Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

[pitabread]

In my adjacent thread about whether God could have used evolution to create a diversity of species on Earth, a couple creationists responded in a way that suggested evolution was an inherently atheistic idea.

In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?

For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry. I've yet to see a comparable explanation for these observed patterns in biology, other than if God didn't use evolution, well, things were created with the appearance thereof. There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why those patterns otherwise exist*.

(* And for the record, simply claiming that God used common parts doesn't do it. Just using common parts wouldn't necessarily yield patterns that suggest hereditary origins and common ancestry. If just using common parts was the answer, we'd more likely expect nature to be full of evolution-defying chimeric organisms. But we don't see that in nature.)

I've also noted that creationists seem at best apathetic if not hostile to the idea of learning about evolution. This is reinforced by various threads I've started in this forum, including a recent one asking creationists which sources they've used to research evolution (over a hundred posts in and no creationists have provided specific sources).

If this apathy and/or hostility is driven by the idea that evolution is an atheistic (or worse, anti-theistic) idea, then I can see why they don't want to learn about the subject. But if God in fact used evolution to diversify life, this creates a catch-22 whereby creationists are inherently dismissing the very means by which God diversified life.

There is also nothing inherently un-Biblical about God using evolution as a means of producing life's diversity. The descriptions of the process of creation in Genesis seems to suggest such a process. Rather than arbitrarily creating every living thing, the descriptions in Genesis involve the Earth and waters bringing forth life. Likewise, God tells the organisms to be reproduce after their kind. This is perfectly in line with biological evolution, since evolution is dependent on differential reproduction and organisms are effectively constrained by their kind; e.g. constrained by their hereditary ancestry.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry.

No, it doesn't. What it does come down to is correlation, not causation. Those who believe Darwinian evolution jump to an assumption that is only one of three possible explanations of an apparent correlation. Things have similarity. They correlate. Three possibilities exist:

1. Things are evolving positively: the simpler and inferior things are causing complex, superior things.
2. Things are evolving negatively: the superior things are degenerating, causing simpler and inferior things.
3. A third factor was the cause of both: God made everything, which is why everything has a commonality.

Of the above three, the first is actually the most irrational, but it is the explanation given by evolutionists. The second process is far more likely to happen in any short span of time, but even more so over protracted lengths of time. Over enormous stretches of time, the second one progresses from merely likely toward utterly inevitable, and the first becomes impossible, owing to the law of averages. But, while the first explanation comfortably starts with nothing, the second would start with something superior, without any prior cause, making it irrational in its origin.

The third explanation is the most rational, because it neither relies on processes that don't exist, nor does it begin with a fully developed creation without a cause. The fact is that we, as creators, have filled the world with our own creations, all of which have commonality. A veritable evolutionary tree could be traced between these things, yet they did not evolve. They did not create themselves. They have no linear relationship among them. Each of them traces its origin back to its human creators.

To look at different life forms and assume evolution simply because of similarity is a rather juvenile way of thinking. It could be forgiven of a child, but the adults should have employed critical thinking.

I've also noted that creationists seem at best apathetic if not hostile to the idea of learning about evolution.

To the extent that I am hostile about learning a lie, I am. I like to read fiction, but only because no one takes it as truth, and it is not presented as truth. When fiction is presented as truth, and people begin to believe it, then it becomes a lie. When it insults or injures sacred things, it becomes an offense. Darwinian evolution is a fiction that could have been entertaining in a world that did not believe it. As it is, it is a lie that insults God, creation and all life.

Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

No, it is the only way to truly understand God's creation. While the evolutionists stumped us at "junk DNA," the belief in intelligent design was required to understand the gene regulation served by the short RNA sequences transcribed from this so-called junk DNA. If life is the product of chaos, then there is nothing to understand, and there is no reason to try to understand it. The quest for understanding requires a belief in order, to which order must be purpose, to which purpose there must be one who purposes, who must, in this case, be God. Faith in creationism, even if only subconsciously, is the only force driving us to learn anything.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it doesn't. What it does come down to is correlation, not causation. Those who believe Darwinian evolution jump to an assumption that is only one of three possible explanations of an apparent correlation. Things have similarity. They correlate. Three possibilities exist:

1. Things are evolving positively: the simpler and inferior things are causing complex, superior things.
2. Things are evolving negatively: the superior things are degenerating, causing simpler and inferior things.
3. A third factor was the cause of both: God made everything, which is why everything has a commonality.

