Creationism is a religious belief. They don’t “debunk” anything – they just reject modern science because it conflicts with their holy books. No reasonable argument required or provided.

Wait, I am unclear, how was the universe created? Random fluctuation in a void? Branes smashing together in a theoretical multiverse, or some other assertion that cannot be disproved?

They do not need science to say they have a belief. As you do. They have their own vocabulary, as you have yours.

Creationism is a classic pseudoscience that routinely fails scientific tests of validity. There’s a vast literature, going back decades, debunking creationism.

One of the more memorable legal tests in recent years was the 2005 Dover, PA decision against teaching intelligent design (a re-branded creationism) in science class, claiming “irreducible complexity” as evidence. The judge derided the school board’s decision as breathtaking inanity.

To answer your question, the less the better. There are some people who have taken the time to learn some science in the hopes of using it to “prove” creationism. But true knowledge of science serves to show how foolish creationism really is.

Religious men once firmly believed geocentrism. They believed it so firmly they condemned to death any who taught that the sun, and not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. Believing things doesn’t make them true.

Creationism has failed the number one test of science, which is to be a theory, an idea has to make predictions about things we have not yet observed, and when we check, the predictions are correct. Creationism hasn’t predicted anything.

If you believe in Creationism you haven’t had enough science education.

Strict Creationism is incompatible with education, whether scientific, historical, linguistic, or otherwise. In fact, a few centuries ago, even literacy was discouraged since the Church wanted The Word of God to come from their clergy and not from the believers reading The Book for themselves.

More moderate Creationism requires a fair amount of scientific knowledge to figure out how to reconcile the differences between The Word and actual, observable, measurable reality. However, that crowd tends to believe that Creationism and Evolution are both true; Man came from monkeys, and God made the monkeys.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, the universe wasn’t “created.” Time only exists as a property of the universe. There is no such thing as “before” the universe.

Shouldn’t be so hard for you to understand, since you assume the same thing about your god. Of course, unlike your god, there’s actually evidence that the universe exists.

@Qingu ok. Agreed. Time is a property of the universe. Which came about how?

In fact, I am not a believer, but I do not pretend science explains the existence of the universe in a more satisfying way than saying “Um, time is a property of the universe, there is no such thing as before”.

Evolution theory is merely the opinion of supposedly learned men and men are inclined to learnln only that which supports their world view belief.

God did it , is the creation story and is superior to evolution in practicality because ot is conclusive. The debates usually revolves the somewhat unrelated issues of who/what is God
Evolution on the other hand is inconclusive and somewhat far removed from the common practical man, who need to become somewhat like the elite scientist in order to understand the concept of evolution.

This is why those who have begun the process of trying to understand evolution, view those who do not accept it as being ignorant.

Every man has a practical understanding of the concept of God without needing to do mountain of research to first understand. And debates only become relevant after men has left that practicality of understanding and delves in endless researches to know further.

Evolution on the other hand is a product of endless research from beginning which has made it impractical thus easily dismissed.

/headpalm

@kess I think you miss a HUGE point here. Maybe you should re-read the second paragraph of my previous post. Your first sentence is provably false because there are many devout Christians who accept Evolution as they do not find it incompatible with their faith in God, Jesus, or the Bible. Or are you going to pull a “No True Scotsman” fallacy and claim that those people are not truly Christian?

As for The Creation Story being conclusive, really? If that were true then all Christians would agree on all aspects of it barring the “No True Scotsman”, but they don’t so that is also false. The difference is that Evolution acknowledges that it is a theory and doesn’t try to pass itself off as Absolute, Immutable Truth the way creating a woman from a rib does. The Bible is either provably false or meant allegorically instead of literally, in which case it cannot be consider “inconclusive” as allegory is open to interpretation.

