Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[OllieFranz]

that was a cultural factor that they thought the sun moved not the earth in genesis, how could you pull evolution out of the texts?

I don't "pull evolution out of the texts." I just pointed out that in a passage that is clearly intended to read as true and accurate history, not everything is literally true, especially as concerns God's actions and what is happening in the sky.

And that is what Genesis 1 is all about: God's actions and what's happening in the sky (at least the first few days).

 

[verysincere]

What is especially suspicious about TEs is their wanton ridicule of Creation even though it's essential doctrine.

I have NEVER met a theistic evolutionist who "wantonly ridiculed" Creation. Where have I ever ridiculed Biblical creation on these threads?

(Where do you get this stuff???)

What is even more telling is they don't have a theology, a doctrinal position or even an intelligent opinion regarding the Scriptures as redemptive history.

Now you are simply making stuff up. (Ninth commandment, anyone?)

I certainly have a theology of redemptive history. (It's called the Gospel message of Jesus Christ as it runs thematically through the scriptures.) I certainly have a doctrinal position concerning it. As to "intelligent opinion" regarding the scriptures, I would challenge you to expose what is not intelligent about my views and anything I've ever published in the field of Biblical scholarship.

Of course, SOME theistic evolutionists are Muslims, Jews, or adherents to other religious traditions. I certainly don't expect THOSE types of theistic evolutionists to hold the same views of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as I do. Is that your point????


___________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen H. Roberts wrote the following, oft-quoted, rather ridiculous statement:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

So I will use his "logic" to craft the following:

"I contend that a bachelor and a monogamous happily-married man BOTH reject marriage. The bachelor simply believes in being married to one fewer wife than does the average married man. When you understand why the married man rejects 99.9999999% of all marriage candidates, you will understand why the bachelor dismisses marriage."

Yes. Quite profound. (Sorry, Mr. Roberts. A man who is a monotheist is not an atheist. Colossal fail.)

 

[verysincere]

These latest exchanges on this thread have been quite revealing. Clearly those creationists who so disdain theistic evolutionists haven't the slightest idea what theistic evolutionists believe. (Of course, they also have no idea what The Theory of Evolution is about---but we already knew that.)



___________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen H. Roberts wrote the following, oft-quoted, rather ridiculous statement:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

So I will use his "logic" to craft the following:

"I contend that a bachelor and a monogamous happily-married man BOTH reject marriage. The bachelor simply believes in being married to one fewer wife than does the average married man. When you understand why the married man rejects 99.9999999% of all marriage candidates, you will understand why the bachelor dismisses marriage."

Yes. Quite profound. (Sorry, Mr. Roberts. A man who is a monotheist is not an atheist. Colossal fail.)

 

[Frenchfrye]

These latest exchanges on this thread have been quite revealing. Clearly those creationists who so disdain theistic evolutionists haven't the slightest idea what theistic evolutionists believe. (Of course, they also have no idea what The Theory of Evolution is about---but we already knew that.)



___________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen H. Roberts wrote the following, oft-quoted, rather ridiculous statement:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

So I will use his "logic" to craft the following:

"I contend that a bachelor and a monogamous happily-married man BOTH reject marriage. The bachelor simply believes in being married to one fewer wife than does the average married man. When you understand why the married man rejects 99.9999999% of all marriage candidates, you will understand why the bachelor dismisses marriage."

Yes. Quite profound. (Sorry, Mr. Roberts. A man who is a monotheist is not an atheist. Colossal fail.)

i quoted a piece of writing by the american science association and what they believe so I'm pretty sure that's what they believe

 

[AV1611VET]

These latest exchanges on this thread have been quite revealing. Clearly those creationists who so disdain theistic evolutionists haven't the slightest idea what theistic evolutionists believe. (Of course, they also have no idea what The Theory of Evolution is about---but we already knew that.)

Does that include your rants against YECs as well?

You remind me of a prayer (that's pray_er) in the New Testament.

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I love how God cuts the prayer of the Pharisee off, as if to say, "That's enough of that ... next!"

I think you forget 'what manner of man you were.'

You moan about how you were once a YEC, but saw the [electromagnetic] light and changed your call sign.

Now you look back on where you once were with disdain on those who haven't followed suit.

Pathetic.

 

[verysincere]

i quoted a piece of writing by the american science association and what they believe so I'm pretty sure that's what they believe

And I thought I made clear that I assumed that the summary of their position was an accurate reflection of the position of their membership. (I've never personally polled ASA members but I already stated that I assume that it is an accurate summary.)

And I made clear that I, as a theistic evolutionists, CERTAINLY affirm everything in Genesis 1 and 2. So if I do and the ASA does and you do also----what is the problem?

I would hazard to say that I have published far more pages of text defending Genesis 1 and 2 than anyone on these threads. So what is the problem? (It SOUNDS like your cconfusion is that somewhere you got the impression that theistic evolutionists who also happen to be Bible-affirming Evangelical Christ-followers reject Genesis. Somebody lied to you.)


