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

[Tomk80]

Unless you count the relatively new field of hereditary epigenetics or neo-Lamarkianism.

Even then, neo-Darwinism is still the main mechanism.

There are several basic contradictions in physics. If there weren't we wouldn't not need a "theory of everything" to try and unite the different theories.

That doesn't negate that the non contradictions such as I noted are solid and non-disputed. All the textbooks that I have seen acknowledge the contradictions or areas in dispute if they are there.

Remember, the argument Lethe made was not that science is a finished product or that we know everything about the world around us, nor was his argument that there are no disagreements within science. His argument was that on very basic levels where there is no (or almost no) disagreement, scientific textbooks are clear on those areas. If you want to learn about a scientific field you are unfamiliar with, you can pick up a college level textbook, can work through it and have an unambiguous understanding of the main principles within that field. I have yet to encounter a field where the college level textbooks do not reflect the current understanding in a clear way.

This contrary to the bible, where even the most core teachings are not clearly spelled out. For example, you need pre-existing knowledge to conclude the trinity from the bible. It is very hard to get there based on the bible alone. Nobody said that this was good or bad, the only statement that was made was that this doesn't clearly follow from just reading the bible, contrary to the assertions of people like KWCrazy.

Christians do agree on a few core concepts, such as those listed in the Nicene Creed.

Only because those Christians that disagreed were banned from the religion. That does not mean those tenets were clear from the books.

Since I suspect this will soon spiral into yet another "science good, religion bad" argument, my two basic points are simply:

a) That in both science and christianity people frequently disagree and revise ideas and concepts
b) These disgareements and revisals are not necessarily a bad thing, but a sign that both groups are searching for the truth rather than agreeing with one another just to avoid conflict

But that doesn't address the point Lethe made. Come back when you want to address his actual argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Many are called but few are CHOSEN." Here again the Bible's teachings conflict with the cherished TRADITIONS of many who call themselves "Christian".

I smell supralapsarian tulips.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Read that pasage to a child who is not Christian, and then answer his next question: "But I don't have the Son, why am I alive?"

That's when you give him the full Gospel.

 

[Lethe]

Too vague. STEM textbooks cover everything from string theory to crohn's disease to internal combustion engines.

Too vague? My apologies, I thought it would be polite to serve up a softball.

A broad field should make it easy to find a clear contradiction.

 

[Lethe]

There are several basic contradictions in physics.

...but this is fully admitted and pointed out by the textbooks.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That doesn't negate that the non contradictions such as I noted are solid and non-disputed.

That's a ridiculous argument. You're saying that the most basic theories in science are solid, non-disputed and non-contradictory - unless they are.

Only because those Christians that disagreed were banned from the religion. That does not mean those tenets were clear from the books.

Yes it does. Every line in the Nicene Creed is backed up by a Bible passage, they are all listed on Christian Forums' statement of faith here: link.

When you make such basic mistake like that you can't complain that the Bible isn't clear - because you bothered haven't bothered reading anything.

But that doesn't address the point Lethe made. Come back when you want to address his actual argument.

Lethe's points were that all his textbooks were clear and the Bible isn't. His (and your) only proof of this is that many aspects of Christianity are disputed and discussed - which is a bad thing apparently. If that is enough to dismiss Christianity and the Bible, it's enough to dismiss science itself.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are several basic contradictions in physics.

...but this is fully admitted and pointed out by the textbooks.

I don't get what point you're trying to make. First you say science textbooks are preferable to the Bible because textbooks are clear while the Bible is not, but then you admit there are areas in science where theories are not clear - but at least the textbook authors are good enough to admit it.

It sounds like you're simply repeating what Tomk80 said: the basic theories in science don't contradict each other, unless they do.

 

[Split Rock]

That's when you give him the full Gospel.

Oh, but every English sentence in the KJV1611 bible is as easy as pie to understand!

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, but every English sentence in the KJV1611 bible is as easy as pie to understand!

I don't know if you know this or not, but the KJV uses more one-syllable words than the mistranslations do.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't know if you know this or not, but the KJV uses more one-syllable words than the mistranslations do.

LOL... "mistranslations."

 

[KWCrazy]

What is the "split" during the time of Peleg? ".. his days was the earth divided” (Gen. 10:25)

The people were divided by languages at the tower of Babel.

What did God mean when he said Adam would die if he ate the forbidden fruit? He sure didn't die. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17).

Adam did surely die. Death became assured the moment that he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He traded immortality for such knowledge, and because of his actions he brought death unto himself and his descendants. God never said "In the instant" he ate he would die immediately.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL... "mistranslations."

It's a KJVO thing ...

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET:
I don't know if you know this or not, but the KJV uses more one-syllable words than the mistranslations do.

