fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2590 ]

[ SECRET POST #2590 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2590 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Don't Hug Me I'm Scared]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Cloud Atlas]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Hannibal]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Goonies]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Gwilym Lee]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Mass Effect]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Sleepy Hollow]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Being Human UK]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Craig Ferguson]

__________________________________________________

15.

[Christina Ricci]

__________________________________________________

16.

[High School Musical]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Blue Exorcist]

__________________________________________________

18.

[Frozen, Tangled]

__________________________________________________

19.

[Amanda Palmer, Emilie Autumn]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 065 secrets from Secret Submission Post #370.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As a Christian that believes that God created the universe, but isn't stuck in this rigid "but it totally happened in 6 days a few thousand years ago", am I still considered a Creationist? Or has that label been too deeply wrapped up with the literal six days crowd?

Fun fact: I once told a Christian coworker (I worked at a church) that I believed that God created the universe, and it didn't matter to me whether he did it through evolution or big bang or cosmic etch-a-sketch. All that mattered was God did it and I didn't care about the how. He then told me I wasn't a mature Christian and some day I'd learn how wrong I was. ~~who knew?~~

We don't speak much anymore.

No expert but, I think you're a Creationist if you believe that the Bible is a valid "scientific" explanation and dismiss evolution.

I know several Christians who balance their religion with believing in science and evolution. Believing that their God created life and the Universe etc but that Evolution is valid and they do not consider themselves Creationists.

Don't know if that helps.

Depends on who you ask. Some people make a distinction between "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" Creationists and would label you as the second one. But most people wouldn't call you a Creationist if you accept evolution as a very plausible theory with a lot of evidence supporting it.

IMO Creationists are the ones who are adamantly opposed to science and other religions. It's not a personal belief for them, it's a political position, and they are actively involved in trying to get it taught in schools/keeping their kids from learning other alternatives.

It's not that Creationists are opposed to science on a whole, it's just that they believe the majority of science that insists on millions and billions of years for everything is inaccurate, and if someone looked at the physical evidence without the evolution goggles on, they would see just as much likelihood in Young Earth theory.

I'd say you're still a creationist -in that you believe the universe has a creator, I'm aware that most people mean "science is wrong" to describe creationism- just a science-friendly one. You can be a religious scientist, so I can't see why you couldn't be a scientific Christian. I mean, it used to be pretty common throughout the Christian world that disease was created by demons. Most people these days agree that it's germs and genetics, but some people might believe that those germs were place by or are themselves demonic, I suppose.

And you're coworker's a jerk.

Technically you'd be a creationist, just not a Young Earth Creationist. But that's not really the important question - as long as you're not out there arguing against evolutionary science, I don't think most people are really going to be on your case, whether or not you're a creationist.

I could be wrong but I feel like "creationism" really only became a thing when "intelligent design" started losing the battle to get into school books and needed a revamp. If you aren't trying to replace science with the bible I wouldn't think of you as one. You're just a Christian?

The other way around, actually. "Intelligent design" became a thing when creationism got shot down by the courts as being religion and therefore having no place in public schools - so creationists rebranded it as "intelligent design" and pretended that their "Designer" could hypothetically be anything (even though everybody understood they were still talking about good ol' Jehovah). ID is essentially creationism dressed up in a lab coat.

Yep, even some of the early ID textbooks were just creationist works with a search/replace performed.

Sloppily, in some cases.

Urk. I got them backwards X/ Thanks for the catch!

All I meant to say is that I associate creationism for active attempts at equating biblical passages with scientific theory and not with simply personal belief in a creator.

I'm with you...I believe God created the universe, but I wasn't there to see it and neither were any of the people who oppose creationism, so what the heck good does it do me to start a fight over it?

I tend to default to a literal interpretation of scripture just to be safe, but on the whole I feel like the wherefores don't matter much.

You're only a "creationist" if you reject scientific explanations in favor of a literal interpretation of scripture. There are some creationists who aren't married to the idea of six 24-hour days of creation that happened 6000 years ago, but still deny the findings of biology, astronomy, and cosmology.

And there are Christians who self-identify as "Creationist", and even believe in that six 24-hour days that accept a lot of the provable facts of biology, astronomy and cosmology.

Someone up-thread mentioned the belief that disease was caused by demons. Modern biology has proved it is caused by germs, viruses and genetic problems. A lot of Creationist would accept that.

Is the Earth round instead of flat? Does the Earth circle the Sun instead of the other way around? A lot of Creationists accept that.

Do galaxies exist? Are the spaces between stellar objects mindbogglingly huge? A lot of Creationists have no problem there!

