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

[verysincere]

So even if Adam had a navel you would still say that he was created. You are going back one what you said before.

Yes, TRADITION is a powerful force. The Bible makes no statements about "embedded age" or "appearance of age" so those who promote the theory will quote theologians of long ago whose limited knowledge led them to SPECULATE that everything was created "mature" and as if it had existed for years (such as already-mature forests).

This myth of embedded age in the Bible is also traced to the misreading of Adam's creation. They see the word "man" and assume that it means "mature adult male" when in fact it refers to "the human one"----and is even applied to EVE as well as Adam. [And by the way, "Adam" is actually a description and not a first name in its original use. HADAM= H + ADAM (that is, the definite article plus ADAM)....and literally meant "the red-soil human one"....because the text actually says:
"And God formed HADAM from the dust of the HADAMAH. It is a play on words where HADAM ("the human one") came from the dust of the ground (HADAMAH.)

I recently received an email where the young earth creationist tried to use a misunderstanding of the KJV version of Genesis 2:5 to somehow claim that the verse supported "appearance of age":

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Actually, in modern English verse 5 is very confusing. Most modern translations do a better job:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

This introduction to the garden in Eden account is explaining that because there was no rain or gardeners to work that ERETZ (the "land" as the Hebrew text says), so Eden was originally barren. No shrubs or plants of any kind had grown yet. But the text goes on to explain how God provided irrigation to the area and then how God PLANTED A GARDEN RESERVE area in the land of Eden.

Now if that sounds like it has NOTHING to do with an argument in favor of "embedded age" for anything created, you are exactly right.

But as I said, the absence of a concept in the Bible is rarely an impediment to those who love TRADITION. Just as with the tradition-bound Pharisees of Jesus' day, the same kinds of Pharisees torment believers today---just as they opposed Christ by attributing the works of God to Satan.

 

[Split Rock]

I have no idea.

I thought falsifiability is a component of the scientific method?

If so, in keeping with the fact that the creation week didn't involve science, I'll say "none."

Evidence can take a hike, but in this case, there's nothing to walk.

But this isn't about creation week at all... I am only asking about the length of time between creation week and the present. That is what your claims concerning "embedded age is not embedded history" rides on.

 

[Split Rock]

This myth of embedded age in the Bible is also traced to the misreading of Adam's creation. They see the word "man" and assume that it means "mature adult male" when in fact it refers to "the human one"----and is even applied to EVE as well as Adam. [And by the way, "Adam" is actually a description and not a first name in its original use. HADAM= H + ADAM (that is, the definite article plus ADAM)....and literally meant "the red-soil human one"....because the text actually says:
"And God formed HADAM from the dust of the HADAMAH. It is a play on words where HADAM ("the human one") came from the dust of the ground (HADAMAH.)

What about Eve being made from Adam's rib? I personally see that as pure allegory, as Man is thus incomplete without a woman, since she is a "missing part" of him.

 

[verysincere]

But this isn't about creation week at all... I am only asking about the length of time between creation week and the present. That is what your claims concerning "embedded age is not embedded history" rides on.

AV will never be able to explain that distinction because even he knows that there is NO Biblical basis for his "theories" about "embedded age" and "embedded history". Back when I used to read his posts I watched countless individuals ask him to justify his position but he always dances around it and, at best, cites irrelevant scriptures. He uses his theory to play both sides of an issue----portraying himself as a young earth creationist when it suits his purposes and denying it when he knows he must distance himself from the more outrageous YEC positions. He knows that "embedded age" is merely an honored tradition cultivated by various theologians over the centuries who had no awareness of the history of the earth which God provides abundantly in his creation (as well as aspects of Hebrew exegesis that alerted even some of the early church fathers to the contradictions inherent in young earth creationist hermeneutics.)

 

[mark kennedy]

What is your justification for arbitrarily redefining words? Your statement is absurd.

It's neither arbitrary or a redefinition. Unlike you I realize words have meanings and you don't get to redefine a word to give it two meanings they way you have with evolution and science.

You are also abusing the proper definition of ad hominem. Confusion results when you decide to assign your own personal and arbitrary definitions to standard terms.