LOL... "mistranslations."

I was momentarily tempted to ask AV16 how he explained away the mis-translations (and manuscript errors) in the King James Version. But reason got the better of me. (Yet, I confess to enjoy an AV16-chuckle now and then. I keep waiting for a doozey on par with his flood-waters-on-Neptune and Noah-lived-in-New-Jersey. But for every home-run like those he pop-fouls a hundred times.)

But I liked an observation that Professor VerySincere once made. It went something like this: {Sorry. I'm working from memory here.}

"Unfortunately AV16 and KJV-only fans bring down a lot of scorn on the KJV that is really undeserved. It is easy to flag a LOT of problems with the very late Greek manuscripts the KJV used. And it is easy to poke fun at the long ending of Mark --- complete with snake-handling. And the manufactured JOHN COMMA which provided a helpful Trinitarian proof-text to help out the Vatican which only appears in very late Vulgate copies. And sometimes the KJV translators really botched Greek and Hebrew grammatical constructions. BUT LET'S BE FAIR TO THE KJV TRANSLATORS. In 1611 they had VERY FEW Greek manuscripts available to them. They had virtually nothing in the way of advanced lexicographic tools. They did not have today's richness of text critical apparatus, lexicons, cognate language tools and mss., and very few competent colleagues to confer on difficult passages. Fortunately they had some previous English Bible translations which provided WONDERFUL and BEAUTIFUL cadence and grandeur. Sadly, because the KJV fanatics overstate its imagined PERFECTIONS, they invite harsh criticisms and comparison to modern Bible translations against which it hardly has a fair chance. But in a "fair fight" against those modern translations, the KJV men started from four centuries behind and had very little to work with. So if one grades on degree-of-difficulty and working with poor tools, the KJV translators did a WONDERFUL, HONORABLE, AND VERY RESPECTABLE JOB!"

As with many other topics, Professor Tertius got me to consider factors I otherwise would have overlooked. So I can agree with him: Christians should praise God that the KJV provided a flawed but more-than-adequate English Bible that was virtually the only choice for many for over three centuries. And its beautiful wording impacted the English language and its literature forever after---and will ALWAYS be honored for that contribution.

So I say that while we are playing whack-a-mole with AV16's silly KJV gushing exaggerations, let's also simply acknowledge that the KJV was a great Bible in its day and remains an important one today. We shouldn't allow the silliness of SOME KJV-worshippers who would turn it into a shrine to lessen our respect for those translators who labored dilligently to do the very best that they could, however multitudinous were the KJV's flaws.

As always, God uses imperfect people! But the Proverbs says, "There is wisdom in many counselors." And that is why I like to read from multiple Bible translations. And because I was raised on the KJV Bible and many of the verses I memorized will forever stay in my brain, it will always be within my multi-linear comparisons. So one Bible translations weaknesses can be aided and complemented by other translations which may have done a better job with that verse.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

A question just struck me: How do KJV-only fans handle the "curse" in the Book of Revelation where it warns those who ADD TO THIS BOOK. Obviously, there are MANY additions (varying from single words to entire verses and more) which the KJV added to the Bible ---whether one applies the "curse" to Revelation alone or the entire Bible. So how do they exempt the KJV translators from that condemnation?

And I will confess something: When I was in seminary and had free time, I used to like to read various King-James-Only books just to chuckle over their arguments for why the KJV ALONE gets EVERYTHING right and all other Bible translations are totally evil.

But I never figured out why they thought God chose one English Bible translation (not even among the earliest translations) to be the "one and only". And I wondered if God did the same thing in other languages? [One author DID talk about the Reina Valera Spanish Bible as "the KJV of Spanish". I never understood the logic of that!]

We are far afield of origins topics here. But AV16 regularly (ALWAYS!) goes off topic and diverts every OP so if he is going to keep bringing up the KJV and KJV-only, I figure I might as well ask.

 

[Tomk80]

That's a ridiculous argument. You're saying that the most basic theories in science are solid, non-disputed and non-contradictory - unless they are.

No, I'm saying that where the most basic theories in science are solid and non-disputed this is indicated in the textbooks. And where they are not, this is not.

In other words, after I have read a science texbook, I generally know exactly what the author meant. This holds for all scientific literature, the purpose of which is to clearly convey the ideas on the author.

The bible is a different beast. It is often unclear what the exact meaning is that the author tended to convey, and what the correct interpretation of this is.

Yes it does. Every line in the Nicene Creed is backed up by a Bible passage, they are all listed on Christian Forums' statement of faith here: link.

When you make such basic mistake like that you can't complain that the Bible isn't clear - because you bothered haven't bothered reading anything.

Strange that something which apparently is clear took at least 250 years to even show up in Christian writings. Similarly, why were there many disputing views up to that time and even now?

