Why Darwinism is "distinctively atheist"

[Mallon]

Your evasive pap is still irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, the militant evolutionists and anti-Christians of Darwin's era, as well as the Nazi era, firmly believed that evolutionary theory DOES support a view of RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

Darwin, Huxley and many of their fellow evolutionist henchmen of that era, as well as Hitler and the Nazi's only several short decades ago, FIRMLY BELIEVED that evolution "proved" the racial superiority of some races.

They all believed the caucasian race to be the "pinnacle of human evolution"---of having achieved the "highest rung" on the "ladder" of human evolution.

Hitler also believed he was doing the work of God by exterminating the Jews. Read Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Ever see this?

The point is, people are very good at manipulating science, religion, etc. to suit their personal agendas. Hitler was abusing BOTH evolution and Christianity by using them to justify his inhumane actions.

It's a shame that evolutionists like mallon must use out-of-context quotes when attempting to smear Henry Morris and other Creationists.

From the very same page of the very same book that mallon quotes, Morris clearly states that the biblical prophecy was NEVER intended to forcibly subjugate people.

Right! So do you get my point now re: quote mining? Do you now see how quoting people out of context, as you did with Gould and as I reciprocated with Morris, distorts the truth?

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a shame that evolutionists like mallon must use out-of-context quotes when attempting to smear Henry Morris and other Creationists.

Morris clearly indicates that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to other groups. It's not merely racist; it's stupid and hateful. BTW, there are few evolutionists who would agree with Morris on this, because biology has shown that there are no biological human races.

From the very same page of the very same book that mallon quotes, Morris clearly states that the biblical prophecy was NEVER intended to forcibly subjugate people.

His argument seems to be "they are inferior, but they have rights." Still racist, but better than earlier creationists, who thought they were supposed to be slaves. Morris just says that being slaves is due to their inferiority.

If a real scientist says something like that, he likely loses his job. Morris did it, and creationists continued to support him. Maybe most of them weren't racists; I think most aren't these days. But they tolerated a racist.

 

[BobRyan]

It seems that theoretically, evolutionary creationists should be included in the umbrella of intelligent design. The vast majority of us believe in an intelligent, purposeful designer.

err..um... "precisely".

This is why it is so entertaining to watch Christian evolutionists unwittingly duped into attacking "ID SCIENCE" accepting evolutionists for DARING to take a stand favorable to "design" that is itself extremely modest by comparison to Romans 1 and yet so clearly objective and scientific in its being willing to "follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design in some cases that does not pander to the dictates and dogma of atheist religionist arguments about "there being no God" - "

Hence the subjecte thread stating that IN the special case of Christian evolutionists following their atheist mentors in attacking ID SCIENCE -- they are unwittingly comitting to a "distinctively atheist" position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Barbarian]

This is why it is so entertaining to watch Christian evolutionists unwittingly duped into attacking "ID SCIENCE"

Attacking "ID science" is like insulting the tooth fairy. Neither of them actually exist. As you might know, the guys who invented ID admitted in the "Wedge Document" that it is a religion. Christians who are scientists can hardly be blamed for looking at it as a weird cult posing as science.

accepting evolutionists for DARING to take a stand favorable to "design" that is itself extremely modest by comparison to Romans 1

Romans 1 is acknowledging the Creator, not some mere designer, which the IDers claim might be "a space alien." If that's good enough for you, fine. Not good enough for Christians.

And yet so clearly objective and scientific in its being willing to "follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design

But not objective or scientific enough to be willing to follow the data EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of natural processes. How objective is it, if one is willing to accept any data that supports his religious beliefs?

in some cases that does not pander to the dictates and dogma of atheist religionist arguments about "there being no God" - "

It's not the atheists that have them riled, of course. Ben Stein, for example, allowed atheists a word or two in his film, but banned any Christians who accept evolution. ID is much more comfortable with atheism than with traditional Christianity. Like atheists, they want very much to have science incompatible with Christian belief.

-- they are unwittingly comitting to a "distinctively atheist" position.

IDers are. But unwittingly. A Christian does not see the evidence for evolution as a contradiction to faith. "Truth cannot contradict truth." That is the Christian position.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
This is why it is so entertaining to watch Christian evolutionists unwittingly duped into attacking "ID SCIENCE"

Barbarian's response -
Attacking "ID science" is like insulting the tooth fairy.