___________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen H. Roberts wrote the following, oft-quoted, rather ridiculous statement:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

So I will use his "logic" to craft the following:

"I contend that a bachelor and a monogamous happily-married man BOTH reject marriage. The bachelor simply believes in being married to one fewer wife than does the average married man. When you understand why the married man rejects 99.9999999% of all marriage candidates, you will understand why the bachelor dismisses marriage."

Yes. Quite profound. (Sorry, Mr. Roberts. A man who is a monotheist is not an atheist. Colossal fail.)

 

[Loudmouth]

that argues what genesis says that man was made on the sixth day from the dust with God breathing life into him

However, TE is at least consistent with the evidence found in the creation itself while creationism is not. It's the old Galileo vs. The Roman Catholic Church battle all over again. It is the hubris of creationists vs. reality. Guess who is going to win?

 

[verysincere]

However, TE is at least consistent with the evidence found in the creation itself while creationism is not. It's the old Galileo vs. The Roman Catholic Church battle all over again. It is the hubris of creationists vs. reality. Guess who is going to win?

Perhaps those who care about the truth?


___________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen H. Roberts wrote the following, oft-quoted, rather ridiculous statement:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

So I will use his "logic" to craft the following:

"I contend that a bachelor and a monogamous happily-married man BOTH reject marriage. The bachelor simply believes in being married to one fewer wife than does the average married man. When you understand why the married man rejects 99.9999999% of all marriage candidates, you will understand why the bachelor dismisses marriage."

Yes. Quite profound. Sorry, Mr. Roberts. A man who is a monotheist is not an atheist. Colossal fail.

(C) Copyright 2013. Professor Tertius on the Bible.and.Science.Forum (Posted by permission.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps those who care about the truth?

I would agree. Luckily, Creationism is a minority view within christianity. Most christians worldwide accept evolution just as they also accept heliocentrism. The biological sciences are full of scientists who see no conflict between their work at the lab bench and their prayers in the pews.

The problem is that we do have a politically motivated minority that wants to deprive future scientists of the education they need to succeed in college. They think that forcing children to choose between a very rewarding career in the sciences and their faith is a valid dichotomy. How many future great scientists have been pushed away from the sciences by misguided creationists? The thought is kind of scary. I agree with Bill Nye. We need these kids. The future of science is really exciting right now.

 

[sfs]

Theistic evolutionists must be Creationists in order to be Christians and they know that. They may well be believers, they could just as easily be atheists in sheep's clothing. What is especially suspicious about TEs is their wanton ridicule of Creation even though it's essential doctrine. What is even more telling is they don't have a theology, a doctrinal position or even an intelligent opinion regarding the Scriptures as redemptive history.

What's remarkable about Mark is that he has been told over and over again, over a period of years, that what he's just written is his own perverse fantasy and does not represent the actual beliefs of most theistic evolutionists, yet that information just rolls off his mind like water off a duck. He's been told countless times that virtually all of us accept the doctrine of creation, but simply disagree with literalist readings of the Bible about how God created. He doesn't care. He doesn't care what we actually think or believe; it'e more important for him to hold onto his fantasy version of his opponents than it is to deal with the real people with their real beliefs.

Are they 'brothers and sisters' in Christ? Well, maybe, but if they are they must be Creationists.

They're neither, Mark. They're nothing at all -- they're cartoon characters you made up. Maybe someday you'll turn off the cartoons and start dealing with the real people.

 

[Strathos]

I have mocked YECs, but that involves mocking the crazy ideas and arguments they make to justify their position, which are nowhere in the scriptures. For example, water from the Flood making craters on the moon, the laws of physics completely changing to hide all evidence of the Flood and antediluvian times, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have mocked YECs,

Mock is cheap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mock is cheap.

Yes it is. AVET and his kind do make for cheap and easy humor.

 

[mark kennedy]

What's remarkable about Mark is that he has been told over and over again, over a period of years, that what he's just written is his own perverse fantasy and does not represent the actual beliefs of most theistic evolutionists, yet that information just rolls off his mind like water off a duck.

Such a shame, Steve has so much knowledge of physics and genetic statistics but resorts to fallacious ad hominems that are relevant to neither science nor religion. What perverse fantasy? More importantly, when do you ever give God credit for creating anything, or even designing it for that matter.

I have yet to see any theistic evolutionist that could do a sound exposition of any text in Scripture. Devoid of theological insight they ridicule anyone who would take the Genesis account as an historical narrative, never mind the fact that, that's exactly what it is.

He's been told countless times that virtually all of us accept the doctrine of creation, but simply disagree with literalist readings of the Bible about how God created. He doesn't care. He doesn't care what we actually think or believe; it'e more important for him to hold onto his fantasy version of his opponents than it is to deal with the real people with their real beliefs.

Yet you mock Creation preferring a philosophy that assumes, a priori, that everything has exclusively naturalistic causes all the way back and including the Big Bang. What exactly do you think God created because what you are saying is diametrically opposed to the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. You insist on arguing against Creationism and then claim to believe God created all things. What did God create because not a single theistic evolutionist will a single act of God creating anything, God doesn't even get credit for intelligently designing the universe, let alone creating it.

You can't eat your cake and then expect to have it.

They're neither, Mark. They're nothing at all -- they're cartoon characters you made up. Maybe someday you'll turn off the cartoons and start dealing with the real people.

