• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, and believe me, I get along very well with many YEC too. But those just tell me that they accept the age of the earth as 6,000 by faith and faith alone. They don't misinterpret science or imply that scientists are satanic liars.

I am of the opinion that anyone can believe whatever they want, for whichever reasons they want, as long as they don't manufacture lies about other things (in this case science) to justify their faith.


One of my brother has those sort of beliefs, or at least he had them. I am not so sure where he stands now since his son got into astronomy and it is rather hard to be a YEC and support the study of the universe at the same time. At any rate I know he still believe Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. He won't argue science with me because he knows he would lose and unlike most creationists debaters he obeys the Ninth Commandment.

I think he realizes the only safety he has in his beliefs is to ignore science altogether. That does not mean he denies it like AV does, that would be a way of spreading falsehoods to him. He simply ignores it.

Meanwhile my other brother is a NASA scientist who has at least one son who has followed somewhat in his footsteps, he just published a mathematical paper as an assistant math professor. I can't make heads nor tails out of it, though it seems like it could have applications in signal processing.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Interesting that you claim 'Darwinism' is metaphysics on the basis of a quote about Lamarck (!?!) and that evolution is a "universal acid" from Daniel Dennett without mentioning that Dennett's book was 100% pro-evolution.

Wasn't that obvious, Dennett isn't just pro-evolution, he is hard core Darwinian. Typical mindless mockery, nothing more.

So...two quotes which look good, but aren't quite what they appear. This doesn't bode well for the rest of your post, which seemed to be very carefully written, I'll grant you that, but carefully written in a very angled way to give the impression that your references are supporting your point of view. As you admit to being a young earth creationist, one can't help thinking that quoting Dennett, Darwin and Popper smacks of doing a great deal of research to find angles that can be used in your favour rather than understanding what they are actually saying. Plus quote mining has the additional handicap of undermining any legitimate points you may make.

Nothing about evolution, nothing about Darwin, Popper or Dennett. Like all Darwinian zealots you just hurl insults like they have something substantive to them.

Incidentally, the above is simply another false, tedious attempt to claim that atheism/evolution/whatever is a conspiracy theory against your god. It's wrong and boring. It's like claiming that you know full well that Zeus exists etc etc but you are deliberately suppressing the truth. It's just silly.

No, my post identifies what the actual conflict is over. There are two definitions for evolution. The scientific one is the change of alleles in populations over time, the one you are using is the apriori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

You completely missed the part about Creationism as doctrine, the transcendence of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions went right over your head. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are not just atheistic, they are venomously antagonistic toward an form of theism, unless it's essentially atheistic. What is more it comes before the empirical evidence and is assumed well before the evidence is examined:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that 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 A. Weinberg, MIT Biology)​

What you are calling evolution is nothing more then a naturalistic assumption that everything must have a naturalistic cause and nothing can ever have God as the cause. This isn't difficult to discern since it's 100% consistent among the evolutionists, falsely so called.

What is really sad is that you will never learn anything about the genuine article of science or the Christian doctrine of Creation from these snake pit debates. Mainly because people like you immediately lash out with fallacious ad hominems and provide nothing substantive, ever.

I actually feel sorry for you.

Have a nice day :wave:
Mark
 
Upvote 0

delaola

Newbie
Dec 18, 2012
72
2
✟15,210.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
If you read his profile, it says:

I could be wrong, but I get the impression he's "following the money."

In other words, he started out as a YEC, but when he found out there was money to be made in paraphrasing the Bible, he went for it.

Later, he probably found out he couldn't hold to his YEC beliefs and give his employers the product they wanted so, after a time of wrestling with his cognitive dissonance, he chose his current path.

I wouldn't be surprised if his venom is more at himself, than at YECs.

Thus is the problem for mankind as a whole, brother. Serve God or mammon. Unfortunately, some make the wrong choice just to please ourselves.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,929
52,599
Guam
✟5,141,479.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thus is the problem for mankind as a whole, brother. Serve God or mammon. Unfortunately, some make the wrong choice just to please ourselves.

Yes, indeed, but this guy's disdain for YECs is over the top, in my opinion.

He makes brownie points with our antagonists though; so I guess he thinks he's doing God a favor or something.

I prefer to age gracefully. :)
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thus is the problem for mankind as a whole, brother. Serve God or mammon. Unfortunately, some make the wrong choice just to please ourselves.