I think atheists like Dawkins would agree with you as they attack ID Science with that same kind of atheist "assumed point never proven" that is totally indifferent to the actual "content" of Romans 1 as pointed out in my OP.

Bob said
This is why it is so entertaining to watch Christian evolutionists unwittingly duped into attacking "ID SCIENCE" accepting evolutionists for DARING to take a stand favorable to "design" that is itself extremely modest by comparison to Romans 1 and yet so clearly objective and scientific in its being willing to "follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design in some cases that does not pander to the dictates and dogma of atheist religionist arguments about "there being no God" - "

Hence the subjecte thread stating that IN the special case of Christian evolutionists following their atheist mentors in attacking ID SCIENCE -- they are unwittingly comitting to a "distinctively atheist" position.

Barbarian's response
IDers are.

Let's all stop and think about that response for just a second.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[crawfish]

err..um... "precisely".

This is why it is so entertaining to watch Christian evolutionists unwittingly duped into attacking "ID SCIENCE" accepting evolutionists for DARING to take a stand favorable to "design" that is itself extremely modest by comparison to Romans 1 and yet so clearly objective and scientific in its being willing to "follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design in some cases that does not pander to the dictates and dogma of atheist religionist arguments about "there being no God" - "

Hence the subjecte thread stating that IN the special case of Christian evolutionists following their atheist mentors in attacking ID SCIENCE -- they are unwittingly comitting to a "distinctively atheist" position.

in Christ,

Bob

Are you similarly amused by the fact that so many layperson Christians are duped into attacking evolutionary theory?

Nothing will ever affect my belief in the power of God's grace in the life of those who don't believe the way I do about origins, or to the legitimacy of their faith in such things. But if ID/creationism wants to present itself as a science, then it must subject itself to the scrutiny that all sciences must undergo. That includes criticism from fellow Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you similarly amused by the fact that so many layperson Christians are duped into attacking evolutionary theory?

There are great many reasons for exposing the rich history of gaffs blunders frauds hoaxes and flaws in evolutionism but I don't know of a single Bible argument against exposing those errors.

By contrast this thread points to a very specific problem with Christians who unwittingly follow atheist leadership into attacking ID evolutoinists who happen to see the scientific merit of ID SCIENCE while noting the religious dogma of Darwinism drowning out it's feeble claims to "science".

I notice that when those Christian evolutionists post here they do not address the point of the OP as if they are religiously trying to avoid Romans 1 - as if Romans 1 is on their do-not-read list.

. But if ID/creationism wants to present itself as a science, then it must subject itself to the scrutiny that all sciences must undergo. That includes criticism from fellow Christians.

Details details -- ID is not creationism.

Creationism and atheist-darwinism are both blatantly religious arguments.

ID SCIENCE - by contrast and by definition IS SCIENCE.

"SCIENCE that is willing to FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS even if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design. And EVEN in cases where ADMITTING that the data is pointing to "Design" does not pander to the dogma and dictates of atheist doctrines about there being no god"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Mallon]

Oops. Wrong forum.

 

[crawfish]

There are great many reasons for exposing the rich history of gaffs blunders frauds hoaxes and flaws in evolutionism but I don't know of a single Bible argument against exposing those errors.

By contrast this thread points to a very specific problem with Christians who unwittingly follow atheist leadership into attacking ID evolutoinists who happen to see the scientific merit of ID SCIENCE while noting the religious dogma of Darwinism drowning out it's feeble claims to "science".

I notice that when those Christian evolutionists post here they do not address the point of the OP as if they are religiously trying to avoid Romans 1 - as if Romans 1 is on their do-not-read list.

OK, let me ask you this: if my Christian brother is a bad handyman, and I tell him as politely and respectfully as I can, am I going against scripture?

Similarly, I feel I can criticize Ken Hamm or any Christian for falsifying, misleading or outright lying, even if it is done in the name of Christ. In fact, it is my responsibility as a Christian to do so.

Science is made to be criticized. Even someone so anti-theist as Richard Dawkins has admitted that there are holes and problems with the theory. The problem seems to be that IDers want to accept that these holes lead to the entire dismissal of the theory while they themselves bristle at any indication their lack of scientific evidence means the same thing.

In the end, the only way science works is if it follows the evidence and looks at itself critically.

