Creationism is evolving?

[CapriMark1]

I ran across a YouTube video that was interesting:



This video is a commentary on a debate held between a creationist and an evolutionary biologist.  In that debate, the creationist is trying to argue that humans haven't evolved much as evidenced by the lack of hurtful mutations - therefore, humans were created a short time ago!

Wait .... What??  Is this creationist saying that humans evolve?

I was aware that some creationists now argue that animals evolved very quickly after Noah's flood to explain the large number of species today.  That is, microevolution as opposed to macroevolution.

So I am proposing a hypothesis:  Creationism will gradually change over time to accommodate the apparent shortcomings of their old arguments they have been using.  This is the result of familiarity with evolutionary evidence, so it isn't as unknown as it was before, AND they have recognized that their old arguments aren't convincing people, so they are trying out new ones!

Anyone else notice changes in creationists talking points?

[Unsapien]

Well that's finally something new I've not heard before, almost kind of nice to see the creationists arguments evolving. 

But I stopped having arguments with creationists along time ago, the concept of genetic entropy is interesting, though.

But I really don't think creationists really understand how many problems they'd still have even if genetic entropy was real.

They'd still have to explain how the koala's & kangaroos got to Australia from mount Ararat, for a start.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well that's finally something new I've not heard before, almost kind of nice to see the creationists arguments evolving. 

But I stopped having arguments with creationists along time ago, the concept of genetic entropy is interesting, though.

But I really don't think creationists really understand how many problems they'd still have even if genetic entropy was real.

They'd still have to explain how the koala's & kangaroos got to Australia from mount Ararat, for a start.

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

[Unsapien]

Well that's finally something new I've not heard before, almost kind of nice to see the creationists arguments evolving. 

But I stopped having arguments with creationists along time ago, the concept of genetic entropy is interesting, though.

But I really don't think creationists really understand how many problems they'd still have even if genetic entropy was real.

They'd still have to explain how the koala's & kangaroos got to Australia from mount Ararat, for a start.

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

I lost my first girlfriend back in high school because her father was an Anglican priest, and she asked me to go to the Sunday Christian youth group with her that her father ran,but apparently I asked too many questions and I wasn't allowed to see her anymore.

[GenesisNemesis]

If only Creationists would evolve to stop quote mining out of date research, and pretending it is current.

(CreationMyths is another great channel though. Highly recommend).

[GenesisNemesis]

Well that's finally something new I've not heard before, almost kind of nice to see the creationists arguments evolving. 

But I stopped having arguments with creationists along time ago, the concept of genetic entropy is interesting, though.

But I really don't think creationists really understand how many problems they'd still have even if genetic entropy was real.

They'd still have to explain how the koala's & kangaroos got to Australia from mount Ararat, for a start.

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

And that's not even counting that it's impossible genetically for humanity to have originated from just two individuals. Creationists love to pretend that's not a problem.

[Rizen]

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

And that's not even counting that it's impossible genetically for humanity to have originated from just two individuals. Creationists love to pretend that's not a problem.

[Unsapien]

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

And that's not even counting that it's impossible genetically for humanity to have originated from just two individuals. Creationists love to pretend that's not a problem.

Actually we would've come from only 1 person since Eve would have been a transgender clone of Adam.

[Reltzik]

So I am proposing a hypothesis:  Creationism will gradually change over time to accommodate the apparent shortcomings of their old arguments they have been using.  This is the result of familiarity with evolutionary evidence, so it isn't as unknown as it was before, AND they have recognized that their old arguments aren't convincing people, so they are trying out new ones!

I'd say that it's important to recognize the evolutionary* niche that Creationism currently occupies.  It's fundamentally about science-denial (and, more generally, reality-denial) done by contrasting the scientific consensus with a very dogmatic, traditionally-dominant, conservative religious position through the promotion of misrepresented data, conspiracy-thinking slander, and outright lies.

This is useful to those that need to sway large numbers of people into or retain them in an anti-science, anti-change bloc, that is eagerly looking for an "enemy" to be mobilized against.  Groups that might tap into this resource include oil companies trying to get people to deny climate change, massive retailers trying to get people outdoors and spending money during a pandemic, and political parties that rely on strategies that are less about popular support by an informed public and more about controlling a smaller base with disproportionate power or swinging voters by misinforming them.  Above all, the groups tapping into this resource will be established, legacy powers, leveraging the tendency of a percentage of the population to believe based on indoctrination from a trusted source rather than personally-verified facts.  Newcomers and outsiders don't get to appeal to familiarity, tradition, and sense of continuity that are key to leveraging a demographic like creationists.