I always insist on definitions for 'evolution' and 'science' and generally quote cite and link my reference material. Something you haven't done once.

Correct. There was never an "a priori assumption of universal common descend." Common descent was a RESULT and CONCLUSION after examination of overwhelming quantities of evidence.

If that were true then special creation by divine fiat would be an alternative while universal common descent would have a null hypothesis at crucial points of transition. All the evidence is organized around the a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

Methodological naturalism is how science works---and is part of the very definition of modern science as established by such God-affirming pioneers of science as Isaac Newton.

Newton and others during the Scientific Revolution shifted the epistemology of natural science from the deductive reasoning of Aristotelian Scholasticism to the inductive methodology we have come to recognize as empirical testing. Methodological Naturalism is the logical approach since the focus was on natural phenomenon.

That in no way, shape or form justifies the flagrant ridicule of religion in general and Christian theism in particular.

I've never seen anyone claim that Creationists oppose ALL science. Indeed, even many of the scientific concepts which young earth creationist used to deny are now accepted by many of the leaders of the YEC movement in the U.S. You can even read lists of "Fellow creationists: Please don't use these arguments any more" on Ken Ham's AiG website.

First of all I will argue as I see fit. Secondly you are simply conceding that Creationists are not opposed to science. Where you are falling short of a substantive reply is you have failed to acknowledge that Creationists are opposed to arguments of science, falsely so called, namely Darwinism.

Mendelian genetics when through a process by which it became a legitimate science. It started with Chromosome theory around the dawn of the 20th century then after 25 years the search for the molecular bases of heredity began and was culminated with the unveiling of the DNA Double Helix model by Watson, Crick and their associates. The reason it was not regarded as a true science is because it demonstrated effects without identifying causes.

Darwinism is based on natural selection that is itself an effect without a molecular cause. As such it has no legitimate claim of being a science but unlike Mendelian genetics it gets a free pass. The reason being, the academic and intellectual community is obsessed with attacking the credibility of Christian scholarship. Darwinism is really nothing more then one long argument against creation, it is diametrically opposed to theistic reasoning by design and any Christian who defends it is undermining essential Christian theism, whether they like it or not, know it or not, want to admit it or not.

That is why so many Christians are opposed to Darwinism, not the genuine article of science but arguments of science, falsely so called.

Then you really need to open your eyes and get out more. If you've ever read my posts on ChristianForums, you've observed a TE taking strong stands on the scriptures.

I have over 7.000 posts on CF and spent the vast majority of my time on here debating Theistic Evolutionists. Not once have I seen them take a stand on the Scriptures or make the slightest attempt to express a confidence is the Bible as redemptive history. They instead ridicule anyone who dare affirm creation as an actual event with reckless abandon.

No theistic evolutionist would dare take a stand on the testimony of Scripture, let alone a strong one.

as some pretend that "evolutionist" is a synonym for "evil atheist", you choose to redefine "theistic evolutionist" into some sort of cartoon caricature stereotype existing only in your imagination.

It is the same long argument against creation, nothing more.

SFS posted on this topic and how you have a long history of straw man fabrication. Why do you have such a virulent contempt for many of your own Christian brethren? ("Theistic evolutionist" describes a very broad spectrum of beliefs----including Jewish and Muslim TE as well as Christians. And even among Christian theistic evolutionists, they run the gamut from verbal plenary inspiration inerrantists to those you would consider theologically liberal. So why cherry-pick particular examples as if ALL TE's held such beliefs? Yes, we all know why you do that.)

Steve helped me with the Chimpanzee Genome paper and we had a very interesting discussion. I had nothing but respect for him until he refused to admit that we are not 98% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA. There is a lie being circulated as a scientific fact that we are, a fabrication he would never allow a Creationist to get away with. Like most, if not all, theistic evolutionists they take the party line of Darwinians as gospel and will stand with them not matter what they claim, no matter how flawed their arguments, no matter what the actual evidence is.

No. They are not mere convenient descriptions. They are REALITIES which God created in his biosphere. And he filled that creation with answers to our questions---but you choose to deny what God has clearly revealed to us.