Of the above three, the first is actually the most irrational, but it is the explanation given by evolutionists. The second process is far more likely to happen in any short span of time, but even more so over protracted lengths of time. Over enormous stretches of time, the second one progresses from merely likely toward utterly inevitable, and the first becomes impossible, owing to the law of averages. But, while the first explanation comfortably starts with nothing, the second would start with something superior, without any prior cause, making it irrational in its origin.

The third explanation is the most rational, because it neither relies on processes that don't exist, nor does it begin with a fully developed creation without a cause. The fact is that we, as creators, have filled the world with our own creations, all of which have commonality. A veritable evolutionary tree could be traced between these things, yet they did not evolve. They did not create themselves. They have no linear relationship among them. Each of them traces its origin back to its human creators.

To look at different life forms and assume evolution simply because of similarity is a rather juvenile way of thinking. It could be forgiven of a child, but the adults should have employed critical thinking.



To the extent that I am hostile about learning a lie, I am. I like to read fiction, but only because no one takes it as truth, and it is not presented as truth. When fiction is presented as truth, and people begin to believe it, then it becomes a lie. When it insults or injures sacred things, it becomes an offense. Darwinian evolution is a fiction that could have been entertaining in a world that did not believe it. As it is, it is a lie that insults God, creation and all life.



No, it is the only way to truly understand God's creation. While the evolutionists stumped us at "junk DNA," the belief in intelligent design was required to understand the gene regulation served by the short RNA sequences transcribed from this so-called junk DNA. If life is the product of chaos, then there is nothing to understand, and there is no reason to try to understand it. The quest for understanding requires a belief in order, to which order must be purpose, to which purpose there must be one who purposes, who must, in this case, be God. Faith in creationism, even if only subconsciously, is the only force driving us to learn anything.

Here you assert that evolutionary theory is atheism, but you don't explain why that must be so. Many people believe in God and that He created the universe including the process of evolution. Yet you denounce them as atheists. Why is that?

 

[pitabread]

Darwinian evolution is a fiction that could have been entertaining in a world that did not believe it. As it is, it is a lie that insults God, creation and all life.

Have you actually studied it though? And if so, from what sources?

 

[Tinker Grey]

As it is, it is a lie that insults God, creation and all life.

If God is insulted, let him say so. Judges 6:31

 

[pitabread]

The fact is that we, as creators, have filled the world with our own creations, all of which have commonality. A veritable evolutionary tree could be traced between these things, yet they did not evolve.

Also, just as a note this isn't really true. I've tested this (e.g. applying phylogenetics to created objects) and they don't yield meaningful evolutionary trees. In fact, the results are somewhat nonsensical.

When I talk about life having the appearance of shared ancestry, it's due to specific patterns in living things that show that in ways that you wouldn't expect of independently created objects.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In my adjacent thread about whether God could have used evolution to create a diversity of species on Earth, a couple creationists responded in a way that suggested evolution was an inherently atheistic idea.

In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?

For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry. I've yet to see a comparable explanation for these observed patterns in biology, other than if God didn't use evolution, well, things were created with the appearance thereof. There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why those patterns otherwise exist*.

(* And for the record, simply claiming that God used common parts doesn't do it. Just using common parts wouldn't necessarily yield patterns that suggest hereditary origins and common ancestry. If just using common parts was the answer, we'd more likely expect nature to be full of evolution-defying chimeric organisms. But we don't see that in nature.)

I've also noted that creationists seem at best apathetic if not hostile to the idea of learning about evolution. This is reinforced by various threads I've started in this forum, including a recent one asking creationists which sources they've used to research evolution (over a hundred posts in and no creationists have provided specific sources).

If this apathy and/or hostility is driven by the idea that evolution is an atheistic (or worse, anti-theistic) idea, then I can see why they don't want to learn about the subject. But if God in fact used evolution to diversify life, this creates a catch-22 whereby creationists are inherently dismissing the very means by which God diversified life.