The are militant Darwinian giving lip service to Christian theism while attacking essential doctrine. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, in order to be a Creationist you must believe that God created something. Kind of hard to fathom how constantly putting out fallacious ad hominems aimed at believers is an expression of faith.

I know what theistic evolutionists believe and I know exactly what they believe. I know it for what it is, it's one long argument against Creationism with no discernible difference from the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent.

While I don't have a problem with a Christian who is convinced by the evidence in universal common descent the incessant fallacious ad hominems tell me one thing conclusively. They lack the convictions of their beliefs. Not as Christians but as evolutionists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good to see you back, Mark!

 

[mark kennedy]

However, TE is at least consistent with the evidence found in the creation itself while creationism is not. It's the old Galileo vs. The Roman Catholic Church battle all over again. It is the hubris of creationists vs. reality. Guess who is going to win?

Galileo was a devout Catholic, he had six audiences with Pope Urban and was arguing against Aristotelian mechanics in Pisa. When he couldn't be refuted the Professors there made accusations he denied and are now known to be false.

Creationism is foundational to Christian theism, one of the few prerequisites for believing the Gospel, the other being conviction of sin. Darwinian evolution denies both in a feeble and vain attempt to usurp God as the primary mover.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20,21)​

As many times as I have debated atheists and agnostics I have yet to have one demand a definition for God. There is a simple reason for this, they already know about God, it's called natural revelation.

 

[TheReasoner]

I have mocked YECs, but that involves mocking the crazy ideas and arguments they make to justify their position, which are nowhere in the scriptures. For example, water from the Flood making craters on the moon, the laws of physics completely changing to hide all evidence of the Flood and antediluvian times, etc.

Well, they lie, they smear, they mock. And they expect to get their wild concoctions pushed through as curriculum, meaning they are harming their home country's competitiveness. As people they deserve human rights and a certain degree of respect. But their position deserves no respect. It's wrong and it's harmful.

Mock is cheap.

Says you? Hah! Talk is cheap, AV. Few here mock more than you do. I seem to recall a few sanctions?

 

[TheReasoner]

Creationism is foundational to Christian theism, one of the few prerequisites for believing the Gospel, the other being conviction of sin. Darwinian evolution denies both in a feeble and vain attempt to usurp God as the primary mover.

No it is not. It may be foundational to your american aberration. Most of the christian world has never read the bible the way you insist is a must. So given that your fundamentalism is a minority position, loud as most crazy conspiracy theories are, disproven as a worldview, and that your means of arguing for it are not logically consistant but rather different logical fallacies bundled together in a gordian knot it is far more likely that you need psychological attention than that you're right and the universe is wrong. Either you're wrong in your characterization of christianity or - if I am wrong - christianity can be categorically dismissed as superstition just like the old pantheons. What's not an option is that somehow all scientists are together in a wild anti-religious conspiracy to cover up reality by working together across the globe for 150+ years and managing to hide the real truth from the masses despite yearly recruitment from all layers of society and all religions on all continents (save antarctica). Come on, what you're suggesting is quite literally insane. And no, Mark. Posting circular reasoning "founded" on your understanding of bible verses is not enough to change everything about this issue. You believe God made you. With brains and all. So why do you insist on not using your brains?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20,21)​

As many times as I have debated atheists and agnostics I have yet to have one demand a definition for God. There is a simple reason for this, they already know about God, it's called natural revelation.

No. It is called socialization. Everyone is exposed to the idea during their life. Nothing supernatural about that.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have mocked YECs, but that involves mocking the crazy ideas and arguments they make to justify their position, which are nowhere in the scriptures.

Which is why when we talk about the Scriptures, some of us actually cite the Scriptures.

For example, water from the Flood making craters on the moon,

Wow, that's a new one.

the laws of physics completely changing to hide all evidence of the Flood and antediluvian times, etc.

The laws of physics don't apply to God. If He wanted to reverse the rotation of the earth today, no force that exists could preclude it.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have yet to see any theistic evolutionist that could do a sound exposition of any text in Scripture. Devoid of theological insight they ridicule anyone who would take the Genesis account as an historical narrative, never mind the fact that, that's exactly what it is.

So true. When they mention the Scriptures it is snippets taken out of context. For example, they might say that when God breathed into the dust that made Adam it began a process of abiogenesis by which over millions of years Adam became man. They ignore the fact that Adam was talking with God on the day he was created.

You insist on arguing against Creationism and then claim to believe God created all things. What did God create because not a single theistic evolutionist will a single act of God creating anything, God doesn't even get credit for intelligently designing the universe, let alone creating it.

Moreover, when they call the flood a myth they are calling Jesus a liar, because He specifially mentioned Noah and the flood. Beyond that, the authors of the Bible leave no doubt that it is the inspired word of God.

I know it for what it is, it's one long argument against Creationism with no discernible difference from the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Absolutely. As such, if they believe that, then they believe that most of the Bible is a lie. If it's 80% lies, why believe ANY of it? I'm not sure they do. I think they are only pretending. You can't support two mutually exclusive belief systems unless you don;t really understand either one.