Who yokes with who?

[shernren]

Taken from the "How do you view Theistic Evolutionists?" thread on the Creationists-only forum:

With the many faults creationists do have, one thing I've yet to see a creationist do is to yoke themselves with an unbeliever to discredit a believer, yet TEs seem to have no problem whatsoever doing that. Where you would think because TEs seem to have such a close relationship with the atheist/agnostic community that they might use that as an opportunity for evangelism, however that, from what I've seen, that rarely if ever happens.

With all due respect, from the philosophical perspective the position looks exactly opposite to me. It is the scientific creationists who have been yoked by atheistic scientism and been manipulated into agreeing with them. I say so because atheistic reasoning and scientific-creationist reasoning is essentially almost identical:

Atheist: Science says such-and-such, therefore the Bible is wrong.
Scientific creationist: The Bible is right, therefore science must say such-and-such.

This occurs because scientific creationism, from what I see, has really sprung out of the need of Christians who have unknowingly accepted scientism ("science is truth, and vice versa") to use it as a prop for Biblical truth. When in fact science is the wrong mechanism to prove such things. In fact the TE has rejected both scientific creationism ("Just because the Bible is true does not commit science to a creationist framework") and atheistic evolutionism ("Just because science is committed to an evolutionist framework does not mean the Bible is false") and is therefore not really yoked to either of them.

Or in fact, should be "yoked" to both of them. When a creationist attacks evolutionism, both the TE and the atheistic evolutionist believe otherwise, and it is not surprising therefore that they should join voices in defending it. The flip side is that should a creationist attack atheism, both the TE and the creationist agree on theism, and therefore should join voices in attacking it. The fact that this happens rarely probably shows that creationists are so obssessed with attacking evolutionism that they have forgotten about attacking atheism. Perhaps the TEs are not preaching Christ on C&E because their logical partners in this endeavour, the YECs, are not giving them an avenue to contribute by directly attacking the godlessness of the atheists' beliefs instead of attacking the evolutionism they happen to believe. Though I wouldn't know; I shy away from C&E as an embarrassment, frankly.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What i find most interesting about this topic is that both Dawkins and AiG wish to and operate to empty out the middle ground between them, forcing the radical dichomotomy that we sum up as "evolution does not equal atheism" and "you do not have to be YEC to be a faithful Christian". Dawkins and AiG appear as mirror images of each other, you can almost grep and replace creation with evolution, and Bible with nature, in an AiG essay to get a Dawkins one.

I think it is a rhetorical position for both sides, a matter of debate and ease of presenting sides, but it is a shame that almost everyone has fallen for the lie that there is only two sides in the creation-evolution-design debate.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I find it amazing that people are willing to see all types of shades of grey...

there is
sinful - sinless
wicked - righteous
lie - truth
wrong - right

so many seem content to ride the fence in order to keep the world from riding there backs...

pity really...

 

[notto]

Where you would think because TEs seem to have such a close relationship with the atheist/agnostic community that they might use that as an opportunity for evangelism, however that, from what I've seen, that rarely if ever happens

TE's have a 'close relationship' and understanding of the scientific community.

Science != atheism
evolution != atheism

Accepting science doesn't put us in any close relationship with the atheist/agnostic community (whatever that is).

This comment is really just another cheap shot at the theology and faith of Christians who accept evolution, once again, showing that creationists really view TE as less than Christian or simply not as Christian as them.

 

[Dannager]

I find it amazing that people are willing to see all types of shades of grey...

there is
sinful - sinless
wicked - righteous
lie - truth
wrong - right

so many seem content to ride the fence in order to keep the world from riding there backs...

pity really...

And yet every last one of us falls somewhere between the two ends of each of those spectrums. If everyone around you is made of shades of moral grey, I sure as heck hope that you're able to see the gradients.

 

[Mallon]

I find it amazing that people are willing to see all types of shades of grey...

The problem doesn't have so much to do with shades of grey as where we draw the line between right and wrong. As a TEist, I agree that there is such a thing as good and evil, truth and lie, right and wrong, etc. But I don't draw the line in the same place you do. Evolution does not threaten my faith, as it does yours, and so I do not feel it is wrong. I also do not feel it is a lie, because if God reveals himself to us through nature, as He clearly says in the Bible, then the rocks must be telling us something about Himself and how He works. I don't see how any of this can be a problem if believing such has strengthened my faith in the Lord, and has allowed to get to know Him better. Would you have me believe otherwise?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Mallon: My faith is not threatened by evolution, it's ridiculed by evolution. Huge difference there.

Dannager: The shades of grey are nothing more than an attempt by an amoral society to further lead astray the righteousness of black and white. Thanks though.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon: My faith is not threatened by evolution, it's ridiculed by evolution. Huge difference there.

What's the difference? What does the theory of evolution say that "ridicules" your faith? What about it ridicules your faith and not that of others?

 

[Dracil]

I find it amazing that people are willing to see all types of shades of grey...

there is
sinful - sinless
wicked - righteous
lie - truth
wrong - right

so many seem content to ride the fence in order to keep the world from riding there backs...

pity really...

And there is black and white.

Gray, and all its shades, as well as blue, green, yellow, red, etc. do not exist.

That's a lovely 1-bit color world you have there. Meanwhile, I suggest you look up "false dichotomy" in your black and white dictionary.

 

[random_guy]

Mallon: My faith is not threatened by evolution, it's ridiculed by evolution. Huge difference there.

Dannager: The shades of grey are nothing more than an attempt by an amoral society to further lead astray the righteousness of black and white. Thanks though.

