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

[BobRyan]

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.

When you assume the salient point in your own argument as the starting bases for discussion the only conclusion left "is yours".

"if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true?"

That's called -- End of discussion.

 

[pitabread]

When you assume the salient point in your own argument as the starting bases for discussion the only conclusion left "is yours".

"if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true?"

That's called -- End of discussion.

In the context of understanding something, one can reject something and still seek to understand it.

I should also note that the context of the original thread is not just about accepting or rejecting evolution. It's also about the equating of evolution with atheism.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

When you assume the salient point in your own argument as the starting bases for discussion the only conclusion left "is yours".

"if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true?"

That's called -- End of discussion.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic and mathematics, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition, by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.[1]

It is a method for determining the truth or falseness of a proposition. Assume its opposite (which is actually your position) then follow the logic of the assumption and if you can show that it creates an absurdity, then you have shown that the original assumption, (the opposite one) and since that one is false, the other one must be true.

For example, Not all swans are white.
Assume all swans are white, this means that no-one can show you a picture of say a black swan. You have never seen one, I have never seen one so far it seems true and sort of circular as you say, but then some Aussie joins the conversation and says eh mate, got a bunch of black swans down here and links to pictures of them. This discussion has just created an absurdity, we assumed for the sake of the argument that all swans were white, but here we have a black one and we have done a proof by contradiction and proven that not all swans are white.

 

[BobRyan]

For example, Not all swans are white.
Assume all swans are white, this means that no-one can show you a picture of say a black swan. You have never seen one, I have never seen one so far it seems true and sort of circular as you say, but then some Aussie joins the conversation and says eh mate, got a bunch of black swans down here and links to pictures of them.

The form of the OP is "if we assume that in real life - in fact -- all swans are white - but someone out there rejects this basic true fact. Are they not creating a road block to their own ability to understand the real facts of life that indeed all all swans are white?"

As we see here

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? .

And - that -- is a very different scenario than what you just gave us.

The "fact" is that given the way the OP stated it there can be only one answer "yes that would be a roadblock to fully accepting the real life fact stated by the opening assumption/GIVEN statement".

My claim is that the logic in my statement here is irrefutable.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The form of the OP is "if we assume that in real life - in fact -- all swans are white - but someone out there rejects this basic true fact. Are they not creating a road block to their own ability to understand the real facts of life that indeed all all swans are white?"

That is a very different scenario than what you just gave us.

The "fact" is that given the way the OP stated it there can be only one answer "yes that would be a roadblock to fully accepting the real life fact stated by the opening assumption/GIVEN statement".

My claim is that the logic in my statement here is irrefutable.

So you think it is a fact that all swans are white>

You have obviously never learned anything about formal logic either.

 

[coffee4u]

There is also nothing inherently un-Biblical about God using evolution as a means of producing life's diversity.

Yes there is due to no death before sin. I know I have stated that many times here.
No death before sin is in direct contrast to evolution with death occurring over millions of years.

Evolution sees life as an upward improvement from simple to more complex forms with death simply being part of that natural flow.

Creation sees life created in perfection without death, that sin alone is what caused death. This world view has the world going from perfection in a ever downward spiral of more and more corruption. All of this; floods, fires, Covid, all of it is part of the downward spiral ending in the world being destroyed by fire. The world isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse, much worse.

 

[pitabread]

Yes there is due to no death before sin. I know I have stated that many times here.
No death before sin is in direct contrast to evolution with death occurring over millions of years.

Except that using evolution strictly as a means to generate diversity isn't necessarily contingent on death.

All you really need is reproduction with variation.

Evolution sees life as an upward improvement from simple to more complex forms with death simply being part of that natural flow.

Simple to more complex is simply what the history of life on Earth looks like. The concept of "upward improvement" though is not something that is part of evolution. It sounds like you may be conceptualizing evolution in the context of the great chain of being. But that is not what evolution is actually about.

Creation sees life created in perfection without death, that sin alone is what caused death. This world view has the world going from perfection in a ever downward spiral of more and more corruption.

Except that nobody seems to know what this "perfection" is supposed to entail.

 

[BobRyan]

So you think it is a fact that all swans are white> .

No that is not my point. My point is that "the form of statement" that we see in the OP is - the scenario "it is a fact that all swans are white for this scenario - now given that fact wouldn't it be the case that someone who rejects that idea is blocking themselves from understanding the actual facts in real life?"

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? .

 

[pitabread]

now given that fact wouldn't it be the case that someone who rejects that idea is blocking themselves from understanding the actual facts in real life?"

Again, for clarification the OP was specifically about creationists equating evolution with atheism.

 

[BobRyan]

In the context of understanding something, one can reject something and still seek to understand it.

I should also note that the context of the original thread is not just about accepting or rejecting evolution. It's also about the equating of evolution with atheism.

If idea "A" is true - then rejecting "A" would be a problem understanding what is true, "prevent the rejecter of idea-A from acknowledging the truth" - to paraphrase what you present as a question in your OP.

Again, for clarification the OP was specifically about creationists equating evolution with atheism.

Ok you give a reason for rejecting "A" - but how does that change the outcome once you position the scenario that way?

 

[pitabread]

Ok you give a reason for rejecting "A" - but how does that change the outcome once you position the scenario that way?

It's in the context of putting up barriers that inhibit investigation or understanding of the subject.