Details details -- ID is not creationism.

Creationism and atheist-darwinism are both blatantly religious arguments.

ID SCIENCE - by contrast and by definition IS SCIENCE.

"SCIENCE that is willing to FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS even if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design. And EVEN in cases where ADMITTING that the data is pointing to "Design" does not pander to the dogma and dictates of atheist doctrines about there being no god"

in Christ,

Bob

ID is also not really science. It attempts to stand in a pseudo-domain inbetween religion and science, in an effort to separate itself legally from the former while avoiding the difficulties of full acceptance of the latter. Belief without faith, science without the scientific method.

I admit, the evidence may very well be leading to design. But what if design is indistinguishable from the natural? At what point do we stop attempting to find natural explanations, even if they do ultimately point to a designer? As mentioned before, I absolutely believe there was an intelligent designer of our universe, that there is a God personally involved with our lives. That does not prevent me from accepting that evolution is, as of now, the most complete explanation of how the designer created us. Holes and all.

 

[BobRyan]

There are great many reasons for exposing the rich history of gaffs blunders frauds hoaxes and flaws in evolutionism but I don't know of a single Bible argument against exposing those errors.

By contrast this thread points to a very specific problem with Christians who unwittingly follow atheist leadership into attacking ID evolutoinists who happen to see the scientific merit of ID SCIENCE while noting the religious dogma of Darwinism drowning out it's feeble claims to "science".

I notice that when those Christian evolutionists post here they do not address the point of the OP as if they are religiously trying to avoid Romans 1 - as if Romans 1 is on their do-not-read list.

OK, let me ask you this: if my Christian brother is a bad handyman, and I tell him as politely and respectfully as I can, am I going against scripture?

No - which is why I freely point to the gaffs, hoaxes and confirmed decades-long frauds used to prop up the mythology we know today as darwinism.

Similarly, I feel I can criticize Ken Hamm or any Christian for falsifying, misleading or outright lying,

While character attacks on individuals is the resort of a failed argument -- I don't see it as "science".

But - what I do think is "instructive" is that in your repsonse you completely ignore the point of the argument above from Romans 1 as it applies to attacks on ID SCIENCE!

Surely you can "bring yourself" to address the point - since it does have that distinctive Romans 1 component to it and by all accounts a Christian should have no problem reading Romans 1 and suspecting that it is possibly true.

Crawford
Science is made to be criticized. Even someone so anti-theist as Richard Dawkins has admitted that there are holes and problems with the theory.

While it is instructive the rank atheists like Dawkins rail against Christianity in their bold acceptance of the atheist principles in Darwinism -- it is also true that other well known atheist darwinists like Colin Patterson freely admit to the RELIGIOUS nature of the argument for Darwinist evolutionism.

Crawford
The problem seems to be that IDers want to accept that these holes lead to the entire dismissal of the theory

Your argument is that for as many CONFIRMED decades long hoaxes and frauds in the mythology of darwinism we should not expect any MORE to be lurking out there - waiting for their own 30 or 50 year timer to "go off" so they can be exposed as fraudulent.

You also argue that there are no Michael Behe Evolutionists in the ID SCIENCE group as well as those of DISCOVERY Institute -- which ignores facts beyond dispute.

Crawford -
In the end, the only way science works is if it follows the evidence and looks at itself critically.

err... umm... "exactly". Hence the problem with the religious arguments of atheist darwinism as atheist Darwinist Colin Patterson himself points out.

And that is why the distinctively SCIENTIFIC position of ID scientists in their "Follow the data where it leads EVEN IN cases where it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not pander to the dictates and doctrines of atheist arguments about there being no god" becomes so intuitively valuable when it comes to actualy SCIENCE.

Crawford
ID is also not really science.

That is a song that our atheist darwinist friends like to sing in their religionist opposition to the obvious.

But that is why Romans 1 is so important "by contrast" for the Christian.

It attempts to stand in a pseudo-domain inbetween religion and science,

Same song - second stanza.

The atheist argument is that any conclusion that does not pander to their primary doctrine about "there being no god" MUST be a "religion" opposing their own religious arguments on that point.

In the case of Creationism - they are right.

