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

[Strathos]

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.

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about. I meant the idea (posited by several people) that the laws of physics were different before/during the Flood, and God permanently changed them afterwards, along with concealing all of the evidence of the Flood, special creation, and the young earth, and planting evidence of an old earth and evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's classic Darwinian evolution in no uncertain terms, in his grandfather's book on zoology. He credited the muse in the frontpiece putting her inside the cover page. Of course you are not required to have an actual argument as long as you insult creationists, I actually feel sorry for you.

I have been to scientific conferences where evolution is discussed. We do not sacrifice animals at the altar of Darwinism. There is nothing religious about it. All we have is your pathetic attempts to project your own flaws onto others.

I have seen the quote and read the record of the Inquisition of Galileo as well as the other historical accounts. It need not be in that quote, now your begging the question of proof on you hands and knees. I always know I have you guys when you are reduced to ad hominems. It used to take me a while but these days it's all you guys have. I'm going to miss the good ole evolution/creation controversy, it was a lot of fun but all good things must come to an end.

The quote is right there for you to see, and yet you still ignore it.

They were well aware of Galileo's astronomical observations and the model he was using, he even told it to Pope Urban personally. It only got to be a problem when the professors at Pisa couldn't refute him so they appealed to the Catholic theologians claiming that Simpiico in one of his books was actually the Pope. Wrong again but at least you are consistent.

Sounds exactly like creationism. Creationists can't refute the science so they scare their fellow christians by labeling evolution as an apostasy and heretical. It is history repeating itself.

What could you possibly know about Christian theism?

Quite a bit, actually. I grew up in the church, 4th generation in fact.

You are equivocating the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions with evolutionary biology, they are not the same thing at all. Biology is about living systems, not dead ancestors so don't go mixing up your natural history with the genuine article of natural science. It's like crack, once you are hooked on it you'll be a fallacy junkie if your not already.

Biology is about life, both past and present. Evolution explains both the history and current state of life. Always has, always will. Evolution explains why the mixture of characteristics in fossils falls into the predicted nested hierarchies. The current genomes of living species is entirely contingent on the evolutionary history of life.

How about Moses or Darwin?

How about facts and evidence?

I choose the Word of God because it stands up under evidential test . . .

Creationism does not.

whereas Darwinian universal common descent relies on transcendent naturalistic assumptions.

And those are?

You are required to assume that all causes are from natural law rather then God, that is the first assumption.

Nope, that requirement is found nowhere in science. If God has a measurable and detectable influence on nature then God is part of science. Nothing in science excludes God. Nothing.

No, they are not used in the genuine article of science but they are used in Darwinian zoology.

Where?

You made so many fundamental errors in our debate on ERVs it is strange that you would desperately cling to that failed homology argument. In fact, it's pathetic.

Then go to this thread and show me the errors.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7682737/

 

[verysincere]

I choose the Word of God because it stands up under evidential test whereas Darwinian universal common descent relies on transcendent naturalistic assumptions.

I love the oxymoron "Transcendent naturalism."

I'd love to see your explanation for how transcendence can be naturalistic or how naturalism can be transcendent. (It sounds suspiciously similar to those who claim "evolution is a religion" while also attacking it for being mired in naturalism! Seeing how religion is defined in terms of transcendence, evolution can't be both transcendent and naturalistic at the same time. And the fact that it can be easy to quote-mine those who pretend otherwise doesn't do much to dig claimants out of the holes they've dug for themselves.)

 

[Strathos]

Ok one last question: why did God tell Noah to build an ark and put animals in it when him and these animals could have easily walked to somewhere the flood wouldn't have struck? he had 120 years to do that.

You might as well ask why God didn't just make all of the people and animals he wanted to kill disappear into thin air, instead of bothering with a messy flood. It's symbolic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moses did not write genesis,

That's right, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, and a few others wrote Genesis.

Moses edited it.

 

[mathetes123]

If they sincerely believe that The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis account [despite what Genesis actually states], I can understand why they would insist that The Theory of Evolution is contra-scriptural. But how could that be considered inherently ATHEISTIC?

After all, just because some hypothesis allegedly contradicts the Bible does NOT logically require that that hypothesis denies the existence of God.

Is it simply rhetorical shock value? After all, "The Theory of Evolution contradicts a young earth creationist 6,000-years-old-earth interpretation of the Bible" is not nearly as inflammatory as saying, "The Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God!"

So is the claim simply rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of motivation---as the creationist rabble-rouser preaches to the choir (and the visiting "creation science" speaker passes the hat for donations?) Politicians on all sides of the political spectra learned this fund-raising trick long ago: Rant against the evils of the much-to-be-feared villain and exaggerate the danger as much as possible. The donations will pour in.

For most atheists, their only commitment to science and evolution is to the extent that they believe evolution allows for an explanation of creation without a creator.

 

[Strathos]

For most atheists, their only commitment to science and evolution is to the extent that they believe evolution allows for an explanation of creation without a creator.

