why evolution and not...

[metherion]

I have something that I have been curious about for quite a while.

Why attack evolution only? (read the rest before spitting hellfire about evolution being evil.)

Why not attack geology, astronomy, biochemistry, physics, archaeology, and so on individually? Or group them under another name? After all, geology was going against the 6000 year idea of earth at the end of the century before Darwin conceived of evolution.

Why use evolution as the catch all label for EVERYTHING?

Why include naturalism, atheism, morality, and many other concepts that have nothing to do with science with evolution? Why lump all this into an "evolutionary worldview"? Why not a "geologic worldview"? Or each on their own? Why make add so much onto evolution in an attempt to make it the scapegoat for everything wrong with the world? Weren't sin and so on present before evolution? Why is it blamed for everything?

In other words,
WHY ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION LUMPED IN WITH IT?

note#1: If there has already been a thread about this that I missed, feel free to direct me to it instead of answering.
note#2: That last sentence was capsed not to yell, but to make sure it got read. For emphasis.

Metherion

 

[shernren]

You might want to check out an ongoing discussion here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5344425-handing-the-enemy-a-weapon.html&page=9#post35098140

 

[busterdog]

I have something that I have been curious about for quite a while.

Why attack evolution only? (read the rest before spitting hellfire about evolution being evil.)

Why not attack geology, astronomy, biochemistry, physics, archaeology, and so on individually? Or group them under another name? After all, geology was going against the 6000 year idea of earth at the end of the century before Darwin conceived of evolution.

Why use evolution as the catch all label for EVERYTHING?

Why include naturalism, atheism, morality, and many other concepts that have nothing to do with science with evolution? Why lump all this into an "evolutionary worldview"? Why not a "geologic worldview"? Or each on their own? Why make add so much onto evolution in an attempt to make it the scapegoat for everything wrong with the world? Weren't sin and so on present before evolution? Why is it blamed for everything?

In other words,
WHY ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION LUMPED IN WITH IT?

note#1: If there has already been a thread about this that I missed, feel free to direct me to it instead of answering.
note#2: That last sentence was capsed not to yell, but to make sure it got read. For emphasis.

Metherion

And here I thought I was being obstreperous enough, and you present me with an entirely new challenge!

You know what they say about tempting and causing your brother to stumble!

I am not sure what a better word would be. I have tried to use "liberal" in a neutral fashion, but it doesn't work.

Certainly alot of modern problems started in the mid-19th century at about the same time. Communism, demythologizing, evolution. Perhaps evolution is just the most prominent among a number of things that creationists try to attack.

 

[theIdi0t]

Why use evolution as the catch all label for EVERYTHING?

One can maneuver more easily against the other ones, with Gap-theories, etc. Evolution is also the tool, advocated by Atheist, as what will lead to the demise of God, so our Young Earth brothers, have advocated a Holy war, against the tool, and not the warrior.

But I think more so, evolution does strip one of his Word-view. If Genesis is not to be taken literally, how can I hold on to Samson's jawbone, that slayed a thousand Philistines?

But more importantly, evolution brings into factor a temporal understanding of parts of scripture--cultural context. If allowed to run amok, then what was once our father's christianity, is no longer recognizable.

The YEC idealizes timelessness, while the evolutionist is seeking to find what has expired it's time, and what is timeless.

I believe the YEC's have a warranted fear, that those who take on such a path, some may fall by the way said, and say the time has expired for God.

I am only playing the alternative brother's advocate.

But of course for the TE, a YEC position will lead others to disbelieve. We are all trying to figure out who to point the finger at, to say as Nathan said to David: "You are the man".

 

[Deamiter]

It seems to me a rather successful tactic of any propaganda movement to portray your enemy as something less than human. Similarly, the YEC leaders have scored a rather impressive victory in the general public by turning 'evolution' into an abstraction that means roughly "everything we disagree about in science."

Firstly, it allows the leaders to build any straw men they like without being challenged. For example, they can say that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution without discussing how the flow of heat stops mutations from accumulating.

Perhaps more importantly, once they've taught their followers that evolution is evil and wrong, they never actually have to engage with the actual definition of evolution. Their followers don't even need to be ABLE to understand the actual process of mutation and natural selection and it's actually better if they don't because it's much harder to build and present a detailed scientific argument than invoke a visceral emotional reaction to this 'godless lie'.

In short, it's a very intelligent and successful tactic. If you can strip the enemy of any details and characterize them as faceless (or in this case detailess) evil, people will not only hate 'evolution' but will feel dirty if they even attempt to understand what scientists (not the anti-evolution propagandists) say and why they concluded evolution.

Another evidence of this is the repeated mantra of 'atheistic science' or 'intellectualism' that depersonalizes scientists themselves and further insulates followers from details that might challenge their faith in YEC.

Interestingly enough, I was just thinking about starting a new thread about the new catch-all "uniformitarianism." The word has a pretty specific meaning, but YECs here have recently been using it to counter the possibility of certain geological features being formed by floods or volcanoes -- as if those are not processes we see today. I'd much prefer they use uniformitarianism than evolution since it's used in a much more obscure way in actual science so if it had to be cut from high-school textbooks due to it being associated with pure evil atheism nobody would suffer.

I need to also note that while the YEC movement as a whole has fought primarily through propaganda and politics, the regular posters on this board are much less prone to misrepresenting science or scientists. We can all debate about straw men or different evidences, but my comments are primarily directed toward those who refuse to engage any evidence at all due to this rather successful evilization of the term "evolution."

 

[busterdog]

But of course for the TE, a YEC position will lead others to disbelieve.

But the TEs believe God could have done it in six if He wanted to. If your potential convert can't accept that, you have bigger problems than YECs.

 

[Deamiter]

But the TEs believe God could have done it in six if He wanted to. If your potential convert can't accept that, you have bigger problems than YECs.

Indeed, if a person can't accept the possibility of an omnipotent being, no theistic position on the origin of the universe is going to convince them! The point is not whether God could have done it one way or another but whether we are asking a new convert to ignore the last few hundred years of scientific discovery in favor of an unevidenced but strongly-held belief in a particular interpretation.

Interestingly enough, if you ask many YECs (as I have at my various churches), their immediate reaction will be that God could not have used evolution. If you press the issue, you might get them to admit that he COULD have (while pointing out that he didn't) but what non-Christian is going to press the point when they've made their position very clear. A smaller though significant group will further tell you that God could not have used evolution period because it is godless and evil and includes death.

Interesting how limited God's omnipotence becomes in the reactions of people who foster a visceral reaction to the term "evolution."