I'd love to hear how abandoning my former young earth creationist beliefs in favor of what the Biblical and creation-based evidence actually states somehow made me a lot of money. I've already stated that I lost a lot of lucrative speaking engagements at Bible conferences and churches as a result. (So why aren't Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's millions made from selling their brand of young earth creationism considered chasing mammon?) How much money did I allegedly earn by affirming The Theory of Evolution?

Tell me, Delaola, how paying attention to the evidence God provides in creation gave me mammon advantages. Let's hear all you know about my ministry career. (Prediction: "I was only speaking in general terms about society in general, even though I quoted from AV.")

[Crickets are getting warmed up.]

Pathetic. When one's position has no Biblical evidence nor evidence from creation to back it up, insults and accusations about money is all one has left.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are T.E.s any less "brothers in Christ" than other creationists are?

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.

Are they 'brothers and sisters' in Christ? Well, maybe, but if they are they must be Creationists.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,929
52,599
Guam
✟5,141,479.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'd love to hear how abandoning my former young earth creationist beliefs in favor of what the Biblical and creation-based evidence actually states somehow made me a lot of money. I've already stated that I lost a lot of lucrative speaking engagements at Bible conferences and churches as a result. (So why aren't Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's millions made from selling their brand of young earth creationism considered chasing mammon?) How much money did I allegedly earn by affirming The Theory of Evolution?

Tell me, Delaola, how paying attention to the evidence God provides in creation gave me mammon advantages. Let's hear all you know about my ministry career. (Prediction: "I was only speaking in general terms about society in general, even though I quoted from AV.")

[Crickets are getting warmed up.]

Pathetic. When one's position has no Biblical evidence nor evidence from creation to back it up, insults and accusations about money is all one has left.
If you're trying to bait us into talking about your favorite subject ... (you) ... you can forget it.

We have Someone more important to talk about.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
What is especially suspicious about TEs is their wanton ridicule of Creation even though it's essential doctrine.

How is TE any different than theistic gravitation, theistic atomic theory, theistic meteorology, etc.?

What is it about TE's that bothers you so much? Do you really think that you want to use the argument, "If nature, therefore not God," is going to be a winner for you?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.

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

And that attitude is what drives many people away from Christianity. Remember Pope Urban VIII felt the same way that you do and attacked Galileo for his sacrilegious belief that the Earth moved.

When enough people accept the scientific truth of evolution they will merely reinterpret the Bible so that it fits those facts as they have reinterpreted the parts that describe a flat stationary Earth.

So far it is Science at least 2 the Bible 0 when it comes to debates between the two. The Bible has been reinterpreted to match science at least twice. Science has never had to be reinterpreted to match the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You completely missed the part about Creationism as doctrine, the transcendence of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions went right over your head. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are not just atheistic, they are venomously antagonistic toward an form of theism, unless it's essentially atheistic. What is more it comes before the empirical evidence and is assumed well before the evidence is examined:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that 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 A. Weinberg, MIT Biology)​
So where is the "venom" in the quote you cited, Mark. I don't see any. All of science is agnostic to theism. There isn't anything inherently atheistic (or venomously so) about any scientific theory. Scientifc theories describe what happens in nature and how. Thats all.

While I agree that using only the earth as an example (its the only one we have) may be presumptuous, its really hard to see the same mechanisms we see operating on earth not operating on other planets with life. So, its not a bad assumption to start with. No doubt testing evolutionary principles on other planets with life will be a hotspot for research in the future.

What you are calling evolution is nothing more then a naturalistic assumption that everything must have a naturalistic cause and nothing can ever have God as the cause. This isn't difficult to discern since it's 100% consistent among the evolutionists, falsely so called.
Everything in science is naturalistic. It is necessary in order to make testable predictions. Evolution is no exception.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
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.

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

Maybe, just maybe... TEs don't "know" anything of the sort. Maybe we should leave it to TEs and not creationists to tell us what TEs "know" and what TEs believe.
 
Upvote 0

Frenchfrye

spreading the bible
May 17, 2012
528
7
28
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe, just maybe... TEs don't "know" anything of the sort. Maybe we should leave it to TEs and not creationists to tell us what TEs "know" and what TEs believe.

its just clear that they believe against the bible which says creation so we know that that is a belief
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
its just clear that they believe against the bible which says creation so we know that that is a belief

Huh??? Not clear what you are trying to say here...