Except evolution doesn't explain where life came from, just how it diversified once it already existed.

 

[super animator]

That's right, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, and a few others wrote Genesis.

Moses edited it.

Prove it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have been to scientific conferences where evolution is discussed. We do not sacrifice animals at the altar of Darwinism. There is nothing religious about it. All we have is your pathetic attempts to project your own flaws onto others.

Of course it's not religion, mythology is something that happens when you lose your religion.

The quote is right there for you to see, and yet you still ignore it.

Back to begging the question of proof, it's a nice change from the ad hominems.

Sounds exactly like creationism. Creationists can't refute the science so they scare their fellow christians by labeling evolution as an apostasy and heretical. It is history repeating itself.

Now for the equivocation, science isn't synonymous with the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I have yet to see a Creationist that was opposed to Mendelian genetics for one simple reason, Creationism is not opposed to science or evolutionary biology in the proper sense of those terms. They are opposed to Darwinism pure and simple. The only thing being repeated is your repertoire of fallacious logic.

Quite a bit, actually. I grew up in the church, 4th generation in fact.

Not once have I seen a theistic evolutionist willing to take a stand on the Scriptures. Instead they want to demean and ostracize anyone who dares affirm the foundational doctrine of Creation.

Biology is about life, both past and present. Evolution explains both the history and current state of life. Always has, always will. Evolution explains why the mixture of characteristics in fossils falls into the predicted nested hierarchies. The current genomes of living species is entirely contingent on the evolutionary history of life.

Biology is about living systems, pure and simple. Now Darwinism and it's nemesis Creationism have always been focused on history, natural history being the primary focus. Those nested hierarchies are zoological categories largely organized for convenience. One of the clearest indications of bias being the complete absence of Chimpanzee ancestors even though the vast majority of our supposed ancestors had Chimpanzee size brains, particularly the Homo habilis ones.

Genomics has demonstrated that the human genome is far more divergent then was predicted or could be expected. The most significant genetic difference being the ones related to the development of the human brain. Our ancestors would have had neither the time nor the means to have tripled the cranial capacity, virtually overnight, about 2 million years ago.

Which leads me to a very serious question, if we are so much alike in our respective genomes why do so many evolutionists lie about the divergence between the Chimpanzee and Human genomes?

How about facts and evidence?

Always have and always will.

Creationism does not.

Nonsense.

And those are?

Your arguments are spiraling into smaller and smaller circles. If you want substantive answers ask real questions.

Nope, that requirement is found nowhere in science. If God has a measurable and detectable influence on nature then God is part of science. Nothing in science excludes God. Nothing.

Science defined how exactly?

Newton defined it this way:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.(Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)​

Science is an examination of natural phenomenon based on the epistemology we call science. God is not examined by science and God is not outside the parameters of science. God is altogether other which is called the asiety or utter independence of God. While God is separate from the created universe God's glory and divine revelation transcends the natural world.

Where?

Then go to this thread and show me the errors.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7682737/

We can revisit that subject, as I recall I promised you I would when I got some time. Just not tonight and probably not the right thread for it. When I get the formal debate done in the formal debate section of the Theology thread we can get into that, no problem.

 

[mark kennedy]

Moses did not write genesis, there is too many evidence by analyzing genesis that is against it.

The Pentateuch has been attributed to Moses by Jewish and Christian scholars throughout it's history.

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47)​

As a Christian who do you think I'm going to believe, you or Jesus Christ?

 

[mark kennedy]

Prove it.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for some kind of proof, I have yet to find any. It's like the supposed genealogy tablets that Adam, they say, wrote the genealogy on. I don't know where people get these ideas but the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses even though he probably didn't write that part that says he died. You have to understand, Moses was from the tribe of Levi, the Levetical lineage of the Hebrew priesthood. Moses was more the prophet then the priest and the Levites were responsible for teaching the Law. I don't think Moses sat down and scribed the autograph but the revelation is attributed to Moses, there can be no question about that.

 

[TheReasoner]

For most atheists, their only commitment to science and evolution is to the extent that they believe evolution allows for an explanation of creation without a creator.

Nonsense. The "commitment to evolution" is based on evidence, mathetes. That's what everything dictates. Many or even most atheists (Most I know, including me) would happily acknowledge the existence of a god, if sufficient evidence were to be presented. If god is proven to be real I'll spin on a dime. Happily, too. But that would have nothing to do with evolution, which has no say on the existence of a god.

Evolution is not anti-theistic. The only reason it seems like it to some is is because of a certain group of american conservative christians who say it is. Heliocentrism held that very same role for quite a while. Perhaps, after 153 years it is time for you guys across the pond to join the rest of your brethren who never really had much problem with this in any event? Why do you think it is primarily among you guys this is a problem? Do you think you're right and all other christians are wrong, even though the evidence supports those who hold that evolution is true?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nonsense. The "commitment to evolution" is based on evidence, mathetes. That's what everything dictates. Many or even most atheists (Most I know, including me) would happily acknowledge the existence of a god, if sufficient evidence were to be presented. If god is proven to be real I'll spin on a dime. Happily, too. But that would have nothing to do with evolution, which has no say on the existence of a god.