There is also nothing inherently un-Biblical about God using evolution as a means of producing life's diversity. The descriptions of the process of creation in Genesis seems to suggest such a process. Rather than arbitrarily creating every living thing, the descriptions in Genesis involve the Earth and waters bringing forth life. Likewise, God tells the organisms to be reproduce after their kind. This is perfectly in line with biological evolution, since evolution is dependent on differential reproduction and organisms are effectively constrained by their kind; e.g. constrained by their hereditary ancestry.

Most of my knowledge of evolutionary theory was gained from the education system. Oddly enough, so was my knowledge of creation. They were taught side by side at the high school that I attended. Prior to that, my knowledge of creation was Sunday school stuff and of evolution, at primary school level. Evolution was presented as a theory, not shoved down my throat as a fact. I was not treated as a congenital idiot or a religious fanatic because I rejected evolution. At the time, it was not a big deal, unlike this era.

It is only relatively recently that I've come across the attitude that science is true and infallible and anything else religious nonsense. Students no longer get taught creation in non-religious schools. Personally, I no longer care that people believe evolution. I realised that no argument of mine will change their opinion. The only reason I discuss the issue is for the sake of those who are undecided.

One thing that has changed and that really bugs me is conflating adaptation with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. Yet evolutionists insist that they are. This is a relatively new idea, presumably developed because there is so little evidence of traditional evolution in the fossil records. For sure, God incorporated a range of genetic information in the creatures He created, including people. That enables creatures to adapt to their environment.

The major flaw in theistic evolution is the problem of sin. If humanity evolved from another primate, where did sin come in? If one of the humans sinned, then he would be responsible for his own sin. What happened to the humans that did not sin? Surely their ancestors could have survived sinless? Yet the bible says that all have sinned. It makes no sense to me.

Many questions about the "old"earth can be settled by the pre-Adamic creation, aka gap, theory. It's unprovable but I believe it fits the Bible's account in Genesis.

 

[pitabread]

Things are evolving positively: the simpler and inferior things are causing complex, superior things.

On a side note, I was just coincidently reading an article about how protein evolution gravitates towards complexity over time, even in absence of positive selection: A Surprisingly Simple Biochemistry Rule Drives the Evolution of Useless Complexity

 

[Aussie Pete]

If God is insulted, let him say so. Judges 6:31

Have you not noticed? God is saying so. Romans 1:18

 

[pitabread]

Most of my knowledge of evolutionary theory was gained from the education system. Oddly enough, so was my knowledge of creation. They were taught side by side at the high school that I attended.

What were you specifically taught about evolution and creation? I'm curious to see what a curriculum that teaches evolution alongside creationism would look like.

One thing that has changed and that really bugs me is conflating adaptation with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. Yet evolutionists insist that they are. This is a relatively new idea, presumably developed because there is so little evidence of traditional evolution in the fossil records. For sure, God incorporated a range of genetic information in the creatures He created, including people. That enables creatures to adapt to their environment.

In general, I've understood adaptation to the be the result of evolution as opposed to one and the same thing. IOW, the process of evolution leads to adaptation based on environmental pressures.

But can you clarify what you mean by the above? What you do mean by a "range of genetic information"? What genetic information are you referring to specifically?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Students no longer get taught creation in non-religious schools.

I don't know about in your country, but in mine that would be illegal. (Teaching creationism in a public school.) So there's a good reason it hasn't happened (regularly) in decades.

 

[pitabread]

Have you not noticed? God is saying so. Romans 1:18

Only if you insist on equating evolution and atheism, and assume that one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. But as per the thesis in the OP, this goes back to the trap this thinking appears to have created for creationists.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In my adjacent thread about whether God could have used evolution to create a diversity of species on Earth, a couple creationists responded in a way that suggested evolution was an inherently atheistic idea.

In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?

For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry. I've yet to see a comparable explanation for these observed patterns in biology, other than if God didn't use evolution, well, things were created with the appearance thereof. There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why those patterns otherwise exist*.

(* And for the record, simply claiming that God used common parts doesn't do it. Just using common parts wouldn't necessarily yield patterns that suggest hereditary origins and common ancestry. If just using common parts was the answer, we'd more likely expect nature to be full of evolution-defying chimeric organisms. But we don't see that in nature.)

