Objections to Creationism

Creationism, perhaps unintentionally, creates a serious moral issue. It positions human beings as having God's ordained supremacy over the whole of all other life on Earth.
This has infused Western culture to such a pervasive and unconscious degree that it still operates among people who no longer believe in Creationism.
It allowed us to develop anthropocentric attitudes that allow us to exploit animals with incredible cruelty, pollute the soils, waters and atmosphere, cause the extinction of thousands of species, damage the ecologies of most ecosystems, and generate climate change at a rate faster than evolution can adapt.

It could be argued that humans were given a caretaker role - a responsibility to husband the Earth's life in a responsible and sustainable way - yet, where that does occur, farmers attempt to practice it at the level of economics, not from an empathic feeling for sentient animals. This is slowly changing now that the effects of climate change are beginning to be felt in most places.
A further counter argument could be that [i]other[/i] agricultural and industrial cultures have developed similar exploitative practices without having Creationist ideologies, for instance, China and India.
~

Another argument against Creationism is that it is a belief in something that is logically impossible.
If God is defined as a non-material sentient being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and good, then he knew before creating Creation that Satan would fall, tempt Adam and Eve to disobey and thus that humanity would be condemned to death, painful childbirth and forever cast out of Eden. I can't imagine anything more cruel or tyrannical. He also knew all the other events that would later occur: his destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the Flood, and the torture to death of one man for the sins of all others.
To know that evil will inevitably arise from one's creation, and have the capacity to prevent evil and suffering, and yet to still create it would be, in itself, evil. Therefore God could not be both good and omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Therefore, a God such as he is defined could not possibly exist. Therefore God could not have created the world. The OT and by extension the NT all rest on a idea (the definition of what God is) which is absurd.
~

A third argument is that Creationists tend to be authoritarian and prejudiced. (Please treat this argument as a [i]generalisation[/i] - meaning it refers to most but not all Creationists. There are, naturally, exceptions in every group of people). They believe the husband has a right to rule over his wife and children. They tend to be highly sexist and racist and practice double standards in almost every aspect of their lives. They are attracted to authoritarian politics, especially right-wing demagogues. They don't see the direct connection between the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Their own families are neither more nor less functional than non-Christian families, being just as statistically prone to neurological, physiological and genetic disorders, diseases, accidents and drugs. They think welfare belongs inside the family without realising that many people don't have functional families, including their own. Statistically, their men have proven to be the ones most likely to abuse their women and children, and even murder them. This argument against Creationism is that authoritarianism and prejudice is inherently damaging. Even on small scales, the damage done via sexism and racism has far reaching consequences for the whole of society.

Creation is willfully and deliberately misleading and irresponsible. It literally encourages and promotes ignorance as proof of faith.

I object to it because it's evidently nonsense.

Not at all. Creationism is often associated by many with 'young earth creation', however I don't subscribe to that view as the evidence doesn't support it - evolution is convincing science. However what the evidence in physics and other fields is increasingly demonstrating now, is that the universe is overwhelmingly fine tuned for life and consciousness ('fine tuning') and in physics they are currently struggling to explain it. There are probably 3-4 reasonable explanations considered or held among the foremost philosophers and physicists (in consideration of the evidence). One is creationism. I subscribe to this view.

Just to note and offer the Buddhist objection. As based on the Majhima Nikaya Sutta 63, the verse:-

[i]These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One, set aside and rejected by him, namely: ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’; ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’......[/i]

All "views" (many others are cited in that sutta) are deemed as inimicable to what is called the Holy Life, the heartwood of the Dharma, the heartwood seen as "unshakeable deliverance of mind."

I certainly find [i]all[/i] conclusions unhelpful. Possibly because Reality itself is (as Whitehead described it in his Process Philosophy) [i]a constant advance into novelty[/i].

Creationism fails to explain God's origin, how God came up with the idea for creation, and the mechanism by which a disembodied intelligence (something for which we have no evidence) can affect material reality. Since creationism is clearly mythology and not science, it can be dismissed.

Yes, and theologically.

I am not religious but feel that taking the Bible literally or even mangling scientific knowledge to make that fit the Bible (the 'Intelligent Design' concept) debases the Hebrew scribes who if not inventing at least set down the myths, the intelligence of modern Christians..... and ultimately debases the very God and its works that the notion believes it is defending.

It also tends to be promoted by people who divide humanity into two absolute camps: "Christians" sharing their own verion of the faith, and "atheists" (everyone else, or any sect, faith or none).

'

The word "promotion" is deliberate. Most Creationists are probably just individuals content to live in their own theocratic "bubble" while the Universe carries on as normal; but there are also the dangerous ones, the organisations who want schools and "Creationist centres" to push their creed for their own reasons.

"Dangerous" because I don't[i] know [/i]their motives (if asked, Creationists avoid answering it); but I strongly [i]suspect[/i] these organisations want a lot something beyond merely divide meaningless philosophically and logically, between religious belief and scientific knowledge. Beyond mere money too, although I call them the 'Commercial Creationists' because they plough a lot of effort and money into it, and some might even make a lot of money from it.

Yep, because it's based on premises that have been repeatedly proven wrong. Young earth hypothesis and absence of evolution.

that's fucking cool