In the case of ID science - they simply are being embarrassed by the contrast between science and what their own well know atheist Darwinist Colin Patterson describes as "STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP - BUT THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE"

Which leaves our Christian darwinists with even less room to be confused on whether they should be ID evolutionists or atheist Darwinists.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

Details details -- ID is not creationism.

Creationism and atheist-darwinism are both blatantly religious arguments.

ID SCIENCE - by contrast and by definition IS SCIENCE.

"SCIENCE that is willing to FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS even if it leads to a conclusion in FAVOR of design. And EVEN in cases where ADMITTING that the data is pointing to "Design" does not pander to the dogma and dictates of atheist doctrines about there being no god"

​

​

I admit, the evidence may very well be leading to design. But what if design is indistinguishable from the natural?

In Romans 1 - what is Paul's argument on that point?

Define "natural".

Hint. Chemistry is applied physics -- Biology is applied Chemistry.. who is the architect according to Romans 1?

Crawford
At what point do we stop attempting to find natural explanations, even if they do ultimately point to a designer?

It is unclear that Discovery Institute Evolutionists or that Behe "stopped trying to find explanations".

When my radio scanner - evaluates the EM wave band looking for EM wafe forms exhibiting a pattern in favor of "design" do they need to psycho-analize the engineer at the radio station first before stopping at that frequency as a possible candidate of interest?

Crawford
As mentioned before, I absolutely believe there was an intelligent designer of our universe

Just "not so-s you kin tell"???

Crawford
that there is a God personally involved with our lives.

Does that include providing mankind with a trustworthy text of inscripture - of which Romans 1 is a part?

Is Romans 1 true when it argues that even pagans (Barbarians as Paul calls them in Romans 1) "have no excuse" because the invisible attributes of God are "clearly SEEN in THINGS that have been MADE"??

Or is this an argument for design that all barbarians would first need to be "Christianized" to then be "without excuse"?

That does not prevent me from accepting that evolution

That is an argument many of the ID evolutionist would agree with you on --

in Christ,

Bob

 

[crawfish]

No - which is why I freely point to the gaffs, hoaxes and confirmed decades-long frauds used to prop up the mythology we know today as darwinism.

While character attacks on individuals is the resort of a failed argument -- I don't see it as "science".

Character attacks are completely different from calling someone on their lack of honesty. And I'll be honest here - I can't think of a single hoax or mistake in evolution that was uncovered by a creationist or an ID proponent. They tend to get exposed by other evolutionists. It seems that, over time, the scientific method ensures a level of honesty and an ability to recover from mistakes.

But - what I do think is "instructive" is that in your repsonse you completely ignore the point of the argument above from Romans 1 as it applies to attacks on ID SCIENCE!

Surely you can "bring yourself" to address the point - since it does have that distinctive Romans 1 component to it and by all accounts a Christian should have no problem reading Romans 1 and suspecting that it is possibly true.

You are taking Romans 1 out of context when applying it here. I've heard that verse applied to all sorts of things - even to getting a college education. The simple truth is, it's about faith, which is an attribute of most creationists and TE's.

While it is instructive the rank atheists like Dawkins rail against Christianity in their bold acceptance of the atheist principles in Darwinism -- it is also true that other well known atheist darwinists like Colin Patterson freely admit to the RELIGIOUS nature of the argument for Darwinist evolutionism.

I'll grant that some take evolutionary theory to a religious level. I do not. Even without metaphysical elements, it has enough support and consistency to put together a picture that is hard to deny.

Your argument is that for as many CONFIRMED decades long hoaxes and frauds in the mythology of darwinism we should not expect any MORE to be lurking out there - waiting for their own 30 or 50 year timer to "go off" so they can be exposed as fraudulent.

For every scientist that earns grant money from a fraud, there are seven more who earn grant money from exposing them. These things tend to work themselves out. It has nothing to do with honesty or integrity, it has to do with a system where self-interests strengthen the whole.

Which leaves our Christian darwinists with even less room to be confused on whether they should be ID evolutionists or atheist Darwinists.

I think you're the one who's confused. NO TE wants to be an athiest Darwinist. Personally, I would not consider myself a Darwinist - I do not worship a man. I accept a theory.

Define "natural".

Here are the TE definitions:

Natural - where God creates in a way that is testable, repeatable and reliable. Gravity would hardly be useful if it only worked spuriously, or could not be predicted.

