Why do people bash "creationism" and ID when they've never studied either?

Question

I read lots of "scientists" who bash Intelligent Design and creationism, when they've never studied either.

They lump them together as if there are no dissimilarities...

They attack supporters w/ ad homenim attacks...

They set up repeated straw man arguments...

If they're such good scientists, why don't they practice science and study these issues?

(Appeals to Michael Shermer don't count, he's never done the research either.)

Sorry no dice. The people who point out flaws in evolution have looked at the theories extensively.

Once again, without the unfounded attacks...

Answer 1

Because evolutionists are defending their religion: materialism.

They assume from the beginning that there is nothing but matter (material/energy) in the universe. Ergo, there cannot be a God.

This is of course not science, but hey it uses lots of neat words.

Philip Johnson writes on this in his books, especially "Reason in the Balance"

Also, H.F. Schaefer talks about this in his book "Science and Christianity: Coherence or Conflict?" He also cites many evolutionists who state this explicitly, AS WELL AS many non-Christian scientists who also condemn their fellow scientists for this unacknowledged assumption.)

Answer 2

It's because Creationism and ID don't use scientific reasoning to make conclusions. People don't believe in either of them based on observations that can be used to predict the future. As such they are not science.
They're told by people with an agenda to study something that cannot be observed and repeated to disprove something that can be observed and repeated. It's a little annoying, frankly.

And it's not that the theory of evolution is perfect, and it does need modifications, and it doesn't explain everything. I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that you can't study creationism scientifically. It's based on an unrepeatable "magic" event. That isn't able to be explained scientifically. So scientists very logically are not interested in that explanation and look for one that is based on reason.

And I'm sorry if you see it as an attack. It's not, I'm seriously trying to explain the difference to you. I don't mean it as an attack in any way. I don't know you, and have absolutely no opinion on you. I just think that the approaches to the problem are wildly different. You can go ahead and judge which one is better on your own. Everyone else seems to be fairly respectful, too. Why do you think they're not?

Answer 3

Your question contains an erroneous assumption.
How do you know the "bashers" have never studied creationism or intelligent design? Various
people have studied them and found them wanting
in supporting evidence. Try the book Unintelligent
Design by Mark Perakh.

What "research" do you think needs to be done on
these subjects. The creationists themselves have
stated that reseaarch on creationism is not possible because the conditions that existed then
do not exist now.

Answer 4

Speaking of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks...

First, no scientist is going to give serious consideration to ID or creationism because there is no body of scientific work for either. Instead, you see reactions to the many patently false or misleading claims made by proponents of these beliefs.

There are plenty or reasoned refutations of creationism and ID. Talkorigins.org is a good place to start.

Answer 5

I have studied both.

But when someone proposes as a "scientific creationism" theory something that starts with "the universe is only 6,000 years old", sorry ... the study doesn't take very long to rule it out. That violates so many findings in so many branches of science besides biology (i.e. physics, geology, radiology, chemistry, astrophysics, astronomy, archaeology, anthropology, ... even art history) that one doesn't have to study much further.

Now I realize that not all creationists are Young-Earth creationists. But Old Earth Creationism doesn't get much further ... for the simple fact that it doesn't *explain* anything. To say that the amazing diversity of life exists in its current form simply because "God spoke", explains nothing. There is no point in studying life and asking questions because they all have the same, completely uninformative answer, "God spoke". It does not explain the rich details and relationships we see in nature ... why whales and snakes have vestigial leg bones, why the bones in the primate inner ear match up so beautifully to the hinged jaw bones of reptiles, or why humans and chimps share 95% genetic material, or why hemoglobin and chlorophyll are extremely similar molecules, or why trilobite fossils are always found in certain layers of rocks and not others, or how Asian Flu or HIV viruses change into different strains in response to the environment created by our antivirals . Evolution offers an intellectually satisfying, and in the latter cases, medically invaluable explanation for all these facts. Creationism just does not.

ID, unfortunately, doesn't get much further, because it just substitutes a "Designer" for a "Creator" and thus becomes equally empty of explanatory power. All the above questions remain unanswered.

I have to admit that ID asks good *questions* (e.g. complexity). But it provides zero *answers*. And simply asking a handful of good questions is not *nearly* enough to qualify as a scientific theory.

And what gets frustrating is that while ID advocates ask good questions (e.g. about the emergence of complexity), they seem completely deaf to the answers that evolution offers. Complexity *can* emerge from random variation as long as it is filtered by *non-random* processes like inheritance and natural selection over great amounts of time.

So good scientists *do* study these issues (like emergence and complexity). That's why scientists appear so quick to judge ID ... many of these questions that the ID people are bringing up are really good questions, but scientists have been studying these questions for years (things like complexity, information, cybernetics, emergence, chaos theory, etc.) and have had answers for these questions for *decades*. ID people need to keep asking these questions, but they also need to do their homework to see if they have already been answered.

----

Oh ... and *please* don't talk to us about ad hominem attacks or straw man arguments. The number of vicious attacks on Darwin or on 'athiest evolutionist frauds' ... or the number of times I've heard straw man arguments like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" far far exceeds similar attacks that I've seen by evolutionists.

Answer 6

Many people have tried on ID and creationism and found more practicality in science and evolution.
It seems to boil down to a book which really describes nothing (bible). Unfortunately following just one path leads people into narrow mindedness.
Try both on and leave your feeling aside. Drop that "fussy little feeling in your heart" for awhile and try to ingest a new perspective.
If you don't like it go back to the old way. But don't bash others because they have moved on and broadened their horizons.
Bottom line, maybe its a bit of both.

Answer 7

creationism and ID are basically scientifically useless. You can't use them to make predictions. The few predictions you might reasonably make from them are not validated by the obsevation. For instance the idea that the world is only 4000 is false. Animals don't seem to be designed in the most logical and efficienent way.

The only use for these ideas (as opposed to theories) as far as I can see is to use them an example of bad reasoning.

Answer 8

I suppose the same could be said in reverse... why do creationist dis evolution without really knowing much about it except whet they've been told by others?

ID is a false science and a false religion. It is bad for both... it is neither hot or cold.

Believe what you want to. That is your right and spend less time worrying what others think.

Answer 9

that can be a reason to despise an entity that supposedly changed into sensible sufficient and knew sufficient to do some thing about it...it is even as the 'loving' section is thrown in that the contradiction must be obtrusive. yet, unluckily. I surely have under no circumstances considered such denial as that of a Christian. they may even twist their good judgment into unrealistic assumptions. Edit: sD, they were illiterate-no fault of their own, hardly all of us changed into so that they were doing what changed into advised to be superb of their society. Cricket, IDK about the witches (that is smart although) yet I surely have heard from diverse sources that many cats were killed and the question isn't about what those people idea, it is about what people of on the prompt imagine...or how they can view such atrocities even as having a extra proper coaching and 'understanding extra proper' i have studied sufficient of the Black demise to understand the questioner isn't that faraway base

Answer 10

It gets bashed because it doesn't use scientific methodology.

For example, can you name an experiment that could be run to prove or disprove any part of creationism or ID?

For example, describe an experiment that could be done to verify the existance of a creator or intelligent designer.

Answer 11

Is there anybody who is not a creationist who supports ID? Is there any ID science than agrees Earth is billions of years old? If not, then I see no difference between ID and creationism.