TEs do not "believe against the bible." They interpret it differently than you do.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
its just clear that they believe against the bible which says creation so we know that that is a belief


I've yet to meet a theistic evolution who (1) "believes against the Bible", and/or (2) denies creation. Please tell me how my "theistic evolution" beliefs deny creation and God as the creator of all.


___________________________________________________________________________________
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.)

 
Upvote 0

Frenchfrye

spreading the bible
May 17, 2012
528
7
28
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I've yet to meet a theistic evolution who (1) "believes against the Bible", and/or (2) denies creation. Please tell me how my "theistic evolution" beliefs deny creation and God as the creator of all.


___________________________________________________________________________________
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.)


A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.
American Scientific Affiliation

that argues what genesis says that man was made on the sixth day from the dust with God breathing life into him
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Maybe, just maybe... TEs don't "know" anything of the sort. Maybe we should leave it to TEs and not creationists to tell us what TEs "know" and what TEs believe.

I'm a "small-c" creationist. I believe in God. I believe He created the Heavens and the Earth. In fact I believe every word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. Nowhere in the creeds; nowhere in the Bible can I find any declaration of either the claim that the Bible is inerrant to the extent that every word is literally true (In fact, when we read that the Sun stood still for a day so that the Israelites could finish a battle, we know that it is not literally true. It would have to be the Earth that stood still to keep the sun shining over the battle), or that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The Bible does not pretend to be a science textbook.

I am not a "Capital-C" Creationist. I do not believe in Special Creation. I do not believe that Genesis 1 was intended to be be taken as literally as many fundamentalists do. I believe that Genesis 1 is true, but "dumbed down" for the sake of a people who were not yet intellectually prepared to understand the scientific principles involved.

If I suddenly found myself in ancient Rome, and tried to explain an airplane, my listeners would understand a large, hollow bird fashioned from metal, with room for people and luggage --the idea is not too different from the Trojan Horse. But when I tried to explain a jet engine, to explain what moves it, they just would not have the background or the words. I could come close, from my perspective in saying that it is a furnace whose fiery blasts give the plane the push it needs to go. But I would not be able to stop that from morphing when they passed it on, to there is a dragon on top that carries the owner where he wants to go and blasts his enemies with its fiery breath.

Same principle. Only the Bible does not even attempt to describe the technical aspects. Genesis 1 is a poem about how powerful and benevolent the Creator God is, not a detailed report on how He Created.
 
Upvote 0

Frenchfrye

spreading the bible
May 17, 2012
528
7
28
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I'm a "small-c" creationist. I believe in God. I believe He created the Heavens and the Earth. In fact I believe every word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. Nowhere in the creeds; nowhere in the Bible can I find any declaration of either the claim that the Bible is inerrant to the extent that every word is literally true (In fact, when we read that the Sun stood still for a day so that the Israelites could finish a battle, we know that it is not literally true. It would have to be the Earth that stood still to keep the sun shining over the battle), or that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The Bible does not pretend to be a science textbook.

.

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?
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

"Total evolution" is largely a creationist straw-man. When I talk about evolution, I'm talking about The Theory of Evolution---which strictly relates to BIOLOGY. It sounds like you've been listening to federal prison inmate Kent Hovind's "Seven Kinds of Evolution" nonsense.

I have never met a theistic evolutionist who ever used the term "total evolution" or defined it as you have.

And here's a tip: the word "evolution" existed long before Darwin. It means "change over time." EVERYONE believes that change takes place over time in all sorts of realms. Just don't confuse that general use of the word with the biological The Theory of Evolution.


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

And I certainly agree with them. Genesis teaches the same thing as what the ASA has summarized (apparently) based upon your statement. I don't know of any theistic evolutionist who would disagree with Genesis 1 and 2, including Genesis 2:7. So what is your point?

Are you CERTAIN you know (a) what the The Theory of Evolution states, and (b) what theistic evolutionist believe? As a theistic evolutionist myself, I certainly deny much of what you've claimed about my beliefs.


___________________________________________________________________________________
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.)

 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
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?

Aren't you inconsistent here? If the sun moving instead of the earth can be a cultural factor, why couldn't Genesis 1/2 be a cultural factor? Why do you suddenly think that the bible is a science book there?
 
Upvote 0