Supernatural - where God sets aside the natural order of the universe to accomplish something. These, by definition, are not testable, repeatable or predictable.

Hint. Chemistry is applied physics -- Biology is applied Chemistry.. who is the architect according to Romans 1?

Why would you think I wouldn't believe the architect of all things is God?

It is unclear that Discovery Institute Evolutionists or that Behe "stopped trying to find explanations".

No, but they have shut plenty of doors that deserve to still be open.

Just "not so-s you kin tell"???

None of us can tell. That is the value of faith.

Does that include providing mankind with a trustworthy text of inscripture - of which Romans 1 is a part?

Is Romans 1 true when it argues that even pagans (Barbarians as Paul calls them in Romans 1) "have no excuse" because the invisible attributes of God are "clearly SEEN in THINGS that have been MADE"??

Or is this an argument for design that all barbarians would first need to be "Christianized" to then be "without excuse"?

I think you may need to re-read Romans 1 without preconceptions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or is this an argument for design that all barbarians would first need to be "Christianized" to then be "without excuse"?

I beg your pardon? We were among the first Christians. Galatians, for example, were barbarians.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

No - which is why I freely point to the gaffs, hoaxes and confirmed decades-long frauds used to prop up the mythology we know today as darwinism.

While character attacks on individuals is the resort of a failed argument -- I don't see it as "science".​

​

Crawfish
Character attacks are completely different from calling someone on their lack of honesty. And I'll be honest here - I can't think of a single hoax or mistake in evolution that was uncovered by a creationist or an ID proponent. They tend to get exposed by other evolutionists. It seems that, over time, the scientific method ensures a level of honesty and an ability to recover from mistakes.

Being honest we admit that there is not single fraululent hoax of evolutionists that was NOT challenged by Creationists and it is only when DECADES LATER some unsuspecting Evolutionist devotee publishes the fact of the fraud -- that the actual evolutionists finally come around on it.

SO much so that when Haeckle was put on trial by his own academic institution for his fraud -- decades later.... his argument was of the form "I would normally feel bad about such dishonesty but then I noticed that everyone does it" in this "all for darwinism" rush for fame.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But - what I do think is "instructive" is that in your repsonse you completely ignore the point of the argument above from Romans 1 as it applies to attacks on ID SCIENCE!

Surely you can "bring yourself" to address the point - since it does have that distinctive Romans 1 component to it and by all accounts a Christian should have no problem reading Romans 1 and suspecting that it is possibly true.

You are taking Romans 1 out of context when applying it here.

Interesting accusation.

Where is the evidence for it?

While we wait -- the inconvenient details remain - Paul points to non-Bible non-believing pagans and argues that EVEN THEY are "without excuse" (in his own words) for the "invisible attributes of God... ARE CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE" Rom 1.

I have to think you would like to imagine some nice fact to put on this on behalf of evolutionism's attacks on Intelligent Design (where ID is a much more modest claim than what we find in Romans 1).

But of course - we are still "waiting for the details" on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

CrawFish
Here are the TE definitions:

Natural - where God creates in a way that is testable, repeatable and reliable. Gravity would hardly be useful if it only worked spuriously, or could not be predicted.

Supernatural - where God sets aside the natural order of the universe to accomplish something. These, by definition, are not testable, repeatable or predictable.

We actually might be coming into agreement on "terms" if nothing else.

In your statement of "NATURAL" you claim it must be "testible and repeatable" - I will grant you this -- to the degree that ANY claim in evolutionism is "repeatable" I accept it.

Sadly - none of it's salient points are!

I will also grant you this -- God's actions in creation are not repeatable -- but they can be tested in the negative -- i.e we can not create life NOR can we get dirt and water to self-organize into DNA no matter how many times we wash it in amonia or shock it with electricity.

Worse - we can not even get it to self-organize into all the proteins needed to form a single living cell.

Worse YET - we can not get a single living cell (having all the right chemical compounds and ratios) to 'come back to life' after we irradiate it to death.

WE can not get reptiles to become birds we can not get worms to evolve human eyes simply by manipulating their environment we can not get people from basic primates we can not get horses from a tree dwelling hyrax.

AND we can not even get the "ancestor-descendant" story telling using Fossil data in Evolutionism to work without a great deal of "religion" that is (as Collin Patterson said) "NOT science".

in Christ,

bob