Lethe's points were that all his textbooks were clear and the Bible isn't. His (and your) only proof of this is that many aspects of Christianity are disputed and discussed - which is a bad thing apparently. If that is enough to dismiss Christianity and the Bible, it's enough to dismiss science itself.

Again, I specifically stated that I have no opinion on whether it is good or bad whether the bible is clear or not. I only stated, and I think this was the point of Lethe as well (at least in the last couple of posts he is making that exact same point), that the the basic doctrines of Christianity do not follow clearly from the bible. But if the bible is clear, as people like KWCrazy claim, then this should be the case.

That is all that I am saying. People like KWCrazy claim that basic Christian doctrines clearly follow from the bible. That is the claim where this line of discussion started a couple of pages back. History and the multitude present day denominations show that (to quote Wiccan child here) "the bible doesn't "clearly" state anything." This isn't good or bad per sé. But if I want to read a book for clarity, I'll take a science textbook rather than the bible.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In other words, after I have read a science texbook, I generally know exactly what the author meant. This holds for all scientific literature, the purpose of which is to clearly convey the ideas on the author.

The bible is a different beast. It is often unclear what the exact meaning is that the author tended to convey, and what the correct interpretation of this is.

The problem lies with you, not the author(s). You understand scientific textbooks because you have been studying the subjects, probably for years. if I were to give an advanced textbook on physics to a person who knew next to nothing about physics, they wouldn't understand it - not because the author isn't being clear but because they simply don't know enough about the subject.

The same goes for the Bible. I doubt you have read most of it and I highly doubt you are well-versed in either Christian history or scriptural history.

Strange that something which apparently is clear took at least 250 years to even show up in Christian writings. Similarly, why were there many disputing views up to that time and even now?

Are you asking that because you're genuinely interested in christian history, or because you think your ignorance is a valid refutation of the Nicene creed?

It was invented because after 300 years, and after spreading it to different areas of the globe (with many of the converts trying to add their own "spin" to it), they needed a statement to define what it meant to be a Christian. The fact that you didn't seem aware of that only deepens my assumption that you know very little about christian history.

But I digress. If the original argument lies with KWCrazy saying that the Bible "is clear" then he is somewhat wrong. Half of the problem is that the Bible is not clear because it is a complex book which was written over several centuries and in several different manners - some books are intended to be historical documents, others are poetry.

The other half of the problem are people who dismiss the Bible because they are ignorant about its history: the historical context in which the books were written, the original language used, why some books were considered more reliable than others and so on. They claim what it says is wrong while knowing almost nothing about it - in that sense they are as bad as creationists.

 

[Split Rock]

The people were divided by languages at the tower of Babel.

I agree with you, but dad and a number of "creation ministries" insist this refers to the splitting of Pangea. Are they wrong?

Adam did surely die. Death became assured the moment that he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He traded immortality for such knowledge, and because of his actions he brought death unto himself and his descendants. God never said "In the instant" he ate he would die immediately.

God said "On that day" Adam would die. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Or maybe it was refering to spiritual death? Is any of this crystal clear? Hmmmm....

 

[OllieFranz]

Adam did surely die. Death became assured the moment that he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He traded immortality for such knowledge, and because of his actions he brought death unto himself and his descendants. God never said "In the instant" he ate he would die immediately.

God said "On that day" Adam would die. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Or maybe it was refering to spiritual death? Is any of this crystal clear? Hmmmm....

Well, what do you know? According to KW, the seventh day of Creation is not a 24 hour day. It is still going on more than 6000 years later, and will continue as long as descendants of Adam live mortal lives on this imperfect world. If he argues that the seventh day is not a literal 24 hour day, then why does he insist that the first six days must be?

 

[KWCrazy]

I agree with you, but dad and a number of "creation ministries" insist this refers to the splitting of Pangea. Are they wrong?

I think so and the references I double checked with believed so as well.

God said "On that day" Adam would die. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Or maybe it was refering to spiritual death? Is any of this crystal clear? Hmmmm....

No, He said IN, not on. Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Death became a surety, though it was not immediate.

This is actually one of those times when the word day (yowm) does not mean a single day because it had no quantifier. God did not say Adam would die ON the day or that he would IMMEDIATELY die. The devil knew that, and told Eve she would not die when he ate it. She ate and didn't die, then Adam ate and didn't die. Death, however, was assured because man had been given only one law and still couldn't keep it.

 

[mathetes123]

Well, what do you know? According to KW, the seventh day of Creation is not a 24 hour day. It is still going on more than 6000 years later, and will continue as long as descendants of Adam live mortal lives on this imperfect world. If he argues that the seventh day is not a literal 24 hour day, then why does he insist that the first six days must be?

where was he talking about the 7th day