This is a question for creationists, primarily young earth creationists.
What, in your opinion, is the reason that the scientific community - and the public more generally - accepts evolution as the prevailing model for biology and also deep time as the prevailing concepts for geology and cosmology?
Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position.
What I'm interested in is what reasons you think that evolutionary biology is the generally accepted explanation for the diversity of life and that there is scientific concordance about the ages of the earth and the universe.
It is a scientific conspiracy? The influence of satan or other supernatural forces? Is it man deliberately misleading himself?
What is your explanation?
for lack of a refutation I will give a post i have used before:
Motives for Evolution, Moral, financial:
The reason why there are more Darwinian evolutionists is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance if you don’t comply or Fear of reprisal by evolutionary bosses.
As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:
Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is
Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02
also: geisler admits this too:- by admitting God, or anything other than evolution:
“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”
evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).
Secondly, the moral motive for evolution:
the younger the minds that explore evolution the more impressionable they are:
“Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they come to study the subject in more detail they have in their minds several half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation.”-Creation and the Courts, Norman Geisler- 2007
thirdly- More motives for evolution (morally speaking)
Richard Dawkins was justified in his remark that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist " in that sense, Darwin's "scientific' theory forms a necessary support for the beliefs of the committed materialist.-Tekton Apologetics
… In fact, the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma. When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, “Why do people believe in evolution?” Huxley honestly answered, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”36
Former atheist Lee Strobel reveals that he had the same motivation when he believed in Darwinism. He writes, “I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints.”37
Author and lecturer Ron Carlson has had Darwinists admit the same to him. On one such occasion, after lecturing at a major university on the problems with Darwinism and the evidence for Intelligent Design, Carlson had dinner with a biology professor who had attended his presentation.
“So what did you think of my lecture?” Carlson asked.
“Well, Ron,” began the professor, “what you say is true and makes a lot of sense. But I’m gonna continue to teach Darwinism anyway.”
Carlson was baffled. “Why would you do that?” he asked.
“Well, to be honest with you, Ron, it’s because Darwinism is morally comfortable.”
“Morally comfortable? What do you mean?” Carlson pressed.
“I mean if Darwinism is true—if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae—then I can sleep with whomever I want,” observed the professor. “In Darwinism, there’s no moral accountability.”38
Now that’s a moment of complete candor. Of course, this is not to say that all Darwinists think this way or that all Darwinists are immoral—some undoubtedly live morally better lives than many so called Christians. It simply reveals that some Darwinists are motivated not by the evidence but rather by a desire to remain free from the perceived moral restraints of God.
36. Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1997), 154.
37. Strobel, Case for Faith, 91.
38. From the audiotape “Reaching Evolutionists,” at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 2001 Apologetics Conference. Tape AC0108. Posted online at
Impact Apologetics - Destroying Arguments and Taking Every Thought Captive to Christ!.
Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”21 Yes, you read that correctly.
What are the consequences of Singer’s outrageous Darwinian ideas? He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species. The only question is, why limit infanticide at 28 days, or, for that matter, 28 months or 28 years? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there’s nothing wrong with murder at any age! Of course, Darwinists such as Singer might reject this conclusion, but they have no objective grounds for disagreeing unless they can appeal to a standard beyond themselves—a Moral Law Giver.
Two other Darwinists recently wrote a book asserting that rape is a natural consequence of evolution.23 According to authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” just like “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.”24
Sources:
23. Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001).
24. Quoted in Nancy Pearcey, “Darwin’s Dirty Secret,” World magazine, March 25, 2000.
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist -Copyright © 2004 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek
According to the atheistic community, abortion is viewed as moral. In his debate with John Rankin, Dan Barker said that abortion is a “blessing” (Barker and Rankin, 2006; see also Barker, 1992, pp. 135, 213).
From:
Apologetics Press - Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
Evolutionists have no moral standard according to Darwin:
Charles Darwin understood this truth perfectly. He wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added).
From:
Apologetics Press - Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