Evolution defined as what exactly? I only ask because evolutionists are obsessed with commingling their naturalistic assumptions with the genuine article.

Evolution is not anti-theistic. The only reason it seems like it to some is is because of a certain group of american conservative christians who say it is. Heliocentrism held that very same role for quite a while. Perhaps, after 153 years it is time for you guys across the pond to join the rest of your brethren who never really had much problem with this in any event? Why do you think it is primarily among you guys this is a problem? Do you think you're right and all other christians are wrong, even though the evidence supports those who hold that evolution is true?

The only reason that evolution seems antitheistic is because Darwinian logic dictates naturalistic explanations rather then God, all the way back to the big bang. Evolution has long been defined as the 'change of alleles in populations over time', which is perfectly consisted with an ex nihilo creation with living creatures fully formed by divine fiat.

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, evolution itself is not. Darwinism also comes before the evidence is considered:

Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert Weinberg, MIT Biology)​

So much for 'evolution', however you think that term is supposed to be defined, being based on actual evidence. By the way, you do have evidence for God, you just choose to ignore it.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:20, 21)​

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TheReasoner]

Evolution defined as what exactly? I only ask because evolutionists are obsessed with commingling their naturalistic assumptions with the genuine article.

You're making a couple of mistakes here. First off, evolution defined by what? Erm. Observation? The theory of evolution, not the creationist straw men, but the actual theory. This is hardly ambiguous. Mistakes can be made of course, but...
The second mistake: Evolutionist is defined as someone who believes complexity will always increase. This is false. I am not, in that sense, an evolutionist.

The only reason that evolution seems antitheistic is because Darwinian logic dictates naturalistic explanations rather then God, all the way back to the big bang. Evolution has long been defined as the 'change of alleles in populations over time', which is perfectly consisted with an ex nihilo creation with living creatures fully formed by divine fiat.

More mistakes, mark. First off, you're making the mistake of bringing cosmology into the mix, we were talking about evolution. That would be biological science, not cosmology.

Second, you seem to believe that the theory of evolution speaks of abiogenesis. It does not, different story. It deals with how life evolved once it was around. Creation is not a part of it. Speciation is, the path from single celled organisms to us and beyond is.

Third mistake is a false dichotomy where you assume science precludes a god by way of your mixing philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Wikipedia will help you distinguish.

So much for 'evolution', however you think that term is supposed to be defined, being based on actual evidence. By the way, you do have evidence for God, you just choose to ignore it.

Show me the evidence then. But PLEASE do your due diligence, I honestly can't be bothered with logical fallacies and wooly thinking disguised as evidence.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:20, 21)​

circular reasoning, mark. We do not have evidence because you - or the bible - say we have evidence. You are the one who claims you have evidence of something, God's existence, so you have the burden of proof here. As I have said before, I'll reconvert to christianity or hinduism or whatever if I am actually convinced it is true. But you will not convince me by citing bible verses all day long; Just copy pasting text will not convince me, you need hard evidence and I do not think you have any. Especially since you tend to go so hard out on attacks against evolution and science when you apparently do not really know what you are attacking. You may think you do, but from your posts the opposite appears likely.

Have a nice day
Mark

You too!

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove it.

I can't.

I don't have the ability to see the past, like you guys claim you can.

 

[WisdomTree]

I can't.

I don't have the ability to see the past, like you guys claim you can.

Everything you see right now is in the past. One cannot properly experience the present since everything takes time.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's like the supposed genealogy tablets that Adam, they say, wrote the genealogy on. I don't know where people get these ideas but the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses...

Those genealogy tablets are called "colophons."

Back in ancient times, when the "mail" went out, people would put their tablets in a cart, and the cart man would then drive off ... kinda like a stagecoach.

If someone wrote a "letter" that went to more than one tablet, at the start of the second tablet, they would put the last sentence of the first tablet; that way the "mailman" could keep things together.

In the Scriptures, the colophons consisted of genealogies; so the rule of thumb is that, when you see a genealogy -- such as the one starting in Genesis 5:1 -- it's a new author appending to the previous author's work, keeping a kind of "running documentary."

... even though he probably didn't write that part that says he died.

Joshua is given credit for writing Deuteronomy 34.

 

[TheReasoner]

Prove it.

I can't.

If you can't, then don't make the claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Everything you see right now is in the past. One cannot properly experience the present since everything takes time.

I won't dispute that, but that kind of sight is extremely myopic -- moreso than science.

To say "we see a history of 4 billion years" does not convince me to abandon Embedded Age Creation for Theistic Evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can't, then don't make the claim.

I take most of my claims from the following sources, in descending order: 1) the Bible, 2) basic doctrine, 3) my Boolean standards, and 4) suppositions [educated guesses].