They have no more merit as proof then the Dewey Decimal system. What you have their is yet another flawed and fallacious homology argument. Now you are trying to mimic my argument that evolutionists deny God's natural revelation and the evidence of God's interaction with his creation. I call that the 'I'm rubber your glue' fallacy and it's shamefully shallow.

That is your right but don't pretend that any informed Christian is going to agree with you.

I have studied the Scriptures my entire adult life and base my evidential apologetic method of argumentation almost exclusively on the clear testimony of Scripture and the related scientific literature. The truth is that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and no theistic evolutionist would dare deny that.

Don't pontificate to me about my Christian profession and don't equivocate a flagrant animosity toward essential doctrine with being 'an informed Christian'. It just makes you look foolish.

Genomics has been a slam dunk for reaffirming yet again the reality of nested hierarchies.

No it hasn't.

Those who lie and say that The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable ignore the fact that attempts at falsification take place daily, every time the evidence is examined.

Are you talking about 'the change of alleles in populations over time' or 'universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'?

Genome mapping held the potential to debunk nested hierarchies (and The Theory of Evolution itself, theoretically) but instead it provided EVEN MORE confirmation! Need I review the countless examples where genome maps revealed EXACTLY what The Theory of Evolution had predicted long before?

That is simply not true. Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find diseases and disorders resulting from changes (mutations) in brain related genes. What you cannot find, because they don't exist, is an adaptive evolutionary change with a beneficial effect.

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Next time you are chatting with Steve why don't you ask him what I do to that homology argument because he has no answer for it.

They don't. And they could just as easily ask why you lie? (What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.)

They most certainly do, in Nature's announcement of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper back in 2005 the Nature Web focus page makes this bogus statement:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. (Chimp genome, Nature)​

This statement is conclusively proven to be false and yet it is repeated in Time, Scientific American and many other publications that don't want to talk about the indels:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies​

It cites 5 other papers that discovered the same thing. You don't have to be a math genius in order to realize that 1.23% plust 3% does not add up to less then 2%. The only way that statement is correct is if you simply ignore the indels.

I would be fascinated to hear an explanation of your self-contradicting statements of how God is NOT outside of the parameters of science and yet is transcendent and not examined by science. Which is it? It almost sounded like your agreed with Newton's methodological naturalism---but then you said you don't.

I did explain it, in detail and you simple ignored it. Go back and actually read my explanation because I'm not chasing you around the mulberry bush again.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[verysincere]

What about Eve being made from Adam's rib?

While "rib" has become established tradition because of the KJV and its precursors, if the Hebrew text were being translated for the first time today, I wonder if we might choose "tissue sample" as in a biopsy. Something internal to Adam's torso is what is being described in the text. "Rib" was one possible use of the Hebrew word but not the only one.

And for that matter, I couldn't deny a modern interpretation like "DNA sample" being removed from Adam. Indeed, Adam's reaction was that he saw Eve and knew that she was "flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones". One can't help but consider that if a man's DNA was extracted and the Y-chromosome removed and the X-chromosome doubled, one would basically have a female-version of Adam! Frankly, there is nothing in the text to deny that interpretation. And that is one reason I try to approach the Biblical NOT ONLY based on what it means; I ask "What does the text ALLOW?" Only when we ask such questions can we shake off the blinders imposed by TRADITION. Tradition so often blinds us to the possibilities.

I personally see that as pure allegory, as Man is thus incomplete without a woman, since she is a "missing part" of him.

And that is a very rational reaction to the text. I caution Bible readers not to be frightened by the possibility that some Biblical texts may be allegorical or even a mixture of history and metaphor. Hebrew poetry is more than just the classic poetic structures cited in the Psalms. Indeed, if Genesis includes some of the oldest material in the Bible---predating Abraham and Moses by many years----we should NOT assume that it was Hebrew in its original and certainly not that it was Semitic culture. We don't know how much change occurred as the oral stories were passed down for centuries before they were first put into written form. There most likely are a host of linguistic and cultural complications of which we are entirely unaware. And that is why humility as well as common sense demands that we be cautious about undue dogma and pontification. We know that Jesus and the NT writers respected the Torah including Genesis. And one can cite the truths of a story, regardless of whether it is 100% history, a mixture of historical and poetic telling of a story, or even mostly metaphor. I deplore the "slippery slope" shallowness of those who claim that ANY admission of metaphor or poetic flourish into the Genesis accounts somehow wipes away the Gospel and the Bible in general. (Nonsense.)

