Creationists are dishonest and scientifically ignorant like the OP. That's the main thing wrong with creationism. It leads to people being stupid while they imagine they know true "stuff".

Creationists are scientific ignoramuses and bigots against those who have actual evidence for the things they claim. To me, they are on par with believers in psychics or astrologers or witch doctors. You may as well ask what's wrong with being those things, because the answer is the same. All "woo" can and do use the same confirmation biased type arguments (often involving QM) to support their woo. If an argument can work for a belief you know is crazy, then it sucks as an argument for whatever it is you might be claiming.. Although creationists are arrogant because they claim to have access to "divine truths" that are somehow only available by subjective means, they IMAGINE themselves humble! Moreover, they cannot tell an objective fact (such as that taught in science) from everything else (belief, myth, delusion, motto, ideal, preference, notion, etc.).

The only "civilized" nation that ranks lower than the US in regards to acceptance of evolution is Turkey-- and that is due to Muslim Fundamentalism -- creationism! http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html


This is appalling.... especially when you consider that this kind of ignorance is associated with all sorts of social ills:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Creationists (whether--xian, Muslim or Moonie--or New Agey types) trust liars and deride those who have evidence to support the view. They spread a distrust of those who would gladly share this evidence while promoting those who spread divisive and delusional notions. A primitive text is all the evidence a creationist needs to believe whatever it is their indoctrinators told them; yet all the actual evidence in the world can't sway them from the fairytale. That scientific ignorance is strongly correlated with social ills as demonstrated above. Stupidity is bad for society, and creationism leads to an impenetrable and arrogant type of stupidity.

Further, creationists are afraid to learn some of the most fabulous facts humans have uncovered because they think understanding them will make them go to hell. Moreover, they think they already know all the important stuff; their faith-- like all brainwashing-- is not very amenable to reason. It's has hard to get a creationist to understand evolution as it is to get a Scientologist to understand that psychiatry is not an evil plot by Lord Xenu!

Science, on the other hand, evolves; it has a built in error correcting mechanism. The truth cannot be debated--only understood. Creationism is akin to running an old Apple 2e- it might be cool if you were a primitive person, but it pales in light of the understanding we have today. If you are using such a computer in present time, you are handicapped. The same is true with getting your scientific understanding from primitive texts and religious gurus of eras past instead of actual scientists of today.

See:

No prophet comes close to being as honest, inspiring, or factual when it comes to the origin of the species. And Dawkins is even better, more thorough, and more up to date.

Creationists tend to ask insincere questions like in the OP-- questions they don't really want the answer to... they just want to pretend that scientists don't have an answer and therefore whatever they've been indoctrinated to believe has a chance of being true. Sure, it has a chance... the same chance that all the creation stories that humans have been inventing over the eons has-- including the Muslim creationist story and the Scientology creationist story!

Now, we all know that insincere people like the OP cannot learn the answers to the questions they ask, but others can. And my post is for those people. I despise the dishonesty and obfuscation of creationists. I don't care if they really really believe they are good for believing that god poofed people into existence or whatever the hell they believe-- I still find them repulsive, and a danger to trusting children who can learn how to think if they didn't have idiots programming them with "what" to think. Like Dawkins, I refuse to engage in discourse with such people because I find them poorly equipped for the endeavor. Moreover I have no patience for their semantic games and obfuscations designed to help them believe their "woo is true"-- they are never grateful for those who bend over backwards to give them a clue, because they are so damn sure they are the ones with something to teach and nothing to learn.

I find Shubee's claims as incoherent and useless for understanding anything valid as the claims of Behe and Deepak Chopra. They all are examples of what is wrong with "creationists". The real question to be asked is this: is there anything good or true or useful or scientifically valid in creationism?

Answer: No.

Even if you redefine "creationism" to mean something nebulous or new in your head-- the answer is still no. "Creationist" is the term used for evolution deniers-- those who think some divine invisible immeasurable form of consciousness planned the universe and life on this little speck of a planet in our unremarkable galaxy and poofed assorted matter (namely life forms) into existence as part of some "plan" as he went along. If you believe that, you are a creationist. If you actually understand and accept what Hawkins is saying, you are not. Saying you believe what Hawkins believes while twisting it into some version that he wouldn't even recognize makes you a dishonest person... and probably a dishonest "creationist" as well.

Stephen Hawking is NOT a creationist as you claim, Shubee, and would be insulted by the term-- nor is QM an adequate explanation for any of the bible stories although EVERY brand of woo imaginable likes to think that QM allows for whatever woo they want to believe in. It doesn't. QM does not account for seas parting or invisible forms of consciousness or any of the woo woo ideas that Deepak Chopra teaches. Hawking does not "believe in" any of that crap. Really. Ask an actual physicist. No scientist would witness such an event and shrug it off as one of those "QM things" as you imply you would. QM supports Scientology, the miracles in the Quo'ran and Greek Mythology as much as it supports or the bible.... which is not much at all.

Nice try.

But, fail.

I might not be a mathematician. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm not, but it seemed to me that Mr Hawking (if that quote is genuine, I'm assuming it is for the purpose) was merely bound by the conventions of everyday speech.