Should creationists stop trying to disprove evolution and focus on proving creationism?

Asked by: theta_pinch
  • Yes, as they have no proof.

    I think this would be the most logical and rational thing to do when you are advancing a scientific theory. However, ID (creationism) is not a science and every time someone has tried to show it to be true they have been debunked. So yes let them try and fail and then realize it is a ridiculous position to hold.

  • Disproving evolution will do nothing for them

    Creationists should start trying to prove creationism because even if they could disprove evolution that doesn't mean creationism will be accepted as fact because creationism is the least likely explanation there is for the diversity of life. Even if evolution is proven false that doesn't mean creationism is true(that's a false dilemma fallacy) so creationists need to prove their position if they want it accepted.

  • Yes. Religions have been around for thousands of years and still none of them have satisfied their burden of proof.

    Even if there is a flaw in the theory of evolution, that doesn't automatically make creationism correct, therefore it would be a far better use of their time to attempt to satisfy their burden of proof instead of attacking a scientific theory supported by an increasingly growing collection of supporting, verifiable, replicable evidence.
    Creationism is yet to provide any.

  • Yes or simply realise that there worldview is not in accordance with reality

    Creationism is a dead worldview thanks to science we know how the earth came to be we also know that evolution is valid and that the earth is well over 10,000 years old.
    In the words of christopher Hitch.
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
    We have the evidence do you?

  • There's a novel idea.

    Full disclosure, I loathe organized religion, but I personally believe in an Intelligent Prime.

    If the existence of God could be proven faith would be unnecessary. Yet faith is the cornerstone of Creationist's religion. Hmm...

    That said, the best "proof" of God one can present to the world lies in their own conduct, not a scientific theory. But that is just my opinion.

    Posted by: Tink
  • Evolution is unstoppable

    Evoolution cannot be dismissed in the first place. The evidence of it occuring is everywhere. Creationism, however, has no reliable evidencee to back it up with. If any creationists do actually have real evidence, please inform me. If creationists argue that 'there is supposed to be no evidence as it is intelligent design' or that science cannot disprove creationism, they are merely dodging the bullet and not answering the real problem: is there any evidence PROVING creationism!

  • Even If The Impossible Happened, Evolution was Destroyed, Creation Still Cannot Be Acceptable, Because It Is Not A Theory:

    A Theory Must Have Substantiating, Verifiable, Replicated Evidence: Creationism Has No Such Evidence.
    So even if Creationism manages the impossible and finds serious cracks in Evolutionary Theory, and thus demolish it, Creationism still cannot be a replacement for Evolution.
    Evolution can only be replaced by another Theory.
    So firstly, Creationism needs to prove itself a Theory by finding irrefutable, verifiable evidence for it's Arguments of "God Did It".
    Once it has shown itself to be a viable theory that explains everything Evolution explains, then and only then can it challenge Evolution on equal grounds.
    Though Miracles, Magic and Paranormal Causes are to Science the Least Probable Causes.
    Thus it will have to wait in line and demolish all other More Probable Causes, before it will ever become Accepted.
    Maybe the Institute For Creation Research (ICR.Org) will have to do some real Research, which it has never tried since it's inception by Henry Morris.
    Instead of Quote Mining real scientists to put their quotes out of context and pretend the scientists said things we know the scientists never really meant to say.
    That is all the ICR has ever done to try and discredit Evolution, play semantics with scientists statements. That's not Research!
    Get out of your armchairs Creationists and perform some real Experiments to show you have at least a case or give up and get with reality.

    Tough Luck Creationists! :-D~

  • I don't necessarily think creationists should be required to prove that belief.

    If you're not making a claim to have evidence for a particular belief, then you shouldn't be required to back it up. For example, if I say I believe in God but make no claim to have evidence of it, then as a creationist, I shouldn't have to back that up. Similarly, if you're an atheist and you simply say you don't believe in God and list reasons why, then that's fine. Both creationism and evolution, theism and atheism are beliefs. You can have beliefs without making claims that require evidence. For example, let's say one of your friends likes the color blue while you like the color green. Both of these colors are equal in value, but they are also different. You and your friend can have these different favorites in colors and also be respectful of each other's favorite. But if one of you rises up and says: "My color is better than yours" you're, first of all, making beliefs have unequal values, second, making a claim that you would then have to back up.

    Also, I'd like to come from the other side of the argument and point out that if evolutionists and atheists make the claim that God doesn't exist, then they need to back up that claim. This is because God is /not/ comparable to the tooth fairy, Santa, etc. God has been studied for thousands of years by theists and atheists alike. There is DOCUMENTATION on who he is, what he is, etc, etc. If you're going to say that you can disprove him, then do so. I'm really tired of hearing the response "I don't need to back up my disbelief" business from atheists. That's cowardly. If you're going to say God doesn't exist, then you need to provide evidence for /why/ he doesn't, just like if a creationist makes the claim that they can prove God, they should also have proof of why they have made that statement.

    In conclusion, beliefs should be equal and respected, but it's when one compares beliefs and starts making accusations, untrue statements about someone else's beliefs, and makes claims for their own beliefs, that's when they should have evidence.

  • God doesn't leave prints

    It is difficult to have solid evidence for creationism since it is closely connected to religion which is derived from faith. It is something you have to KNOW from the bottom of your soul. In other words, it is much easier to try to prove evolution is false, than it is to prove creationism.

  • Why should either side care?

    There is no real reason as to why either side needs to stop proving their point. Both are only theories as to how humans and all life came into existence. Truthfully, no one can possibly have the knowledge concerning millions and billions of years. Also, on this opinion, everyone on this topic is trying to show reasons why creationism isn't real. To hold one standard to one group but not the same to another is absolutely ludicrous and hypocritical.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Installgentoo says2014-01-23T02:57:37.263
Creationists don't need to disprove evolution. They need to disprove Darwinism. Evolutionary theory in and of itself is not challenged by most defenders of Creation Science today.
theta_pinch says2014-01-23T03:02:22.360
Disprovingdarwinism won't get their idea accepted they need proof.
theta_pinch says2014-01-23T03:25:34.417
The thing is that disproving evolution will have no effect on the scientific status of creationism because it has no evidence. A prerequisite for a theory is that it has evidence if creationism has no evidence it doesn't matter whether darwinism is right or wrong. The only way you can get creationism accepted is by having compelling evidence that can ONLY be explained by creationism.
geoxyx says2014-01-23T03:29:59.407
geoxyx says2014-01-23T03:34:03.097
dvande28 says2014-01-23T19:30:17.620
The person who wrote both of those articles, does not understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a scientific law.
Sagey says2014-02-22T22:51:45.673
As Theta pointed out disproving Evolution would do Creationists no good at all, it could not advance them one little bit. Since only a theory can challenge a Theory.
Besides even the world's greatest real scientists have failed to upset Evolution, since it is the most supported theory on the planet.
If the world's best scientists cannot upset it, then a bunch of naive pseudo-scientists are not going to have any chance at all.
There are no top scientists supporting Creation.
Only those that have degenerated into some form of irrational dementia can show support for Creationism.
Though most commonly it is those who are not making enough money out of genuine science, so they turn to an easy income and fame in producing anti-evolutionary pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Which is all Creationists have to support their case, pseudo-scientific nonsense from ex-scientists deliberately publishing lies for money.
There is no truth in any Creationist literature.
All the scientific knowledge for Creationism is Lies, produced to make easy money for the authors.
It's funny how Creationists haven't realized this Fact.