But I do think such black-and-white, panicked reactions are indicative of a very tenuous faith. I could be wrong about some interpretation of Genesis 2:7 without thinking I have to throw away the Gospel. That is entirely illogical.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV will never be able to explain that distinction because even he knows that there is NO Biblical basis for his "theories" about "embedded age" and "embedded history". Back when I used to read his posts I watched countless individuals ask him to justify his position but he always dances around it and, at best, cites irrelevant scriptures. He uses his theory to play both sides of an issue----portraying himself as a young earth creationist when it suits his purposes and denying it when he knows he must distance himself from the more outrageous YEC positions. He knows that "embedded age" is merely an honored tradition cultivated by various theologians over the centuries who had no awareness of the history of the earth which God provides abundantly in his creation (as well as aspects of Hebrew exegesis that alerted even some of the early church fathers to the contradictions inherent in young earth creationist hermeneutics.)

Rocky thinks I'm going to fall into his trap now.

He's desperately trying to drag me out of Genesis 1, so he can vegomatick me with science, and I'm too smart for that.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Quite frankly AV, I take your admonishment toward science the equivalent to racism.

That's rather extreme. Unless I'm very much mistaken AV1611VET has never claimed science-supporters do not have the right to vote, or dragged them to another country in chains so they can pick cotton for creationists ... and we can pretty much guarantee he doesn't consider scientists lower on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to be rude RickG, but is that really the last criticism we have left for creationists? "That's raaacist?"

 

[WisdomTree]

That's rather extreme. Unless I'm very much mistaken AV1611VET has never claimed science-supporters do not have the right to vote, or dragged them to another country in chains so they pick cotton for creationists ... and we can pretty much guarantee he doesn't consider scientists lower on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to be rude RickG, but is that really the last criticism we have left for creationists? "That's raaacist?"

Dat's rrraacist! How can you sayy dat!?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's rather extreme. Unless I'm very much mistaken AV1611VET has never claimed science-supporters do not have the right to vote, or dragged them to another country in chains so they can pick cotton for creationists ... and we can pretty much guarantee he doesn't consider scientists lower on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to be rude RickG, but is that really the last criticism we have left for creationists? "That's raaacist?"

Thank you, NSP!

I had considered submitting his post upstairs, but it takes a LOT for me to do that.

I'm pretty much anesthetized to ad hominems by now, and I like to think I can roll with the punches.

(But in his defense, he did say the equivalent to racism.)

 

[Split Rock]

If that were true then special creation by divine fiat would be an alternative while universal common descent would have a null hypothesis at crucial points of transition. All the evidence is organized around the a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

All of science deals with the assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes, as you well know. You want the origin of your particular species to be special, because of Pride.
Tim 3:6
"Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."

Newton and others during the Scientific Revolution shifted the epistemology of natural science from the deductive reasoning of Aristotelian Scholasticism to the inductive methodology we have come to recognize as empirical testing. Methodological Naturalism is the logical approach since the focus was on natural phenomenon.

Are humans not part of nature?

That in no way, shape or form justifies the flagrant ridicule of religion in general and Christian theism in particular.

If you are so concerning with the "flagrant ridicule" of religion, why do you go out of your way to make your religion look foolish?
Prov 12:15
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Darwinism is based on natural selection that is itself an effect without a molecular cause. As such it has no legitimate claim of being a science but unlike Mendelian genetics it gets a free pass.

The "molecular cause" of selection is not passing one's genetic material to a new generation, while others with a different set of genes does so.

That is why so many Christians are opposed to Darwinism, not the genuine article of science but arguments of science, falsely so called.

Again it is because of perverse clinging to outdated ideas and swollen pride.
Prov 15:25
"The LORD will destroy the house of the proud: but he will establish the border of the widow."

 

[Split Rock]

Rocky thinks I'm going to fall into his trap now.

