Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[verysincere]

If they sincerely believe that The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis account [despite what Genesis actually states], I can understand why they would insist that The Theory of Evolution is contra-scriptural. But how could that be considered inherently ATHEISTIC?

After all, just because some hypothesis allegedly contradicts the Bible does NOT logically require that that hypothesis denies the existence of God.

Is it simply rhetorical shock value? After all, "The Theory of Evolution contradicts a young earth creationist 6,000-years-old-earth interpretation of the Bible" is not nearly as inflammatory as saying, "The Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God!"

So is the claim simply rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of motivation---as the creationist rabble-rouser preaches to the choir (and the visiting "creation science" speaker passes the hat for donations?) Politicians on all sides of the political spectra learned this fund-raising trick long ago: Rant against the evils of the much-to-be-feared villain and exaggerate the danger as much as possible. The donations will pour in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They seem to think that atheism is ridiculous, of course we all know it is the other way around By associating evolution with atheism they seem to think that they make the theory ridiculous by association. In other words it is a poor attempt at an ad hominem argument.

 

[verysincere]

They seem to think that atheism is ridiculous, of course we all know it is the other way around By associating evolution with atheism they seem to think that they make the theory ridiculous by association. In other words it is a poor attempt at an ad hominem argument.

Interesting thought! I hadn't looked at it that way.

"Poor attempt at an ad hominem argument" is a reminder that their tactics are consistently groan-worthy failures.

 

[JustMeSee]

Ignorance and poor religious teaching for some, I imagine.

 

[verysincere]

Subduction Zone is one of many examples of participants here who give me interesting perspectives (and sometimes new evidence and facts which I hadn't yet encountered)even though we hold very different views.

In fact, that is one of the many reasons I feel sad for numerous young earth creationist "crusaders" on these threads: They fail to take advantage of the countless opportunities to learn----about important scientific evidence, biblical evidence, historical evidence, and even important insights into how people process new information. And surely someone who claims commitment to the teachings of Jesus would be interested in anything which might possibly help them to communicate and carry out the Great Commission. But instead, so many of the creationists I meet online might as well be wearing ear-plugs. The fact that they continue to misuse basic terminology and hurl silly arguments which were debunked generations ago (and dishonestly quote-mine and post pseudo-science lies in the process) tells me that they share many of the characteristics discussed in the Book of Proverbs. I'm speaking of those who hate wisdom and knowledge and mock those who are equipped to teach them. One doesn't have to share the theological views of some "atheist biologist" to learn valuable information from them!

If I had to generalize what I've observed here among creationism crusaders, it would be: a refusal to learn and thereby to use that new information to improve their arguments. I RARELY encounter a young earth creationist whose arguments and evidences IMPROVE with time. (I don't fault them per for remaining young earth creationists. But I do marvel that they can manage to remain STAGNATE in their presentations and debating skills. It is as if their scripts NEVER CHANGE.)

 

[driewerf]

If they sincerely believe that The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis account [despite what Genesis actually states], I can understand why they would insist that The Theory of Evolution is contra-scriptural. But how could that be considered inherently ATHEISTIC?

After all, just because some hypothesis allegedly contradicts the Bible does NOT logically require that that hypothesis denies the existence of God.

Is it simply rhetorical shock value? After all, "The Theory of Evolution contradicts a young earth creationist 6,000-years-old-earth interpretation of the Bible" is not nearly as inflammatory as saying, "The Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God!"

So is the claim simply rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of motivation---as the creationist rabble-rouser preaches to the choir (and the visiting "creation science" speaker passes the hat for donations?) Politicians on all sides of the political spectra learned this fund-raising trick long ago: Rant against the evils of the much-to-be-feared villain and exaggerate the danger as much as possible. The donations will pour in.

Is it simply rhetorical shock value?

Yes.
But it is a very powerfull one.

It allows the creationists to align everybody who accepts the ToE with terrible persons like Hitler and Stalin (H and S were atheists and evolutionists and look at what they did).

It scares their fellow creationists to look properly at the ToE (you have to become an atheist and will end up in hell)

It allows the professional creationist to pose as "the good guy", in contrats with the evil atheist. (Listen how Kent Hovind introduces himself in his videos!) (*) By lack of scientific arguments -- they promote creation science after all -- they have cintunously to fall back on moral arguments.

(*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM
Listen how KH introduces himself. To other biblical literalists, this guy sounds very nice and trustworthy.

 

[Truth light]

Richard Dawkins: "Theistic evolutionists are deluded" - YouTube

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If they sincerely believe that The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis account [despite what Genesis actually states], I can understand why they would insist that The Theory of Evolution is contra-scriptural. But how could that be considered inherently ATHEISTIC?

Because that is how it is constantly protrayed, even if the majority of people do not agree with it. From the first publication, Origins of Species has been portrayed as refuting the arguments used by the church by people such as Thomas Huxley.

The particular arguments they often used was that it refuted Paley's famous "watchmaker" argument from his book Natural Theology, and that it also proved Adam did not exist - therefore making both Jesus' geneology and his purpose on Earth moot. Today you have vocal atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett repeating the same tired arguments that were used over a century ago.

There was an article about it from Science 2.0 which basically argued that dogmatic atheists were far more likely to turn people away from evolution than overzealous creationists are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

What creationists do that?

In our church, the adjective we would use is "satanic," not "atheistic."

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he has assistance from a very intelligent source.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What creationists do that?

In our church, the adjective we would use is "satanic," not "atheistic."

Blimey, you really are living in a primitive community.

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he had assistance from a very intelligent source.

And don't judge everyone by your own low standards.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In our church, the adjective we would use is "satanic," not "atheistic."

Read a book instead of going to church, please.

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he had assistance from a very intelligent source.

Reality doesn't care what you believe.

 

[Delphiki]

It's usually just common among bible literalists. Evolutionary theory shows that there was never a point where the human population consisted of only 2 individuals, such as Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve, there's no original sin. Without original sin to stem an entire belief system from, the entire religion is rendered moot.

 

[CabVet]

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he had assistance from a very intelligent source.

I could list about 10 other theories that are at least as good, if not better than evolution. Are they all satanic too?

 

[AV1611VET]

I could list about 10 other theories that are at least as good, if not better than evolution. Are they all satanic too?

I'm not used to making a game out of this, but I would say it depends on what they are.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm not used to making a game out of this, but I would say it depends on what they are.

So if it is something that agrees with your views, it's okay. But if it is something you disagree with it is satanic - and the way I understand you that's because mankind is not smart enough to make good observations about our surroundings?

Isn't it more probable that you've made a few mistakes? I mean, nothing in "God's creation" backs your view, from the tiniest molecule to the biggest galaxy it defies your conclusion. And since before Christ walked the earth people tended to read the genesis story differently from the way you do. So who's right? AV or the universe? Why don't you analyze the situation more honestly? Seems to me you don't have a valid or even semi-decent argument, so you label stuff godly and satanic in order to avoid having to think.

 

[Strathos]

Richard Dawkins: "Theistic evolutionists are deluded" - YouTube

Who pays attention to what Dawkins says anymore? I hear even a lot of other atheists don't like him nowadays.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if it is something that agrees with your views, it's okay.

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he has assistance from a very intelligent source.

 

[KWCrazy]

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, but you DO have to believe that the first three chapters of Genesis; which are cited over 200 times in the New Testament alone; are nothing more than a manufactured story. You have to believe that when Jesus spoke of Noah and the events of the flood, that He was lying. You have to believe that He lied about the first man and woman, and that He lied about the Scriptures being perfectly true. Beyond that, you have to believe that the Forth Commandment was false; that God was lying when He told Moses that He created the world in six days. You have to believe that God was incapable of creating anything other than possibly an original cell, but that cell ALL BY ITSELF created every living thing. In other words, you have to believe that the simplest life form that ever existed was capable of creating what God could not.

You can still claim to worship your shallow, powerless God and your lying Jesus and call yourself a devout Christian. You can probably pass yourself off as an "enlightened" Christian at parties and on the internet.

The big question is, when your life is over and you stand in front of the great throne of God, will He congratulate you on seeing through his lies, or will he damn you for all eternity as a false prophet who spent his time on earth trying to convince believers not to believe in the Scriptures?

I don't think it matters if you call yourself an atheist or not. The false prophet will be punished more severely than a mass murderer, and certainly more than a simple atheist.

 

[TheReasoner]

I don't believe man is smart enough to come up with a theory that good, unless he has assistance from a very intelligent source.

And what do you base that belief on?

 

[verysincere]

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, but you DO have to believe that the first three chapters of Genesis; which are cited over 200 times in the New Testament alone; are nothing more than a manufactured story.

Rubbish. I'm a Bible-affirming Christ-follower and I fully accept the wondrous evolutionary processes which God has created. They do not contradict Genesis in the slightest.


>You have to believe that when Jesus spoke of Noah and the events of the flood, that He was lying.
>

Rubbish. No. Jesus didn't lie about Noah and the flood. You confuse your TRADITIONS with what the Biblical text actually states.

> You have to believe that He lied about the first man and woman, and that He lied about the Scriptures being perfectly true.
>

Now YOU are lying.


>Beyond that, you have to believe that the Forth Commandment was false; that God was lying when He told Moses that He created the world in six days.
>

In fact, the Hebrew text speaks of six YOM.


>You have to believe that God was incapable of creating anything other than possibly an original cell, but that cell ALL BY ITSELF created every living thing. In other words, you have to believe that the simplest life form that ever existed was capable of creating what God could not.
>

Illogical rubbish.

I believe that God created the laws of physics and chemistry in such marvelous ways that they continue to bring about exactly that which God wills.

Does God send angels to propel the planets (as Christians once argued)? Or did God create the physics of GRAVITY so that things would move "all by themselves"? You confuse your own ignorance with what others think and believe. You are ill-informed about the basic facts of God's creation.

>You can still claim to worship your shallow, powerless God and your lying Jesus and call yourself a devout Christian.
>

Interesting. I left the young earth creationist movement (in which I was a speaker/debater/author) because I could no longer accept the weak, limited God of creationism. I refuse to believe that God is a fallible engineer who must continuing tweak and repair and maintain what he didn't get right from the beginning. No, I prefer the God of the Bible!

> You can probably pass yourself off as an "enlightened" Christian at parties and on the internet.
>

What a childish rhetorical gimmick.

>The big question is, when your life is over and you stand in front of the great throne of God, will He congratulate you on seeing through his lies, or will he damn you for all eternity as a false prophet who spent his time on earth trying to convince believers not to believe in the Scriptures?
>

I was about to ask you the same question.


>I don't think it matters if you call yourself an atheist or not.

Then you are a very illogical and unscriptural person.

>The false prophet will be punished more severely than a mass murderer, and certainly more than a simple atheist.
>

I agree. Be gone! And take your limited, tradition-bound deity with you. I prefer the all-powerful, omniscient God of the Bible who created evolutionary processes and billions of years of earth history which the creator describes in the evidence he provided throughout the universe!

As Jesus said, "Depart from me. I never knew you!"