The problem with Creation vs. Evolution threads (or why certain atheists aren't helping)

[Strathos]

Outline of a typical Creationism vs. Evolution thread on this forum:

1. OP makes a post arguing in favor of either creationism or evolution
2. People begin debating the topic, primarily Christian creationists on one side and atheists and theistic evolutionists on the other side. At this point the thread is still on-topic and doing fine.
3. Either a creationist or an atheist changes the topic of the thread from biological evolution to the existence of God/morality of the Bible/evidence for Jesus/etc.
4. The entire debate shifts to this new topic, with the Christian creationists on one side and the atheists on the other side, and the theistic evolutionists feeling left in the lurch.
5. The Christian creationists get the idea that acceptance of the ToE is inextricably linked to atheism, and is thus anathema to their faith. The atheists who attempt to evangelize to them and make them deconvert in these threads only reinforce that. This causes them to double down on rejecting evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Complaining about a problem on the internet is pretty much the opposite of a way to get the problem to stop.

 

[Chris B]

" The Christian creationists get the idea that acceptance of the ToE is inextricably linked to atheism"....
Despite the existence of all these Christians who do accept the ToE.

Apart from therefore being regarded as confused or "not proper" Christians, this is a problem for those who find no such incompatibility, since the former have this point of doctrine as part of their presentation of the Christian message.
Christians who have no real problem with evolution, can tend to see this as putting an obstacle, and an unnecessary one, in the way of people accepting Christianity... There's a verse or two in the bible against that sort of thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What are the chances that evolution would produce man in the image and likeness of God?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What are the chances that evolution would produce man in the image and likeness of God?

Off topic. Answer: 100% if that's what an omnipotent god wanted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Off topic. Answer: 100% if that's what an omnipotent god wanted.

I don't see any room for evolution in the creation story.

 

[Hoghead1]

What are the chances that evolution would produce man in the image and likeness of God?

As I believe that evolution would be impossible without God, my answer is that the chances are very high, indeed.

 

[Robert Palase]

What are the chances that evolution would produce man in the image and likeness of God?

Evolution produced man who created Gods in the image of themselves, even the elephant Gods in India have human faces,
all Gods ever created were created to represent the people who created them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see any room for evolution in the creation story.

Since that's not what the story is about, we shouldn't expect there to be. There's also no room for germ theory in the creation story. And more technically, that's creation stories, plural, there's two of them in Genesis.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Cadet]

3. Either a creationist or an atheist changes the topic of the thread from biological evolution to the existence of God/morality of the Bible/evidence for Jesus/etc.

What are the chances that evolution would produce man in the image and likeness of God?

And there we go.

Strathos, like it or not, for many people, evolution is bound up in their religious beliefs. If you believe that your god can only possibly be real if evolution is wrong... Well, shoot, there's no way to get you to even look at the science without first breaking down some misconceptions. This is not evolution's fault, obviously; it would be like a religious cult which is convinced that gravity isn't real and that this is a core belief of theirs. It's not that gravity is inherently linked to atheism, it's just that you can't discuss it without also attacking their scientifically illiterate beliefs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Since that's not what the story is about, we shouldn't expect there to be. There's also no room for germ theory in the creation story. And more technically, that's creation stories, plural, there's two of them in Genesis.

-CryptoLutheran

There may be three. Genesis 8:11

 

[DogmaHunter]

Outline of a typical Creationism vs. Evolution thread on this forum:

1. OP makes a post arguing in favor of either creationism or evolution
2. People begin debating the topic, primarily Christian creationists on one side and atheists and theistic evolutionists on the other side. At this point the thread is still on-topic and doing fine.
3. Either a creationist or an atheist changes the topic of the thread from biological evolution to the existence of God/morality of the Bible/evidence for Jesus/etc.
4. The entire debate shifts to this new topic, with the Christian creationists on one side and the atheists on the other side, and the theistic evolutionists feeling left in the lurch.
5. The Christian creationists get the idea that acceptance of the ToE is inextricably linked to atheism, and is thus anathema to their faith. The atheists who attempt to evangelize to them and make them deconvert in these threads only reinforce that. This causes them to double down on rejecting evolution.

I certainly get your point.

However, I think it's unavoidable.

Anti-evolution creationists are biblical fundamentalists. Their "evidence" against evolution is literally the bible. The content of a debate on this topic, will be about the evidence for or against evolution theory. The actual discussion will be about that evidence.

So such a debate turning out to be a discussion about the bible, is pretty much unavoidable imo.

When asked to present evidence, it's inevitable that at some point someone will say "the bible says...", and off we go........

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And there we go.

Strathos, like it or not, for many people, evolution is bound up in their religious beliefs. If you believe that your god can only possibly be real if evolution is wrong... Well, shoot, there's no way to get you to even look at the science without first breaking down some misconceptions. This is not evolution's fault, obviously; it would be like a religious cult which is convinced that gravity isn't real and that this is a core belief of theirs. It's not that gravity is inherently linked to atheism, it's just that you can't discuss it without also attacking their scientifically illiterate beliefs.

I think you'll find that many people who claim no religious belief also reject evolution. The ToE is like the label on a can of food, which states that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, once the contents are examined it's not possible to confirm those claims, which places the theory in the same realm as religion; acceptance by faith.

 

[The Cadet]

I think you'll find that many people who claim no religious belief also reject evolution.

"Many"? In the USA (a country, I might add, where acceptance of evolution is extremely low in comparison to the rest of the western world), you're looking at a paltry 13%. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "many".

 

[AV1611VET]

"Many"? In the USA (a country, I might add, where acceptance of evolution is extremely low in comparison to the rest of the western world), you're looking at a paltry 13%. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "many".

The Antichrist will probably come out of Europe and feel right at home among evolutionists.

 

[USincognito]

Complaining about a problem on the internet is pretty much the opposite of a way to get the problem to stop.

Or, the self-styled critical thinkers could take good advice.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Many"? In the USA (a country, I might add, where acceptance of evolution is extremely low in comparison to the rest of the western world), you're looking at a paltry 13%. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "many".

If you are citing the Pew study, 13 percent of over 150,000,000 "unaffiliated" people is still "many" by any account.

 

[The Cadet]

If you are citing the Pew study, 13 percent of over 150,000,000 "unaffiliated" people is still "many" by any account.

Right, in the same way "many" people are LGBT.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right, in the same way "many" people are LGBT.

Those numbers are greatly exaggerated, probably because of overexposure by the media. I'm guessing that the media leaves disbelievers of the ToE alone is because they know the actual numbers are quite large, as in "many".

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you'll find that many people who claim no religious belief also reject evolution. The ToE is like the label on a can of food, which states that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, once the contents are examined it's not possible to confirm those claims, which places the theory in the same realm as religion; acceptance by faith.

Can you show us some examples of people with no religious belief who reject evolution? And if so, so what? The world ids full of bar-stool quarterbacks and backseat drivers who love to pick on the big boys and show how much more they know. Happens on this site. Laity, with no real credentials or education in science, thinking they know far more abut it than the scientists do.