Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

To believe the world was created last Thursday does require you to believe that your own memories of any time prior are fabricated, but I see no practical difference between believing that everything before 100 years ago was falsified and everything before 6000 years ago was falsified since I have no memory of either period.

As long as you know the difference between Last Thursday and Apparent Age, I'll consider my job here done.

 

[SelfSim]

To believe the world was created last Thursday does require you to believe that your own memories of any time prior are fabricated, but I see no practical difference between believing that everything before 100 years ago was falsified and everything before 6000 years ago was falsified since I have no memory of either period.

(Except being able to be medically diagnosed as having some kind of mental defect .. which would be useful at this point ..)

 

[SelfSim]

As long as you know the difference between Last Thursday and Apparent Age, I'll consider my job here done.

(Which would be entirely useless knowledge ..)
Should be renamed as: Over-the-topism!

 

[AV1611VET]

* pic *

I'm not the one who thinks 1 + 1 = 10 in binary is a joke.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not the one who thinks 1 + 1 = 10 in binary is a joke.

The joke was about how absurd extremes of context can distort reality. Ie: your embedded age nonsense being an extreme to which you have to go, in order to sustain your beliefs.
It had purpose ... and it would be well received by the bulk of rational thinkers.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not the one who thinks 1 + 1 = 10 in binary is a joke.

Since you take it seriously then God must not be capable of making 1 + 1 ≠ 10 which highlights the omnipotence paradox.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you take it seriously then God must not be capable of making 1 + 1 ≠ 10 which highlights the omnipotence paradox.

Actually, God can make 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

And I'll give you credit for knowing what I'm talking about.

 

[sjastro]

Actually, God can make 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

And I'll give you credit for knowing what I'm talking about.

From your response I'm certain you didn't get the gist of my post about the logical fallacies of introducing God into science.

One of the most difficult people I have dealt with on the Internet is the planetary scientist Randy Korotev.
We have been arguing for years over a sample I possess which I believe is a meteorite.
The best I can do is to provide anecdotal evidence but it fails the pub test as it is not scientific evidence.
Randy quite rightly rejects the sample as being a meteorite as there is no scientific evidence to support it.

The role of God in science is even less than anecdotal as science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
This leads to another story which Randy Korotev does agree with.

​

A sample I possess which has been certified as a meteorite has spherical object in the image known as a chondrule.
According to the science the chondrule is at least 4.5 billion years old.

How does creationism address the evidence?
The common argument the dating must be wrong, not that creationists can actually demonstrate this but even if it was true it doesn't prove creationism is right; it's the false dichotomy fallacy in operation.
Is it consistent with Thursdaysim or apparent age; the evidence does not support either.
Does the evidence point to God being involved in the process; no it doesn't.

 

[SelfSim]

The role of God in science is even less than anecdotal as science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Going a little deeper there (and for the record); the role of God in anything is by way of belief, where a 'belief' can be defined objectively as: that which is held to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. Both 'objectively testable', along with 'the rules of logic' there, form the necessary criteria for that objective test, (namely because those are both fundamental ways our minds function when thinking scientifically).

This 'embedded age' thing also clearly meets the necessary criteria there, as it has been conceived of, in order to sustain the fundamental belief in the existence of omnipotence.
(The evidence of this is clearly demonstrated over several pages of this, and multiple other threads).

 

[TLK Valentine]

BLUF: the creationists are afraid of something, and evolution is as good a scapegoat as any.

The thing to remember about Creationism, like all forms of fundamentalism, is that what it's "for" doesn't matter nearly as much as what it's against.

Fundamentalism is reactionary in nature -- its an extreme response to a real or imagined threat. The rise of Creationism as a doctrinal requirement in the US can be linked to the rise of the "revival" movement in the 20s... culminating in the wave of anti-evolution legislature which was fought at the scopes trial.

America in the 20s was going through several radical changes, and many people didn't know how to react -- fundamentalism offered a shelter from the storm, and more importantly, an enemy to focus on.