How does "a change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations (definition of evolution)" ridicule your faith? How does, "Mutations and natural selection drive evolution (theory of evolution)" ridicule your faith?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think 'grey' areas are simply moral or intellectual indecision; 'Halting (somewhere) between two opinions', if you will.

I cannot fathom why one would reject YEC and cleave to TE when Gap is more reasonable.

Evolution denies the purposeful creation of those ancient species. Did God go on vacation for 4.5 billion years? I think not.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Evolution denies the purposeful creation of even ancient species. Did God go on vacation for 4.5 billion years? I think not.

Why not? Is God on a schedule? What's a couple of billion years to Him?

 

[Mallon]

Evolution denies the purposeful creation of those ancient species.

What makes you say this? How do we know evolution has no purpose to God?

 

[gluadys]

Evolution denies the purposeful creation of those ancient species.

Says who? And why specify only ancient species? Evolution is still happening you know.

Did God go on vacation for 4.5 billion years? I think not.

I think not too. God dwells in eternity, not in time. Time is part of creation. From God's perspective all time is present time. No vacations.

 

[Mandrake]

Fine. We all disagree. YECs think that TEs are weak sub-christians,and TEs think that YECs are ignorant fundies. This rhetoric never seems to stop, but all of us persist in bandying it back and forth, never changing anyone's mind or doing anything but going in endlessly frustrating circles.

With apologies for my sweeping generalizations of those on both sides of the issue, why do we bother?

 

[Dracil]

For the benefit of those who aren't sure yet.

 

[Dannager]

Fine. We all disagree. YECs think that TEs are weak sub-christians,and TEs think that YECs are ignorant fundies. This rhetoric never seems to stop, but all of us persist in bandying it back and forth, never changing anyone's mind or doing anything but going in endlessly frustrating circles.

With apologies for my sweeping generalizations of those on both sides of the issue, why do we bother?

I don't argue for the benefit of the opposition but rather for that of those who care to listen.

 

[Pats]

Taken from the "How do you view Theistic Evolutionists?" thread on the Creationists-only forum:



With all due respect, from the philosophical perspective the position looks exactly opposite to me. It is the scientific creationists who have been yoked by atheistic scientism and been manipulated into agreeing with them. I say so because atheistic reasoning and scientific-creationist reasoning is essentially almost identical:

Atheist: Science says such-and-such, therefore the Bible is wrong.
Scientific creationist: The Bible is right, therefore science must say such-and-such.

This occurs because scientific creationism, from what I see, has really sprung out of the need of Christians who have unknowingly accepted scientism ("science is truth, and vice versa") to use it as a prop for Biblical truth. When in fact science is the wrong mechanism to prove such things. In fact the TE has rejected both scientific creationism ("Just because the Bible is true does not commit science to a creationist framework") and atheistic evolutionism ("Just because science is committed to an evolutionist framework does not mean the Bible is false") and is therefore not really yoked to either of them.

Or in fact, should be "yoked" to both of them. When a creationist attacks evolutionism, both the TE and the atheistic evolutionist believe otherwise, and it is not surprising therefore that they should join voices in defending it. The flip side is that should a creationist attack atheism, both the TE and the creationist agree on theism, and therefore should join voices in attacking it. The fact that this happens rarely probably shows that creationists are so obssessed with attacking evolutionism that they have forgotten about attacking atheism. Perhaps the TEs are not preaching Christ on C&E because their logical partners in this endeavour, the YECs, are not giving them an avenue to contribute by directly attacking the godlessness of the atheists' beliefs instead of attacking the evolutionism they happen to believe. Though I wouldn't know; I shy away from C&E as an embarrassment, frankly.

With all due respect, while I'm sure what you're describing has and does happen, this is not what I saw. There'd be a single post from a creationist, followed by several from athiests, many questioning Christianity, and when a TE jumped in it was to answer to the evo/creat issue and jump on the creationist.

I'm not saying all TE's do this, just as I don't appreciate the lumping together of all YEC's. I'm saying I observed it in a couple threads. I just wonder what the purpose of posting there is for some???

It would seem to me that this area is the best place for Christian Evolutionists and Christian Creationists to debate evo vs creat amongst ourselves, and the Evo/Creat forum would be more of an outreach place of discussion where the Christians stand a little more united.

It doesn't help if anyone is insulting anyone, and the Creationist I saw certainly was doing this.

 

[gluadys]

It would seem to me that this area is the best place for Christian Evolutionists and Christian Creationists to debate evo vs creat amongst ourselves, and the Evo/Creat forum would be more of an outreach place of discussion where the Christians stand a little more united.

The creo-evo forum is also for discussion and debate about evolution and creationism. It is not IMHO a place for outreach. Whenever I have seen it tried, it arouses hostility rather than interest from non-Christians. And it tends to solidify the link between willful ignorance and Christian commitment in their minds.

Better to choose a place where non-Christians are asking sincere questions about faith to conduct outreach.

As for TE interventions on the creo/evo forum, I see most as clarifying scientific error, not attacking creationists per se. I find that forum much more science oriented than this one. This, it seems to me, is the appropriate place to discuss theological implications and differences in approach.

 

[Remus]

The creo-evo forum is also for discussion and debate about evolution and creationism. It is not IMHO a place for outreach. Whenever I have seen it tried, it arouses hostility rather than interest from non-Christians.

I think this is the wrong attitude to have. After all, this is a Christian forum. Every place on this forum should be a place for outreach. If someone becomes hostile as a result of this outreach, then that hostility should be met head on and dealt with. I’m sure that those who start the hostility are in the minority, at least to begin with.