Why is this important?  Because like a species occupying an evolutionary niche, creationism needs to do more than just defend against hazards that might kill its individual specimens.  It also needs to consume energy and reproduce.  This is accomplished through a symbiotic relationship with those legacy powers.  Creationist content producers compete for the resources to present their messages (and, you know, put food on the table) and audiences to consider those messages.  This can be provided by funding, equipment, and other forms of boosting.  If a rich patron gives a big donation to Creationist A, plus pulling some strings to get them an interview on Fox News or something like that, and does not do the same for Creationist B, then all other things being equal Creationist A will be able to continue their work longer and spread their views further than Creationist B.  And, naturally, the patron will decide to support A over B if A's messaging helps the patron more than B's messaging.  Maybe A attaches some views on other political issues that is to the patron's liking, or demonizes the opposition in a way the patron is looking to tap while B is more of the love-your-neighbor-even-if-you-disagree type.  A then gets an infusion of "energy" to spread their messaging and out-compete B.  When this happens on a broad scale, that should cause a general shift in Creationism's "alleles".

I think Creationism is best understood as occupying the social niche of being a useful symbiote to legacy power structures, especially in stopping or blunting adverse changes to its patrons brought on by new discoveries, be it scientific discoveries or just some very awful things about those patrons becoming public.  Shifting its arguments to adapt to shifts in the intellectual environment is a necessary chore to get the job done, but servicing and reinforcing established powers is the job itself.

I suspect that shifting to provide exactly that sort of solution to legacy powers-that-be will represent the principle ways in which Creationism changes.  So look for some established, powerful elements of society, either declining in power or about to face a reversal or at least feel threatened by the prospect, that don't represent a broad demographic but need to acquire the support of one.  Identify the problems they're facing, and the ways in which science- or reality-denial by that sort of broad demographic can address those problems.  As old patrons either stabilize their positions or fall out of power, new ones with slightly different needs will arise and Creationism's narratives will shift to service them instead.  This will be the principle path along which Creationism evolves.  Updating arguments to overcome their logical or factual shortcomings will only be a secondary factor.

* This is of course not evolution in a biological sense, but analogous with some significant differences.  (Phenotype equals genotype, for example.)

[Rhythmcs]

So I am proposing a hypothesis:  Creationism will gradually change over time to accommodate the apparent shortcomings of their old arguments they have been using.  This is the result of familiarity with evolutionary evidence, so it isn't as unknown as it was before, AND they have recognized that their old arguments aren't convincing people, so they are trying out new ones!

Anyone else notice changes in creationists talking points?

IDK that's really a change.  As soon as origin of the species was published it began to be incorporated into creationist worldviews.  The important thing to remember with fundamentally syncretic religions is that whatever is going on, or whatever happens to be true or is perceived as true by default becomes further proof of the veracity of said religions claims. Demographic relevancy is the only difference between a true religion and a dead cult (and I mean that in the internalized sense).

[Minimalist]

 the creationist is trying to argue that humans haven't evolved much as evidenced by the lack of hurtful mutations

The whole point of "hurtful mutations" is that they are far less likely to be passed on to next generations.

[Unsapien]

Well that's finally something new I've not heard before, almost kind of nice to see the creationists arguments evolving. 

But I stopped having arguments with creationists along time ago, the concept of genetic entropy is interesting, though.

But I really don't think creationists really understand how many problems they'd still have even if genetic entropy was real.

They'd still have to explain how the koala's & kangaroos got to Australia from mount Ararat, for a start.

Uber.

I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking where Noah's kids got their wives. Incest is tough for a Sunday School teacher to deal with.

JWs don't seem to have that problem with incest, at least not in the beginning, I remember going to a bible study at a JW's house and when we started with genesis, I asked him about that problem, his answer was that incest was okay in the beginning because their DNA was pure/perfect so it wasn't a problem. It was also his explanation as to why people lived hundreds of years back then.

[Minimalist]

A/K/A "when stupid people make shit up."

[Rhythmcs]

The ur unit of any conflation between spiritual and biological superiority right there.

[Minimalist]

If an asshole had specific DNA the magatards would be an exact match.

[CapriMark1]

So I am proposing a hypothesis:  Creationism will gradually change over time to accommodate the apparent shortcomings of their old arguments they have been using.  This is the result of familiarity with evolutionary evidence, so it isn't as unknown as it was before, AND they have recognized that their old arguments aren't convincing people, so they are trying out new ones!

Anyone else notice changes in creationists talking points?

IDK that's really a change.  As soon as origin of the species was published it began to be incorporated into creationist worldviews.  The important thing to remember with fundamentally syncretic religions is that whatever is going on, or whatever happens to be true or is perceived as true by default becomes further proof of the veracity of said religions claims.  Demographic relevancy is the only difference between a true religion and a dead cult (and I mean that in the internalized sense).

Regardless of the subject, stuff evolves - changes over time.  What surprises me about Creationism changing is these folks are the same ones who believe because Science changes, it can't be true - and yet, their explanations change, too!  Turning a blind eye, that sort of thing.

What is really going on is fear.  They are afraid of things that are unfamiliar to them, so anything that changes evokes fear in them.  The only way to fix this is to repeat over and over that things they are afraid of.  They eventually get used to hearing it, so they no longer fear it.

[Rizen]

IDK that's really a change.  As soon as origin of the species was published it began to be incorporated into creationist worldviews.  The important thing to remember with fundamentally syncretic religions is that whatever is going on, or whatever happens to be true or is perceived as true by default becomes further proof of the veracity of said religions claims.  Demographic relevancy is the only difference between a true religion and a dead cult (and I mean that in the internalized sense).

Regardless of the subject, stuff evolves - changes over time.  What surprises me about Creationism changing is these folks are the same ones who believe because Science changes, it can't be true - and yet, their explanations change, too!  Turning a blind eye, that sort of thing.

What is really going on is fear.  They are afraid of things that are unfamiliar to them, so anything that changes evokes fear in them.  The only way to fix this is to repeat over and over that things they are afraid of.  They eventually get used to hearing it, so they no longer fear it.

I've also noticed people struggle with abstract concepts that they can't immediately see or touch. Evolution is a big one. A good answer is pointing out how dog breeding in domestic pets is a good example of guided evolution influenced by humans. Not that I'd bother arguing with creationists anyway.

Other examples of abstract concepts include the value of voting, global warming and so on. People never put much priority on these things.

[Rhythmcs]

That might be happening with individual beliefs, a sort of momento mori thing. For many contemporary christians, though, there was never a time that they didn't believe in god the geneticist. The cultural accumulation and indoctrination in our societies doesn't just happen to the rest of us and leave that demo alone. So, the tendency to interpret (or reinterpret) theological principles in light of modern discoveries does two important bits of work for them. It offers them a path to believing that their traditional or hereditary worldview is true in spite of possibly inconvenient facts...and...it explains why so many of their peers believe it to be a foolish superstition in a way that doesn't suggest that they are the paste eating dum dums of the bunch. It was The Other Guys™..the ones from before. They were the paste eating dum dums who ruined the case for the faith. But Hallelujah, we have that air tight case now! Evolutionary biology proves that a tinkering bloodgod exists. Churches that say otherwise have a shrinking (but increasingly loyal) market capture, while the ones that form their message around what the contemporary culture wants to hear have low control over theological principles but increased revenues. We dhould not be surprised over time to fond that those churches who are better at procuring resources and what amounts to ideological breeding partners are more and more well represented in the overall population of faith over time.

Artificial selection was exactly how darwin introduced his theory to wider view. It is also what people (some then and most now) think gods role in our development was.

[SYZ]

Earlier creationists focussed heavily on literal biblical timelines,
but current believers often avoid explicit theology in public settings
and frame themselves as "questioning Darwinism" or promoting
"critical thinking"—with many claiming that it's "God's hand" that's
"guiding" scientists, zoologist, geneticists, and forensic historians etc.

In the US, Oklahoma's Senate Bill (1868), which would have required
all public school teachers who teach evolution to also "provide instruction
to students on the concepts of creationism and/or intelligent design"
collapsed in the Senate Education Committee in March this year, when
the deadline for Senate measures to pass committee expired.

Teaching "intelligent design" as scientifically credible in public schools
was found to be unconstitutional by a Federal court judge, who wrote,
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design
is a religious view, a mere re-enabling of creationism, and not a scientific
theory."

Teaching creationism as scientifically credible in a public school, in turn,
was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Edwards v.
Aguillard in 1987. The court held that a Louisiana state law requiring the
teaching of creationism "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing
the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind".

[Minimalist]

Of course none of that will even slow the religitards down.  They understand that they are losing the younger generation and fully grasp what that means for their future and their fucking useless god's future.

In the words of H. L. Mencken.....

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.

This is what the christards want to bring back.

[Rahn127]

Creationists making small changes over time has got to be the most ironic statement I've ever made.

[Rhythmcs]

Earlier creationists focussed heavily on literal biblical timelines,
but current believers often avoid explicit theology in public settings
and frame themselves as "questioning Darwinism" or promoting
"critical thinking"—with many claiming that it's "God's hand" that's
"guiding" scientists, zoologist, geneticists, and forensic historians etc.

In the US, Oklahoma's Senate Bill (1868), which would have required
all public school teachers who teach evolution to also "provide instruction
to students on the concepts of creationism and/or intelligent design"
collapsed in the Senate Education Committee in March this year, when
the deadline for Senate measures to pass committee expired.

Teaching "intelligent design" as scientifically credible in public schools
was found to be unconstitutional by a Federal court judge, who wrote,
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design
is a religious view, a mere re-enabling of creationism, and not a scientific
theory."

Teaching creationism as scientifically credible in a public school, in turn,
was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Edwards v.
Aguillard in 1987. The court held that a Louisiana state law requiring the
teaching of creationism "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing
the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind".

If we set the timeline far back enough I'm sure that's true.  Theistic evolution was an immediate response to darwin in progressive and academic demographics in it's own time, though.  Asa Gray was critical in spreading darwins ideas in the us - but was himself convinced that evolution was how god did it.  It's kind of amusing in that..at least at first, evolutionary ideas breathed life back into literalist beliefs..which had fallen out of favor as the dominant pov well before darwin published.  It was a bridge back to theism from the deism which had more or less calcified at the time.   Literalist backlash in the interim..and particularly in the united states....was and continues be be almost perfectly aligned with culture wars over racialist sentiment and authority...and the failure of eugenics to provide a credible foundation for those beliefs.

[Whateverist]

I found this on a humor thread of a Christian forums this morning. Pretty funny and great to see such insight.