Creationism is illogical

[Earl of Rochester]

Many are offended by being called illogical and try to fend it off, but lets face the facts, Creationism is illogical. This is no insult, try to understand.

If someone were to call me illogical then they would be very right, I often spit in the face of logic, its what makes me a human being and not a computer.

But really its not a matter of opinion of which side is logical. Logical thinking does not and will not support religion and will certainly not support creationism.

I mean we really have to differ to Occam's Razor here.

We can't be sure how life started, but we can choose the simplest means; evolution.

For those questioning my assertions, lets begin with a little example.

I lost my pen. I could think that it fell out at some point, or I could believe that a man from mars used a teleportation ray and stole it from me. Now the logical thing to believe is it fell, but that does not mean its right. Just more logical. Perhaps the man from mars really did steal it, but I simply could not come to that conclusion from logic.

Now the situation is the same with life. Perhaps it was created by some omnipotent being, but the logical answer is evolution. I reiterate, that does not mean it is the correct answer, merely the one reached using logical thinking.

[Chaigidel]

well the only problem i can see with creationism is that it attempts to inhibit facts by proposing a solution then looking for the answer--- while you should take the information then draw a conclusion with what you have yes?--- as long as it doesnt affect the creationists ability to understand basic concepts of science and the modern world then there is no reason to look upon it as a bad thing-- just a choice

I totally agree with your premise the man from mars Could have stolen your ink pen but that would not be a rational or logical conclusion--- therefore we stick to what is most reasonable-- but thinking that pen went to the martian does affect your willingness to do more research on the pen and where it could have gone--- thats another problem with creationism it seems to stifle the desire to seek-- in fact it seems designed to stifle the desire to know the complexity involved in our existence---

now im refering to strict creationism, i can respect anyones belief in things and ive heard the case for both sides I still must side with most of the scientific community in this topic.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

The pen analogy oversimplifies and marginalizes the debate. By it's very phraseology, and association with martians or 'little green men' -which is used as derogatory segue against anyone postulating alternative thought streams rather commonly- insults one half of the debators. The exchange of Gnosis, therefore, gets once again fully crushed under the heel of polemics. In context with Creationists and Darwinites, the pen example is, quite frankly.... illogical.

[Gary88]

you cant claim occams razor as proof of evolution, even though i am a ferverent believer i would not claim it to be simple let alone know whether of all possible ways life could have got this way it is the most simple. i do know it is the most supported by evidence but theres a big difference. just think classical and quantum physics, classical is much much more simple but it isnt how it really works.

[Earl of Rochester]

you cant claim occams razor as proof of evolution, even though i am a ferverent believer i would not claim it to be simple let alone know whether of all possible ways life could have got this way it is the most simple. i do know it is the most supported by evidence but theres a big difference. just think classical and quantum physics, classical is much much more simple but it isnt how it really works.

Again, I'm not talking about proof of evolution, only that it is inherently more logical.[QUOTE]

The pen analogy oversimplifies and marginalizes the debate. By it's very phraseology, and association with martians or 'little green men' -which is used as derogatory segue against anyone postulating alternative thought streams rather commonly- insults one half of the debators. The exchange of Gnosis, therefore, gets once again fully crushed under the heel of polemics. .

I was not insulting creationism or even creating an analogy for that matter. I was merely demonstrating Occam's Razor in its proper use because whenever it is used people try to argue that it has nothing to do with logic. My example was extreme but it does a fairly good job at explaining why Occam's Razor is so important to logical thinking.

If you guys aren't willing to accept that creationism is intrinsically more complicated than Darwinism then there is nothing I can do, I would have thought that that was given. I mean religion is so ridiculously complicated that no two people can agree on it.

In context with Creationists and Darwinites, the pen example is, quite frankly.... illogical

Illogical? Im fairly certain that is a misuse of the word for you could argue that it was out of place, but it hardly relates to logic.

[Chaigidel]

well then lets call it what it is --- god could have come down and layed everything in place 6000 years ago as is with a specific design according to his unknowable plan( i acknowledge fully that this Could be true and for all I know personally it is true)--- yet, even though I know "god" could have done that I can also acknowledge that god could have been aliens :O, but we do have alot of fossil evidence I think coupled with carbon dating(again im not a carbon dater so i cant really say whether or not its true but it seems like a better choice to me) so even as I acknowledge those other things I can also see the clear possibility that there is no design and it came out of a chemical soup +forces of nature(time)= us the evidence we have certainly shows us that things lived long before us , in some state--- and if we trust means of dating those fossils we can assume that the world doesnt fit into a strict creationist view--- but nobody personally knows this , because none of us have lived for 6000 nor 15 billion years---(or maybe we all have?)

[Gary88]

i havent actually seen any of the new scientific evidence for creationism and i wouldnt know where to find any i wonder if anyone could post a summary of any that i could look at. i would do so with a completely open mind as i love to learn new information and i think it is relevent to this argument if people are going to claim it is illogical.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

@Earl:
Please do not take this as insulting my brother, but can you expand on your knowledge and interpretation of Occam's Razor, Darwinism and Creationism? I'm patient, and I will listen, or read in this case. It will benifit my understanding of your perspective. As it stands, evolution as actually highly complex.
Regarding the pen analogy and illogic, I was gauging your own response to illogic. Not a test, mind, just for my further understanding of your thesis.