The problem comes when you start insisting absolutely and definitely that humans are descended from some sort of ape-like creature, and throw around numbers like millions of years.

I just love this idea people have that all Creationists scorn all science, instead of just the section of it that their beliefs stand in opposition to.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to reply to anon as they are absolutely correct that some creationists reject any or most science that contradicts the bible. I also take exception with the suggestion that you can reject just evolution without rejecting the hundreds of different methods, fields of study, and basic mathematical principles that support the theory of evolution.

Rejecting any science because it contradicts a preconceived notion *is* scorning all science. Cherry picking data, no matter who does it, defies the very definition of science. Anyone who states creationism or intelligent design is scientifically equivalent to the theory of evolution does not have a good grasp on the scientific method, are deluding themselves, or are just lying.

I take no issue with people who believe in a higher power. Neither do I have a problem with people who reject the theory of evolution based on their interpretation of the bible or another religious text. But personal beliefs are just that, personal beliefs. The problem comes when people take their personal beliefs and attempt to legitimize them using contrived pseudoscience and then try and leverage them into schoolbooks using the term "creationism" or "intelligent design".

Re: Little off-topic: honest question, no trolling

(Anonymous) - 2014-02-05 23:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Little off-topic: honest question, no trolling

mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com - 2014-02-06 03:58 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, I don't consider the theological view that the universe was created by God via phenomena that just happen to be indistinguishable from modern cosmology, geology, biology, astronomy, and physics to be the same thing as young-earth creationism.

OK. So.

There's different subsets of "Creationism". Some people take the "six days" absolutely literal interpretation. Others try to argue bizarre stuff like "Dinosaurs were walking around with Adam & Eve, and all the animals were vegan!" So there's different shades of Creationism.

I accept that evolution occurred, and my belief is that it was a guided process. It sounds like you fit this less literal form of creationism. I simply refer to myself as a "theist" or Christian (panentheist is probably more accurate).

I don't refer to myself as a Creationist, since most people equate that with the "literal six days interpretation".

(Also - I feel you on the reaction from Christians. You either get people telling you "You're a stupid idiot for believing in God!", or other people telling you "You're not a real Christian!" It gets tiring.)

Eh, as a non-Christian I wouldn't call you a Creationist, but I know opinions differ. I think the widely-accepted view of Creationists (or stereotype, I guess) refers to the rigidly evangelical "THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE FUCK SCIENCE" types. I.e. the people who reject evolution, or any theory that challenges the word of the Bible. But then, these are often the same people who conveniently ignore any fallacies (i.e. the Bible was written by man, etc.) to suit their purposes.

As an agnostic I would just see you as a regular Christian, since all you really said was that you believe God created the universe. (I would also call you quite level-headed and chill, you seem pretty cool! :D)

I'd say you're not a Creation literalist, or Young Earth Creationist, whichever title you wish to brand the 6-day type with. Maybe an Intelligent Design believer.

I worry about admitting to it online, because I would rather avoid being pestered over it when I know nothing anyone says will make me change my beliefs, but I am a literalist. I have already got a little ansty in this thread by the apparent belief that believing in a 6-day creation means I also reject all other science. There is plenty of science that does not have the ambiguity I see in evolution and some areas of cosmology, and those areas I can whole-heartedly accept as total fact.

+1

YANA: I mentioned it in another reply, but I also am a literalist. It makes me roll my eyes so hard when people insist that Evolution is THE SCIENCE-EST OF SCIENCE and if you don't believe it you're an idiot!!1

Look, kind of by its very nature it's impossible to PROVE evolution, since the theory says that it happens over millions of years. My starting point of belief is that there's a creator; evolutionists start with the belief there isn't one, and from each of our starting points we can make the SAME EVIDENCE support different conclusions. My degree was in biology, and I never saw solid evidence for evolution; ADAPTATION is the part that's proven scientific fact, evolution in the extrapolation thereof that is unprovable until someone invents a time machine.

Thank you for your support, I feel we folk who both believe in a literal Creation and aren't noisily pushy about it get the short end and get judged by the noisier, less tolerant fellow believers.

And I love your mention of adaption - I do think there is some validity in "survival of the fittest", but that does not extend to one species changing into a different species, it just explains why every continent on Earth (besides Antarctica) has ants, or why dogs can go from Great Danes to Chihuahuas in size (that's not even bringing up that dog sizes are due to humans breeding them for those characteristics).

What is paleontology?

You're an Old Earth Creationist (who believes in Guided Evolution?). Science has no bones to pick with you. In my experience, it's the other Creationists who hate you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only