He's desperately trying to drag me out of Genesis 1, so he can vegomatick me with science, and I'm too smart for that.

Darn!!

You figured out my plan!!!!!

I particularly like the "vegomatick me with science" part!

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Darwinism is based on natural selection that is itself an effect without a molecular cause. As such it has no legitimate claim of being a science but unlike Mendelian genetics it gets a free pass.
​

The "molecular cause" of selection is not passing one's genetic material to a new generation, while others with a different set of genes does so.

Isn't it interesting that those who have so little understanding of science presume to tell us all which aspects of modern science are not science at all?

 

[RickG]

That's rather extreme. Unless I'm very much mistaken AV1611VET has never claimed science-supporters do not have the right to vote, or dragged them to another country in chains so they can pick cotton for creationists ... and we can pretty much guarantee he doesn't consider scientists lower on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to be rude RickG, but is that really the last criticism we have left for creationists? "That's raaacist?"

I agree, it was rude and a bit over the top. I may get reported for it, but really how else could one get the point across. Being ridiculed, demeaned and discriminated just because of my chosen profession does not sit well with me, especially when every person I have worked with over my long career was a Christian, except for one who was Hindu. I had great respect for that man and learned much from him, and not just science. And he was one heck of a polymer chemist.

 

[verysincere]

That's rather extreme. Unless I'm very much mistaken AV1611VET has never claimed science-supporters do not have the right to vote, or dragged them to another country in chains so they can pick cotton for creationists ... and we can pretty much guarantee he doesn't consider scientists lower on the evolutionary scale.

Sorry to be rude RickG, but is that really the last criticism we have left for creationists? "That's raaacist?"

I think he may have had a severe allergic reaction to AV. I completely understand how that can happen. Everybody has limits. Nobody is immune to being pushed over the edge!

I fight the same impulse of overload when reading M.K.'s posts. They defy rational discourse. Denial is a debate tactic which has no reply. Covering the eyes and ears is simplistic but effective when science-deniers have no evidence for their position.

 

[RickG]

Thank you, NSP!

I had considered submitting his post upstairs, but it takes a LOT for me to do that.

I'm pretty much anesthetized to ad hominems by now, and I like to think I can roll with the punches.

(But in his defense, he did say the equivalent to racism.)

It is how I fell AV, take it to the top if you like. If they give me the boot, it will probably do me a favor. I said the equivalent because it refers to a specific group of people you are very open about despising. I think if there is one thing you really have trouble dealing with, it is my honesty.

Creation science is full of examples of deliberate misrepresentation for the specific purpose to influence others. I believe the 9th commandment frowns upon that. Conversely, there is not one single paper in the peer review scientific literature that says anything against anyone's religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is how I fell AV,

I understand, but you don't have a clue how I truly feel about science; and I'm not going to back down because you don't bother to learn it.

... take it to the top if you like.

No, thanks; that's not my style.

If they give me the boot, it will probably do me a favor.

Unless you're on the threshold already, no one is going to give you the boot.

There are procedures that are followed, and going directly to jail w/o passing GO is not on the board.

I said the equivalent because it refers to a specific group of people you are very open about despising.

Even I would like to know what group that is.

I think if there is one thing you really have trouble dealing with, it is my honesty.

Only when people wax melodramatic, does it bother me.

Creation science is full of examples of deliberate misrepresentation for the specific purpose to influence others.

I've been here long enough to know that people want to talk about everything but the creation event; and those who give in, as I have in the past, usually end-up getting pwned.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I fight the same impulse of overload when reading M.K.'s posts. They defy rational discourse. Denial is a debate tactic which has no reply. Covering the eyes and ears is simplistic but effective when science-deniers have no evidence for their position.

Yes, I've debated with Mark Kennedy before.

 

[verysincere]

I stumbled onto a hilarious exposure of a quote-mine on another thread where geologic Flood strata was the OP. I couldn't have asked for a better quote-mine trap than this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7726255/#post62538877

It also illustrates how reading comprehension skills are so often the issue wherever there is science-denial at work.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Even I would like to know what group that is.

Scientists. Those instruments of satan responsible for thalidomide,Challenger etc. Remember?