[Imperator_Maximus]

Unless we build a time machine, we won't really know. To me, creation stories are outdated. They were created to explain how the world works without science. I personally think God acts through science so we may understand what He does.

[Kanaric]

Sure creationism is illogical, but so is a man living in the belly of a whale, and a man putting two of every animal in a ship to save their species.

Logic has never stopped people from believe this nonsense that is supposed to teach lessons the way someone from the times before Christ could understand so why would saying its illogical and explaining why stop it now? If they want to live in the 2nd century BC let them.

[Irishman]

I'm patient, and I will listen, or read in this case. It will benifit my understanding of your perspective. As it stands, evolution as actually highly complex.

You misunderstand what occam's razor stipulates.

Id does not say "choose the answer which is the simplest". This is a common misconception.

It says, "given two theories with equal predictive value, choose the one which makes the least assumptions."

Simplicity does not mean "that which is the easiest to understand, but that which makes the least assumptions, or baseless claims.

You are comparing two Inference to the best explanations, thus there is more than just simplicity to see. There is predictive power, which is where evolution really destroys creationism,

For both aspects, we expect complexity, but with creationism, we would expect design to be without flaws (assuming a young earth creationism) and yet we have imperfections everywhere. There is an indonesian boar which actually, as it grows older, it's horns burry themselves into its skull, slowly killing it over many months.

The problem with creationism is that it does not explain the counter evidence, where as with evolution, we expect imperfections and do not need to alter the theory at all, as you do with God, to explain them.

The only other option is a "divinely governed evolution" which fails on occam's razor as it makes one unecessary claim, God.

The fact is, evolution is a more simple claim, and it is supported by the evidence.


Let me give an example as to why occam's razor does not even apply to YE creationism,

You start out saying "God created the earth in 7 days, in the last 6000 years.
Opponent (op), what about fossils?
You, God put them there to test us?
OP, what about radio-isotope dating?
You, well that must be flawed.
OP, Why are there bad designs?
You, God wanted to test himself?
OP, Why, he is all powerful?
You, He wanted it to be interesting.

You see what must be done? Given the evidence which science gives us, Creationism (YE) must become infinitely more complex, and thus does not have equal predictive power, which negates occam's razor and Creationism fails before ever needing it.

Thus with this reasoning, both Young earth creationism AND Inspired Evolution are illogical in the face of evolution, due to the necessary attributes of an "Inference to the Best explanation!"

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Faith is illogical.

"Oh ye who believe in the Unseen".

Ever heard the term "blind faith"?

Don't get me wrong though. I don't believe in Creationism to a large extent.

[Lord Rahl]

You know, there are those who believe in evolution but still believe in God. I sort of believe in a modified version of evolution. I believe that God introduced different species in the world but he let them just live and that can include evolve. I am also of the belief that God created the universe. Scientific logic will tell you that the universe couldn't have just began suddenly out of nothing because science itself says it can't happen. Therefore something outside of science did so. I believe that God did.

[David Deas]

You know, there are those who believe in evolution but still believe in God. I sort of believe in a modified version of evolution. I believe that God introduced different species in the world but he let them just live and that can include evolve. I am also of the belief that God created the universe. Scientific logic will tell you that the universe couldn't have just began suddenly out of nothing because science itself says it can't happen. Therefore something outside of science did so. I believe that God did.

No. Scientific knowledge says the Universe was always here. Exactly like your assumed God.

I have trouble understanding why some people *need* to assume a God while pretending they're considering science.

[Irishman]

I sort of believe in a modified version of evolution. I believe that God introduced different species in the world but he let them just live and that can include evolve. I am also of the belief that God created the universe. Scientific logic will tell you that the universe couldn't have just began suddenly out of nothing because science itself says it can't happen.

If you read my post, I adressed this belief, and why it was illogical in one line.

The only other option is a "divinely governed evolution" which fails on occam's razor as it makes one unecessary (and unfounded) claim, God.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Tonight on "Stating the Obvious"...

[chris_uk_83]

Why does seemingly everyone on this forum keep bringing up Occam's Razor and using it as an undisputable law of science? It isn't. It's a piece of logical reasoning which tells you the most likely outcome of a situation. There is no reason at all to assume that what Occam's Razor predicts is necessarily gospel truth. I can think of many situations in which Occam's Razor would fall flat on its face and fail.

Please please stop trying to use Occam's Razor to prove points, you can't, you can only say that it makes it more likely that you're right.

P.S. This post isn't intended to support creationism, because I don't. It's intended to attack a daft argument that crops up again and again.

[mocker]

Wow... Creationism is illogical?
You don't say so...

[David Deas]

Why does seemingly everyone on this forum keep bringing up Occam's Razor and using it as an undisputable law of science? It isn't. It's a piece of logical reasoning which tells you the most likely outcome of a situation. There is no reason at all to assume that what Occam's Razor predicts is necessarily gospel truth. I can think of many situations in which Occam's Razor would fall flat on its face and fail.

Please please stop trying to use Occam's Razor to prove points, you can't, you can only say that it makes it more likely that you're right.

Because it shows God is an unnecessary conclusion. And if God is an unnecessary conclusion, religion is an unnecessary practice.

[Valentin the II]

And if God is an unnecessary conclusion, religion is an unnecessary practice.

Religion can and does exist without god\s, and it's not unnecessary.
It gives week willed people hope and meaning, not to mention all the rules wich help the comonfallk to stay moral.
It's a necessary evil so to speak.