I've also noted that creationists seem at best apathetic if not hostile to the idea of learning about evolution. This is reinforced by various threads I've started in this forum, including a recent one asking creationists which sources they've used to research evolution (over a hundred posts in and no creationists have provided specific sources).

If this apathy and/or hostility is driven by the idea that evolution is an atheistic (or worse, anti-theistic) idea, then I can see why they don't want to learn about the subject. But if God in fact used evolution to diversify life, this creates a catch-22 whereby creationists are inherently dismissing the very means by which God diversified life.

There is also nothing inherently un-Biblical about God using evolution as a means of producing life's diversity. The descriptions of the process of creation in Genesis seems to suggest such a process. Rather than arbitrarily creating every living thing, the descriptions in Genesis involve the Earth and waters bringing forth life. Likewise, God tells the organisms to be reproduce after their kind. This is perfectly in line with biological evolution, since evolution is dependent on differential reproduction and organisms are effectively constrained by their kind; e.g. constrained by their hereditary ancestry.

Modern creationism is just that, modern. It's a new teaching, a hyperconservative reaction to liberalism. Both are out of balance. I'll now duck to protect myself.

 

[Speedwell]

Modern creationism is just that, modern. It's a new teaching, a hyperconservative reaction to liberalism. Both are out of balance. I'll now duck to protect myself.

No, I think you're quite right. YECism was all but dead when Whitcomb and Morris came out with The Genesis Flood which launched he modern creationist movement. And it happened when conservative Evangelicals were starting to get political.

 

[inquiring mind]

Faith in creationism, even if only subconsciously, is the only force driving us to learn anything.

True, and Ecclesiastes 3:11 makes that clear. (Well, the KJV does anyway)

 

[BobRyan]

Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

Why would it??

In my adjacent thread about whether God could have used evolution to create a diversity of species on Earth, a couple creationists responded in a way that suggested evolution was an inherently atheistic idea.

Why would that prevent creationist from studying God's creation?? ( no matter if some evolutionists are atheist or not)

In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?

Mutation and (a degree of ) speciation within a group of squirrels can be studied all day long.

direct observation of 50,000 generations of prokaryotes failing to leap up to the level of eukaryote did not get blocked at all by knowing that God created life on Earth.

So historic fact does not suggest that Creationists are not also biologists, or biophysicists etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

direct observation of 50,000 generations of prokaryotes failing to leap up to the level of eukaryote did not get blocked at all by knowing that God created life on Earth.

And why would you expect that to happen?

(And how many times do you think it's happened in the past?)

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't know about in your country, but in mine that would be illegal. (Teaching creationism in a public school.) So there's a good reason it hasn't happened (regularly) in decades.

Illegal yes, sensible no.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What were you specifically taught about evolution and creation? I'm curious to see what a curriculum that teaches evolution alongside creationism would look like.



In general, I've understood adaptation to the be the result of evolution as opposed to one and the same thing. IOW, the process of evolution leads to adaptation based on environmental pressures.

But can you clarify what you mean by the above? What you do mean by a "range of genetic information"? What genetic information are you referring to specifically?

I happened to find out that modern dog breeds were derived from mongrels. Every breed of dog was in their genes. Breeders began to selectively breed dogs that showed a particular characteristic. So a dog that showed some pug characteristics was bred with another dog that had Pug characteristics and so on for every modern breed. Some breeds, Pugs for example, should never have been bred, but there is no accounting for taste. I'm no sure that the Chihuahua can be classified as a dog.

The genetic information for the other breeds is lost, of course. So the world, which was once Pug free, is now blighted with one of the ugliest critters on the planet. Or blessed with Collies, Afghans, German Shepherds, if you prefer.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Only if you insist on equating evolution and atheism, and assume that one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. But as per the thesis in the OP, this goes back to the trap this thinking appears to have created for creationists.

I don't see it quite that way. Apart from those who think that life originated from outer space, atheists generally are also evolutionists. It's a neat way of reinforcing their unbelief.

I accept that some Christians believe in evolution. I don't understand why, any more than I understand how anyone can believe that the earth is flat. But they do.