 

[BobRyan]

It's in the context of putting up barriers that inhibit investigation or understanding of the subject.

Indeed - if "A" is true then any and every idea for claiming "A" is not true - is simply a problem for understanding what is true. I don't see any way around that.

Now let's contrast that approach to logic and reaching a conclusion -- to this one...

For example, Not all swans are white.
Assume all swans are white, this means that no-one can show you a picture of say a black swan. You have never seen one, I have never seen one so far it seems true and sort of circular as you say, but then some Aussie joins the conversation and says eh mate, got a bunch of black swans down here and links to pictures of them. This discussion has just created an absurdity, we assumed for the sake of the argument that all swans were white, but here we have a black one and we have done a proof by contradiction and proven that not all swans are white.

 

[coffee4u]

Except that using evolution strictly as a means to generate diversity isn't necessarily contingent on death.

No one is saying it is. But death occurred.
Are you claiming that no death occurred over the millions of years of evolution?

Simple to more complex is simply what the history of life on Earth looks like. The concept of "upward improvement" though is not something that is part of evolution. It sounds like you may be conceptualizing evolution in the context of the great chain of being. But that is not what evolution is actually about.

That is the evolutionary view of how life occurred. It looks that way- to you and to those who believe evolution took place.
It does not look that way to me or to other creationists.

If going from a one cell creature to a man millions of years later is not upward improvement then what is it? You are playing word semantics.

It almost sounds like you are spiritualizing evolution.

Except that nobody seems to know what this "perfection" is supposed to entail.

We already told you what parts scripture outlines. I listed them for you on one of my posts. God is under no duress to give us all the facts.

 

[pitabread]

No one is saying it is. But death occurred.
Are you claiming that no death occurred over the millions of years of evolution?

I'm simply pointing out that using an evolutionary process (insofar as differential reproductive variation goes) does not necessitate death.

After all, reproduction was part of the description listed in Genesis. Why couldn't go have used such reproductive variation to produce various species on Earth?

That is the evolutionary view of how life occurred. It looks that way- to you and to those who believe evolution took place.

It does not look that way to me or to other creationists.

The "evolutionary view" does not include the concept of a great chain of being.

Simple to complex, yes. "Upward improvement", no.

If going from a one cell creature to a man millions of years later is not upward improvement then what is it? You are playing word semantics.

It's simply a change in biological populations over time.

It almost sounds like you are spiritualizing evolution.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

We already told you what parts scripture outlines. I listed them for you on one of my posts. God is under no duress to give us all the facts.

And therein lies the rub.

 

[pitabread]

Indeed - if "A" is true then any and every idea for claiming "A" is not true - is simply a problem for understanding what is true. I don't see any way around that.

One can develop an understanding of something even if they disagree with it. The question is whether one is willing to undertake that.

 

[Ophiolite]

If going from a one cell creature to a man millions of years later is not upward improvement then what is it? You are playing word semantics

Well, when semantics gets mentioned I cannot resist, so apologies in advance:

• You mention upward improvement. What is downward improvement? Enhanced depth limits for submarines?
• Isn't "word semantics" a redundancy.

However, on topic, on what basis do you call the change from one celled creature to man an improvement? I can see it represents an improvement from a human perspective, but that's self referential, so can't really count.

Certainly it is a change, no argument there. But what makes you feel multi-cellularity, for example , is an improvement? It is arguably just another way to take advantage of an ecological niche. A human body contains more microbial cells than human cells. The single cell creatures are very good at handling environments of such diversity that we can only handle them with comprehensive protection. Where is the improvement there? Perhaps you feel our intelligence is the big thing. However it is our intelligence, limited as it is, that has led to global warming and our possible demise as a species.

Those examples are almost certainly strawmen, but until you specify what you think makes man an improvement we cannot advance the discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Indeed - if "A" is true then any and every idea for claiming "A" is not true - is simply a problem for understanding what is true. I don't see any way around that.

One can develop an understanding of something even if they disagree with it. The question is whether one is willing to undertake that.

I understand the general principle in logic that if one proposes "as a given" the very salient point under debate then the only response to that is "true". It is like saying "If we assume my view is true - as one scenario - my question is - in that given scenario - is my view true? And so then in that scenario any opposition to my view is in fact opposition to what is true?". The answer must always be "yes - that is a true statement given that scenario you propose".

But such a scenario does not prove anything other than the fact that it is possible to construct a scenario where the salient point in "side A" is inserted as "a given". as being true, as the staring assumption such that every opposition to it in that scenario is opposing what is fact, what is true". I don't think that point of logic in general - has ever been denied.

 

[Phred]

I understand the general principle in logic

And yet you propose, with a straight face, that a "sin" caused all death in the world. I do not accept this and would tell you to your face that this is not true. Adam and Eve were not real people. The Garden of Eden is not a real place... etc, etc. So to try and wedge this in as a fact that limits what we can say about how life evolved, well...

No.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If going from a one cell creature to a man millions of years later is not upward improvement then what is it?

It's an improvement in terms of what humans value, but evolution doesn't have values.

The evolution of creatures like humans simply shows that even very complex creatures can be evolutionarily successful, particularly if part of that complexity is devoted to complex and flexible behaviour.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet you propose, with a straight face, that a "sin" caused all death in the world.

Are you quoting me ?

Are you saying you are interested in discussing that topic with me?

There is a forum here where we can do that - if that is your interest.

looks something like this -- Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism