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

[CabVet]

Um ... okie-doke, chief.

Never have -- never will.

Really? "Embedded age"? Earth's rotation without the sun? Those are all attempts to apply Genesis 1 "logic" into science.

 

[CabVet]

How many arguments do I need? isn't one enough?

Obviously not since you are resorting to silly personal attacks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? "Embedded age"? Earth's rotation without the sun? Those are all attempts to apply Genesis 1 "logic" into science.

What science?

Science came later.

Not even the First Law of Thermodynamics existed yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously not since you are resorting to silly personal attacks.

Oh, please!

 

[CabVet]

Oh, please!

Forgetting fast, aren't we? Here:

And you wonder why I call you guys "Internet scientists," or put "scientist" in quotes? I mean -- do you really?

If you guys are real scientists, it's no wonder we're 26th on the totem pole.

 

[CabVet]

What science?

Science came later.

Not even the First Law of Thermodynamics existed yet.

And there you are, pushing Genesis 1 into science again. Scientific laws have nothing to do with it. If (and that is a big IF) creation happened as described in Genesis, it was a miraculous event. There is no need for a different state past, or embedded age. Those are just yours (and dad's) silly attempts of validating your interpretation of Genesis 1 based on scientific knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no need for a different state past, or embedded age.

Oh, please.

Let's see you explain how the amount of mass/energy started out as zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days; without disrespecting current scientific laws.

 

[CabVet]

Oh, please.

Let's see you explain how the amount of mass/energy started out as zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days; without disrespecting current scientific laws.

From a creationist perspective? Quite simple AV, God is omnipotent, I sure hope you know what that means. Creating a planet in 6 days is no different than walking on water, raising the dead, or raising from the dead.

 

[KWCrazy]

That only shows that at the time of the Genesis myth that the writers of it did not realize that the Sun was the source of light for the Earth. Common sense says that they are right since how could such a small ball of fire light up the whole Earth?

Ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that Moses, who was schooled in the finest schools in Egypt, knew what the sun was. Secondly, what makes you think that the entity called "light" was a small ball of fire? It could have been anywhere in space and would have accomplished the same thing. The reason that it no longer exists is that it became the sun, moon, and stars. That also fits with Big Bang cosmology that identifies a rapid expansion of the universe from a single source. While the Bible needs no science to buoy it's statements, there is a strong corelation between the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that Moses, who was schooled in the finest schools in Egypt, knew what the sun was. Secondly, what makes you think that the entity called "light" was a small ball of fire? It could have been anywhere in space and would have accomplished the same thing. The reason that it no longer exists is that it became the sun, moon, and stars. That also fits with Big Bang cosmology that identifies a rapid expansion of the universe from a single source. While the Bible needs no science to buoy it's statements, there is a strong corelation between the two.

Once again, Genesis was a myth, archaeologists say that Exodus is a myth, and they make a good point. It does not matter what mythical schools Moses went to since he never existed.

And you don't get to mix your myths with science. If you believe in a 6 day creation, then you cannot believe in the Big Bang. The two don't mix. You could believe that Genesis is an allegory and the Big Bang, but a literal reading of Genesis and science are right out.

 

[verysincere]

It does not matter what mythical schools Moses went to since he never existed.

1) How do you know that Moses "never existed"?

2) Do you assume all ancient persons which are mentioned in documents even less attested (than Moses) in ancient texts also "never existed"? What is your standard for determining "existence"?

 

[Strathos]

Ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that Moses, who was schooled in the finest schools in Egypt, knew what the sun was. Secondly, what makes you think that the entity called "light" was a small ball of fire? It could have been anywhere in space and would have accomplished the same thing. The reason that it no longer exists is that it became the sun, moon, and stars. That also fits with Big Bang cosmology that identifies a rapid expansion of the universe from a single source. While the Bible needs no science to buoy it's statements, there is a strong corelation between the two.

Moses would have been taught the Ancient Egyptian idea of what the sun was - a fiery chariot that was pulled across the sky by Ra.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) How do you know that Moses "never existed"?

2) Do you assume all ancient persons which are mentioned in documents even less attested (than Moses) in ancient texts also "never existed"? What is your standard for determining "existenced"?

He may have existed, but the Moses that is important to various Christians probably never existed. Archaeologists swear that if two million people were wandering the desert for 40 years they would have been able to find them. There was no Exodus, so why would there be a Moses to lead the Jews out of Egypt?

 

[verysincere]

He may have existed, but the Moses that is important to various Christians probably never existed. Archaeologists swear that if two million people were wandering the desert for 40 years they would have been able to find them. There was no Exodus, so why would there be a Moses to lead the Jews out of Egypt?

Accurate copying of numbers (expressed as Hebrew characters, not Arabic numbers) of ancient Hebrew texts is challenging. Indeed, that is among the reasons why most Christian doctrinal statements restrict the accuracy of such details to the original documents and not the copies. So, personally I doubt that two million people were involved. The original documents are long lost of course but I think it likely that the original numbers described were far smaller---and I wouldn't be surprised if the departure of a band of slaves under such a leader was not documented by Egyptian historians employed by the royal court.

But arguments from semi-silence (by saying that the fact that only ONE ancient document records an event means the event never happened) are not necessarily persuasive. To say that descendents of an ancient patriarch NEVER went to Egypt, were not eventually enslaved, multiplied, and were led out by a leader is an interesting but not convincing argument on its own. Is it truly likely that multiple records would have survived?

Many events and people described in the Bible were once denied---but later affirmed by other discoveries. (e.g. the Hittite culture and language.) So those arguments from "semi-silence" have been debunked more than once in my field.

It sounds like you are denying various events mentioned in the Bible for reasons of dogma, just as young earth creationists often reason from dogma. Is there are a consistent qualitative difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Accurate copying of numbers (expressed as Hebrew characters, not Arabic numbers) of ancient Hebrew texts is challenging. Indeed, that is among the reasons why most Christian doctrinal statements restrict the accuracy of such details to the original documents and not the copies. So, personally I doubt that two million people were involved. The original documents are long lost of course but I think it likely that the original numbers described were far smaller---and I wouldn't be surprised if the departure of a band of slaves under such a leader was not documented by Egyptian historians employed by the royal court.

But arguments from semi-silence (by saying that the fact that only ONE ancient document records an event means the event never happened) are not necessarily persuasive. To say that descendents of an ancient patriarch NEVER went to Egypt, were not eventually enslaved, multiplied, and were led out by a leader is an interesting but not convincing argument on its own. Is it truly likely that multiple records would have survived?

Many events and people described in the Bible were once denied---but later affirmed by other discoveries. (e.g. the Hittite culture and language.) So those arguments from "semi-silence" have been debunked more than once in my field.

It sounds like you are denying various events mentioned in the Bible for reasons of dogma, just as young earth creationists often reason from dogma. Is there are a consistent qualitative difference?

Of course there could have been a leader of a small band of people that left servitude in Egypt. If the story got reduced to a realistic number of people wandering a desert for a month or so, actually 40 days seems right, doesn't the Bible very often say days when they mean years? In this case they could mean the opposite.

Of course if you reduce it to a reasonable story then everybody would say "So what?"

So yes, there could have been someone that was the inspiration for the Moses story. The creationists would not accept that Moses.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Creation is a foundational Christian belief as indicated in the Nicene Creed.

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

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
(Nicene Creed)​

This has not been an issue in Christian theism down through the centuries, the deity of Christ and the Trinity have been. So if you look at the confession the deity of Christ is sandwiched in between two confessions of God as Creator. The essential meaning being, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator.

Enter Darwinism, from the beginning Darwinian natural selection has been one long argument against 'special creation'. The question becomes whether or not Darwinism is mutually exclusive with essential Christian doctrine:

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. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)​

At this point there was no real Christian doctrine of 'Creationism', for one simple reason, no one was denying it. The only doctrine remotely effected would have been original sin, that is, we all inherit sin from Adam and Eve. As a matter of fact Christians, by and large ignored Darwinism for decades. Darwinism has been beaten up by scientists who blast holes in it's patented absurdities since it's inception. Meanwhile a new science was emerging, Mendelian Genetics at the dawn of the 20th century was being introduced with Chromosome theory.

It would take over 25 years for Genetics to be fully recognized, Darwinism never was. What Darwinians did was to blend the now legitimate science of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian natural selection in what came to be known as the Modern Synthesis.

You may well be wondering what on earth Mendel and Darwin have to do with Christian theology. Well, as far as it goes it has nothing at all to do with Christian theism, in fact, Darwin himself didn't believe it should?

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)​

Darwin is talking about secondary causes, not original creation. He had said that he read Intelligent Design and enjoyed it very much, he never expressed the slightest animosity toward it. So what is the problem?

Creation is what you call transcendent, that is, it blends throughout Scripture. It is essentially miraculous and only the worst kind of distortion could render it a naturalistic process of secondary causes. In order for it to be 'Creation' it must be God acting in time and space, doing what only God can do.

The designation of an old earth and a young earth are meaningless with regards to Creation. The first verse of Genesis 1 indicates, in absolute terms, that God created the heavens and the earth. It does not say when, the introduction of the timeline doesn't come until the Creation week starts. When the Spirit of God is 'hovering over the face of the deep' the earth is described as covered in water, thick clouds and darkness. Then over the course of the week all life is fully formed and complete in it's vast array.

Still there is no real problem, a number of Biblical scholars have warned that taking the 'days' of creation too literally can be a mistake. The language of the Hebrew text certainly allows a little wiggle room here and if a person wanted to take it as more of a literary feature then a literal 24 hour day it is certainly permissible. I tend to agree even though it's clear to me that what is indicated is a literal day and it didn't take God all day to get it done.

So what on earth is turning these seemingly compatible views into a no man's land? It's not Darwinism and it's not Creationism so what could be causing Christians to argue so bitterly against one another being just as harsh and critical as they can be?

It's because of the advent of Modernism, aka Liberal Theology. This is a form of Christian theism that simply rejects any hint of miracles, in fact, any hint of the supernatural is either ignored or rejected as delusional. I had encountered it a number of times and basically rejected it as simple unbelief. You can't have Christian theology without God doing what only God can do with regards to Creation, the Incarnation, the resurrection, being born again and final judgement.

Because essential doctrine was at stake many Christians began to defend their theology against Modernism and an Apologetic (literally a defense) arose known as Fundamentalism. The two camps fought bitterly but in relative obscurity, Modernism was a small minority view easily isolated as the doctrine and teachings of any other false doctrine has been historically. The problem started when these Modernist views crept into Christian seminaries unawares. They had redefined Christian theism with the secular philosophies, now prevalent in the secular world, blending them with a superficial Christian language. What they didn't tell you was that they had change the meaning of the terminology.

My interest originally was simply Christian Apologetics, a formal defense of the Christian faith and the Bible. The Scriptures are the witness of Redemptive history as it has passed from original sin all the way to the New Testament advent of Christ and the Apostle's doctrine. Reducing this testimony to myth and metaphor is simply unbelief, ignoring the enormous implications of these testimonies is an abandonment of essential Christian theism. I had spent a great deal of time exploring internal, external and bibliographical testing, determined to learn the evidences of the Christian faith.

I mentioned once on a secular board that I do not support Creationism being taught in the public schools even though I'm a young earth creationist. I was inundated with one wave of criticism after another. I was kind of stunned by the whole thing to be honest and eventually censored on the board that simply banned any discussion of religion whatsoever. I ended up on CF, perhaps the only place on the Web at the time where you could have a civil conversation on the subject.

I spent most of my time in the common area, arguing with atheists and agnostics directly from the scientific literature. I could have choose geology but I thought genetics was a far better developed science. I eventually argued them to a standstill with the publication of the Chimpanzee genome in 2005. What remained a puzzle for me were the theistic evolutionists that would weigh in with the secular voices showing no signs of disagreement with their Darwinian cohorts.

Creationism is rejected before any scientific evidence is considered as well as the unifying principles of Christian theism, allow me to explain. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about and one of the primary reasons Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:

Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’ (Philosophy Now, Jul/Aug 2012)​

Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set. This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.

Here is how I know that Darwinism is metaphysics, 'the substantive element that transcends all reality:

In these works he (Lamarck)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. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition. That is transcendence in no uncertain terms, Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant. It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.

Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything. That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God. The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption. That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.

There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession. The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow. Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?

They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the 'god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.

The problem is that they will never get past that first verse of the Bible 'In the beginning God...', as a matter of fact they will never get through Genesis 1:1. They won't get past this because that word 'God' has been redefined as 'natural law' and any other meaning regarded as the cause is considered foolish.

People know full well that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth and they suppressed that truth in unrighteousness:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Here is how I know that Darwinism is metaphysics, 'the substantive element that transcends all reality:

In these works he (Lamarck)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. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition. That is transcendence in no uncertain terms, Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant. It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.

Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything. That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God. The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption. That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.

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.

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.

People know full well that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth and they suppressed that truth in unrighteousness:

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting that you claim evolution '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.

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 it has the additional handicap of undermining any legitimate points you may make.

In other words, he's right?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In other words, he's right?

Lol, no. It's called quote mining. One of your favourite things I believe. You do it to the Bible all the time, which I thought was something your God had very strong views on.

 

[TheReasoner]

Lol, no. It's called quote mining. One of your favourite things I believe. You do it to the Bible all the time, which I thought was something your God had very strong views on.

Like I've said before, I don't think they really worship something outside of themselves. The humility and openness to the possibility of being wrong is just not there. As a case in point is the looooong post by mark below where a bunch of nonsense is used, basically constituting a no true scotsman fallacy.

I love it when fundamentalist americans with a fairly new theological perception insist that theirs is the true view, with no regard to such inconveniences as empirical data, evidence, cultural and linguistic differences or their own fallibility. The arrogance is quite simply astonishing.