If you want a product of endless research then you might want to take a good look at the Bible. If nothing else, the version you know bears little resemblance to the original manuscripts; Man cannot translate accurately. Attempting an accurate translation of the Bible also requires endless research (it’s still ongoing, and has been for far longer than the Theory of Evolution), so by your own admission, the Bible is even less practical and easier to dismiss. Now, I myself would rather believe that you are incorrect on that as well rather than totally dismiss a holy text that has actually inspired many millions of people over the centuries to persevere and/or to do good deeds; just because I personally do not believe in the Bible, I would not dismiss it.

@Charles I think that this thread proves that one can believe in Creationism with nothing more than faith; no scientific knowledge required. The real question here is whether science and faith are even compatible; many on the faith side appear to believe they are not.

@jerv you missed me entirely….
A person world view causes them to believe what they believe…
Some creation some evolution a lot more a mix of the two…christian, non christiam alike.

You seem to believe that all creation believer are bible believers….no.

Most have concluded God created long before they read or even heard of bible.
Plus the writers in the bible wrote with out the aid ofthe bible.

You seem to also disregard that, creation evolution argument is usually god, no god argument, and there are some on the fence as well as both sides of it. And the main reason that the debates persist is the differring belief in the person of God, and this in itsrlf gives validity to the pro evolution argument.

donot label me as a bible pushing creationist as christians are…I seek to answer your question based on popular understanding of thr concepts.
But myself share very little of these, though I am forced to use the same terminology because it is what is being used.

Quite frankly I have not told you anything about what I believe more than God created.
But obviously the true understanding of this lies on what God and creation is to me.
And I know my concept is not common among those who debate it.

What happens when creationists try to understand science.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, if time is a property of the universe then the universe has always existed. There would be no time in which the universe does not exist. So asking “how did the universe come about” is nonsensical—like asking what color an electron is.

@nikipedia Too true.

@Qingu so your proposition is non-falsifiable from within the universe? Believers tell me there is an invisible god, I cannot falsify that.

There’s also zero evidence of the invisible god, which makes it a rather different claim than the existence of a universe based on Einsteinian timespace.

@Qingu still you seem astoundingly confidant.

I imagine there are some personality types who throughout history have always imagined themselves the bearer of secret knowledge, whether the arc of the covenant or the writings of their physics professor. They are always smug in their belief systems, and remarkably self satisfied that they alone know the magical truth. Again, this truth told to them by some magical authority.

I imagine in this century they claim certainty of knowledge regarding spacetime, as they did in a previous century about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Is science education in the U.S. so sh*tty that we don’t even understand what the f*ck it is?

@tom_g Look at the way kids these days type, what with all of their bad grammar and atrocious spelling, and remember that most school systems require more English classes than science (typically 4 years versus 2–3).

It’s okay to cry.

@jerv – I’m crying a bit. I was referring to recent comments in this thread, by the way.

@tom_g I know; I was just trying to offer a little dose of perspective.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, physics knowledge isn’t secret. It’s not even that hard to learn the basic ideas. It’s certainly not told to someone by a “magical authority.”

I think one of the biggest problems our society faces is that there are so many people like you who can’t distinguish between actual science and quackery, and who insist on equating the “two sides” of any given debate… largely, it seems, so you can feel superior to both.

I’ll just drop this here.

@jerv, personally I feel that pessimism is underrated.

@Qingu I do not desire superiority. You can tell because I do not assert that believers are foolish at every opportunity. In fact, I occasionally see the nonbeliever crowd circle jerking each other in a superiority display of their intellect, and am motivated to comment that they seem a little silly.

Also relevant

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought People in general are at least a little silly. Point?

@jerv I don’t think the believers on Fluther are the people you are mad at in Tennessee.

Why go out of your way to try and make them feel dumb unless someone is looking for validation of their own superiority? And the implication that I am trying to feel superior seems a laughable projection.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I think you read it all wrong. The original question was about how much scientific knowledge is required to believe in Creationism. I am merely posting yet more evidence supporting my assertion that it is possible to believe in Creationism with an active, anti-intellectual disdain of science.

But I’m not here to fight, merely to put my two cents worth in here and there.