

To say that ludvig answered it, Octavius, is ludicrous. He merely restated the creationist stance as we all know it. To save your reading my question again. let me repeat it:

Evolutionists expain every detail of how evolution works.

Why can't you, ludvig, Theland, Clanad and all the rest of you give us the detail of how creation works (worked)? Merely to repeat the dogma is not to answer the question.

Nor do any of the side-issues that have arisen answer it.

If you can't, then say so, and we'll switch to another topic.

[keyplus90]

Here is Creation explained.

Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

[keyplus90]

Cont-
Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want it or not:

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?� I think, however, that we must�admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).

In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth and all that is in between: Almighty God.

[Booldawg]

I take science with as much of a pinch of salt as I take theology. Are these the same scientists that tell us to drink at least 3 litres of water a day and then 5 years later tell us drinking that amount of water is bad for us? All backed up with very plausible theories from doctors and professors with an entire alphabet of letters after their names.

[Clanad]

The problems in establishing any meaningful dialog (in the full definition of the word) in this type of forum are many. Ranging from bias to understanding the importance of inference as a valid scientific and creation based hypothesis for what we observe today. But in fairness to chakka's request, let me try to condense, as much as possible, one way Special Creation can be adequately explained. Understand, upfront, there's a vast difference bewteen old earth creationism and that proposed by adherents of young earth creationism. I'll not take the time and effort to present arguments for both, since the following model rests on what an age of the universe reasonably agreed upon, that being something near 14.5 billions of years old.
Also, you will need to allow some cutting and pasting in the interest of something approaching brevity. I can certainly word the basis for the model, if that were to prove anything, since I'm not claiming to be the orginator of the ideas... far from it.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.
The model begins with what we call the Big Bang (a particularly uninformed misnomer, but one we all seem to understand). One has to comprehend that prior to the discoveries within the last few decades of a beginning of the universe, time, and matter from nothing was absolutely earth-shaking in the scientific community. The reverberations are still being felt.
As an example of the implications, Einstein actually predicted the findings later confirmed, of a hot, big bang beginning, but he was unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe. (Source: Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativit�tstheorie, 1917).
One of the extremely significant successive developments of the universe following the singularity, within billionths of trillionths of a second, was inflation... an unimaginably huge and rapid expansion. My point is that this aspect (as well as many others) was explained by several writers of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah 42:5 �This is what the Lord says�He who created the heavens and stretched them out.� and (you look them up) Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18. Three of the verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

So, OK, the stretching out of the heavens is both �finished� and �ongoing� is made all the more evident in Isaiah 40:22 when the literal meaning of the Hebrew verbs is understood.
The Fingerprint of God tells the story of astronomers� early reaction to findings that affirmed a cosmic beginning, hence Beginner. the argument continues, of course.
Fast forward about 11 billion years or so... the Earth being around 4.5 billions of years old, fossil finds indicate complex microbial life arose suddenly about 4 billion years ago give or take... very quickly in an extremely hostile environment.
Two scientists from Stanford University, Michael M. Tice and Donald R. Lowe, recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. "Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex. Just how complex is only recently being understood. Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple."
Billions of years followed on allowing bio-deposits from the earliest microbials created by God to provide a living environment for humans.
Only one example... cyanobacteria pumped oxygen into the early Earth's atmosphere.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Nearing finish

Fast forward again... 540 million years ago, the Cambrian �Explosion� a dramatic event in life�s history occurred. Over the course of perhaps less than 2-3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on earth appeared. Since that time no new animal phyla have been introduced (Source: The Community Structure of the Middle Cambrian Phyllopod Bed (Burgess Shale)).
"In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that has remained troubling for the naturalistic paradigm; namely, that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships" (Source: ibid, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History). Simply, following that event, the rule was for phyla to arise, remain in stasis for periods of time and disappear, being the same as when they first appeared.
This is the key factor to God's prepartion of Earth for the introduction of man... periods of creation (as explained in
Genesis) followed by sudden extinction events followed by yet other creation events. (About 40 animal phyla out of an estimated 70 have disappeared since that time. i call it evolution in reverse).
"The Cambrian Explosion has long been an enigma for biology.The more we learn about the introduction of complex animals on earth, the more puzzling the Cambrian event becomes for evolutionary biologists. The explosive appearance of the nearly all possible skeletal designs in the Cambrian fauna defies a natural process explanation."
Yet, this is exactly what one would expect to see in the fossil record if the God of the Bible were responsible for the creation of animal life on earth.
Contd.

[Clanad]

At last

As to man... "A new discovery about a genetic phenomenon called "heteroplasmy" revises the date for our oldest female ancestor, Eve.Previous research on mitochondrial DNA (the DNA present in organelles outside the cell's nucleus) fixed the earliest date for Eve at 150,000 years ago. (Other sciences will have to supply a minimum date). This latest discovery recalibrates the earliest date down to one much closer to the rough biblical date of 12,000 to 60,000 years ago." (Source: Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science). All fossil remains of hominids were part of God's creation but had no soulishness, until man was created, as described in Genesis and received the breath of life from Adonai.
"Entire books have been written on the subject, but briefly, historical Christian theology has affirmed that mankind was made in the imago Dei (Latin for image of God) according to Genesis 1:26-27. As the crown of God's creation humanity uniquely displays the image of God by his rational capacities, moral volition, relational distinctives, spiritual qualities, and dominion over nature. Humans reflect the splendor of their Maker, yet in finite expression. As image-bearers humans possess inherent dignity and moral worth and should be treated with respect regardless of race, sex, class, or beliefs. Man's fall into sin severely tarnished this image". (Source: Living Issues in Philosophy)

As lengthy as this has been, it cannot possibly cover all the aspects of God's creation, but the skeleton will hold the flesh of additional comment.

will it make any difference in the discusiion... probably not. Will it be even read, not likely... but I've at least attempted to encapsulate a position that can be supported by the evidence.

I must be gone flying for several days. I will attempt to answer your objections on return...

[Theland]

My 'wilful ignorance' regarding evolution is simply based on the fact that I refuse to accept the apparent definitions of the processes presented as fact in order to abandon my faith in God.
The points made by Clanad demand an explanation by evolutionary scientsts, and a, "don't know," will suffice, just as my beliefs are also far from definitive in the mechanics of creation.
The point is made that I enjoy the benefits of technology on a daily basis without understanding it, but continue to have faith in it, and to a great extent, this is also true of creationism.

[ludwig]

Chakka, you seem to be wanting the creationists to provide a scientific explanation of how god created the universe..

'..how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used'

Which is obviously as fruitless as asking an atheist to provide a religious explanation of it. The whole point is that they simply have faith that god did it somehow, and that's the end of the story. That's really the point I was trying to make.

If as Waldo says there are people claiming that a creation by god can be scientifically proved, that's a diferent story - whatever 'scientific proof' they offer will stand or fall on its own merits.

[Octavius]

I presume the question was solely levelled at an individual who claimed scientific proof then.

Setting an appropriately high burden of proof for an extraordinary claim is healthy scepticism. It reflects logic and prior evidence. Denial or refutation, rather involves setting arbitrary thresholds for evidence - the threshold is deliberately set to be either higher than is currently available (and then moving it as new evidence comes in) or forever beyond reach, usually by asking for a type of evidence that is theoretically impossible.

Perhaps we would be just as well recounting and debating the poem of Luonnotar.