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

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.
Please be specific. How were Haeckel's drawings "fake"? Tell me which ones and which editions too. You are buying a pig in a poke when you make this claim. I know what Haeckel did wrong and why. I doubt if you know. You would not have used the words "fake" if you did.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I refuse to wear any label other than Christian. If someone can work out what label to put on me from what I say, they are welcome. I just won't wear it.
You don't have to have to wear a label. What you have to to is to stop being hostile to Christians whose theology differs from yours on inessential matters, like a dispensational view of scripture, for example, or the insistence literal inerrancy which goes along with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,242
2,829
Oregon
✟731,565.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
You don't have to have to wear a label. What you have to to is to stop being hostile to Christians whose theology differs from yours on inessential matters, like a dispensational view of scripture, for example, or the insistence literal inerrancy which goes along with it.
Please know that I'm not trying to be hostile to Christians when I say that I've grown to the place where I consider the literal inerrancy of the Biblical creation story as a lie. It's gotten that black and white for me. I know that the Biblical creation story is based on theology. But when the facts that the earth itself is showing us and is staring us in the face and we deny what our own eyes are showing us, in my mind the denial of those facts becomes a lie. I'm sorry I'm being so straight forward here. I'm not trying to bash Christianity. The Biblical creation story has nothing to do with one's Salvation. Many of my spiritual heroes are Christian. I'm at present doing a deep dive into the Beguines who were a Christian monastic Medieval women movement created by women and for women and not affiliated with or supervised by a male order. I truly believe that I'm not alone in this feeling this way. But I also feel that the insistence of literal inerrancy of the Biblical creation story has had a major negative impact on the Christian religion.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,034
5,808
✟249,915.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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*.
Well, either:
1. God created all life forms fully formed, and is continuing to do so as species become extinct and new species appear, but does it in a way that gives the appearance that species evolve from other species, giving a trail of genetic similarities and markers and following a geospacial proximity path, in order to fool scientists into thinking evolution is true.
2. Evolution is true but god guides it, because god has a plan for certain species to have specific forms.
3. Evolution is true and ever continuing, there is no plan for specific forms, forms match environments based on which forms are more successful and more likely to survive and procreate. No guidance necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well, either:
1. God created all life forms fully formed, and is continuing to do so as species become extinct and new species appear, but does it in a way that gives the appearance that species evolve from other species, giving a trail of genetic similarities and markers and following a geospacial proximity path, in order to fool scientists into thinking evolution is true.
2. Evolution is true but god guides it, because god has a plan for certain species to have specific forms.
3. Evolution is true and ever continuing, there is no plan for specific forms, forms match environments based on which forms are more successful and more likely to survive and procreate. No guidance necessary.
2.5. Could an omniscient creator not have known that in the environment he created an intelligent self-aware creature suitable to His purposes would eventually emerge--without intermediate tinkering.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,242
2,829
Oregon
✟731,565.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
3. Evolution is true and ever continuing, there is no plan for specific forms, forms match environments based on which forms are more successful and more likely to survive and procreate. No guidance necessary.
The only requirement is a creative universe.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Smokie

Active Member
Jan 9, 2021
25
2
50
Corolla NC
✟512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Are you claiming that Christians understand Gods creation? Because no one does, no matter the persons beliefs
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,280
1,525
76
England
✟233,569.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
My father was an aggressive atheist, mostly a reaction to ill treatment by a Catholic priest at the school he attended. He was keen to teach me evolution as best he could. That included doing my homework for me one time to ensure that I was suitably educated! I went to entirely secular schools until secondary school. I went to the oldest continually operating school in England. There was religious education, one period a week, for the first term. That was it.

Interesting. I didn't know that there were entirely secular schools in England during the 1950s. I thought that it was laid down in the Education Act of 1944 that religious education was a compulsory subject in all schools in the United Kingdom. By the way, which is the oldest continuously operating school in England?

Haeckel was not above taking extremely creative licence. He used the same woodcut 3 times to "prove" that embryos were the same in the early stages. I know some Creationists are not squeaky clean in that area either.

Regardless of Haeckel's creative licence, I can only repeat that the biology books that I read during the 1950s and 1960s were dismissive of his ideas of recapitulation and ontogeny repeating phylogeny. I suppose that biologists found Haeckel's embryological evidence unconvincing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Haeckel was not above taking extremely creative licence. He used the same woodcut 3 times to "prove" that embryos were the same in the early stages. I know some Creationists are not squeaky clean in that area either.
Not quite true. Haeckel was pressed to meet a deadline. He did not have time to prepare the illustrations needed before his article was to be published. He did use the same woodcut 3 times. It was not to "prove". Please do not use that term. It was to be used as evidence. At that stage the differences were very minor and he did not think that it mattered that much. The oversight was fixed in later editions. I could find articles explaining this if you need me to. Creationists dishonestly reported what Haeckel's error was (and it was an error in judgment, nothing more). There was no attempt to deceive.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,338
10,601
Georgia
✟911,317.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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

indeed - but wouldn't that be a circular argument where the salient point is assumed at the start?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
indeed - but wouldn't that be a circular argument where the salient point is assumed at the start?

No, because evolution isn't an assumption; it's a conclusion based on observations of biological populations.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,338
10,601
Georgia
✟911,317.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No, because evolution isn't an assumption; it's a conclusion based on observations of biological populations.

In your OP did you not present a scenario where you proposed that as the starting assumption?
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
65
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
In your OP did you not present a scenario where you proposed that as the starting assumption?
It is called a hypothetical where a point is agreed for the sake of argument without any necessary agreement that the point is true. In this case the hypothetical point was that God had used evolution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In your OP did you not present a scenario where you proposed that as the starting assumption?

The assumption in the context of the OP was that God had used evolution as a means of diversifying life on this planet. However, evolution itself is not an assumption, but rather a conclusion derived from observations in biology.

You can interpret that how you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,259
8,056
✟326,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Regardless of Haeckel's creative licence, I can only repeat that the biology books that I read during the 1950s and 1960s were dismissive of his ideas of recapitulation and ontogeny repeating phylogeny. I suppose that biologists found Haeckel's embryological evidence unconvincing.
Ontogeny does recapitulate embryological phylogeny, to a limited extent, but it's not a reliable guide.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,338
10,601
Georgia
✟911,317.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It is called a hypothetical where a point is agreed for the sake of argument .

True and in the proposed OP scenario we have the circular argument that if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true, wouldn't it be a rejection of what is true?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
65
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
True and in the proposed OP scenario we have the circular argument that if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true, wouldn't it be a rejection of what is true?
No it would be the beginning of a discussion to see where this hypothetical leads. In formal logic you often start in this way and if in the end it leads to a contradiction, you have just proven that your hypothesis was not true. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0