So who's the enemy this time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Necessary Evil

Some interesting points there:

"The concept of "necessary evil" is an idea that must be thoroughly rejected. Evil is not necessary, and to accept it as such is to perpetuate it. Evil must be opposed, rejected, and avoided at all costs. It should never be viewed as something that we must unavoidably and inevitably participate in. We trivialize evil when we refer to it as "necessary." Gebre Menfes Kidus

"To say of anything that it is a necessary evil (it is often said of examinations, as of parties) is to give away all morality. It is almost a contradiction in terms. That which is necessary can hardly be evil. If that which is bad is unavoidable, then the game of morality is up. We are involved in a vicious circle from which there is no escape except in the denial of one premiss [sic] or of the other. Either the thing is not necessary, or it is not evil." Harold Hodge​

 

[TLK Valentine]

Some interesting points there:

"The concept of "necessary evil" is an idea that must be thoroughly rejected. Evil is not necessary, and to accept it as such is to perpetuate it. Evil must be opposed, rejected, and avoided at all costs. It should never be viewed as something that we must unavoidably and inevitably participate in. We trivialize evil when we refer to it as "necessary." Gebre Menfes Kidus

"To say of anything that it is a necessary evil (it is often said of examinations, as of parties) is to give away all morality. It is almost a contradiction in terms. That which is necessary can hardly be evil. If that which is bad is unavoidable, then the game of morality is up. We are involved in a vicious circle from which there is no escape except in the denial of one premiss [sic] or of the other. Either the thing is not necessary, or it is not evil." Harold Hodge​

And theologically speaking, what would ever be "necessary" for God? What would He ever lack that He would "need" to do something?

Now CreationistGod, OTOH, is lacking left, right, and center... he can't help but paint himself into corners, because he's not permitted to be smarter than his followers...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And theologically speaking, what would ever be "necessary" for God? What would He ever lack that He would "need" to do something?

Now CreationistGod, OTOH, is lacking left, right, and center... he can't help but paint himself into corners, because he's not permitted to be smarter than his followers...

Yes, an omnipotent, omniscient god would lack nothing and have no reason to do anything. But, in any case, knowing the detailed future of anything it might do would be as good as having the experience and memory of having done it, like a kind of mental simulation, making any action redundant.

Is it a lack of imagination, being unable to conceive an entity without human weaknesses, e.g. boredom, the need for company & appreciation, the exercise of power & authority, etc. ?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it a lack of imagination, being unable to conceive an entity without human weaknesses, e.g. boredom, the need for company & appreciation, the exercise of power & authority, etc. ?

Unable or unwilling to conceive? I wonder...

 

[Astrid]

Yes, an omnipotent, omniscient god would lack nothing and have no reason to do anything. But, in any case, knowing the detailed future of anything it might do would be as good as having the experience and memory of having done it, like a kind of mental simulation, making any action redundant.

Is it a lack of imagination, being unable to conceive an entity without human weaknesses, e.g. boredom, the need for company & appreciation, the exercise of power & authority, etc. ?

Being God would have to be the most boring thing
ever.
Even a hibernating toad - frog has something to
look forward to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Being God would have to be the most boring thing
ever.

From a human perspective, perhaps.

 

[eleos1954]

...and then dropped in an environment that made it impossible to live that certain way.

Pretty poor planning on CreationistGod's part.



...for the second time, after the first time led to the angels... and Lucifer.

CreationistGod isn't exactly what one would call a "fast learner," is He?



So "free agency" was pretty much a lie from the start.

The more I hear about CreationistGod, the less inclined I am to worship.



CrearionistGod should have thought of that before He dropped His kitchen table on the ocean and told it to surf.

well ... I pray the Lord will bring you understanding

 

[eleos1954]

I agree with everything you’ve said here but Adam did not have a perfect character like God. God cannot sin because of His character, because of who He is. Adam showed without a doubt that his character was capable of sin.

He (Adam) was free to sin or not to sin .... just like we are. Free agency is a big deal with God ... without it there is no true love.

 

[TLK Valentine]

well ... I pray the Lord will bring you understanding

Sounds like I understand pretty well already, but thanks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He (Adam) was free to sin or not to sin .... just like we are. Free agency is a big deal with God ... without it there is no true love.

Can we get a working definition of "sin" before this goes any further?