Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Its actually funny to see a creationist go so far down the rabbit hole of "Parity at all costs" that he actually calls the theory of evolution "creationism."

The teaching that mankind is the creation of entirely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago is a creationist position.

Is there a public school science class that specifically teaches that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Is there a public school science class which offers another explanation for the creation of humanity?

Is there any evidence for the creationist view that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by a god blowing on dirt?

There's the same amount of evidence for that as it is for the creationist view that humanity is the creation of entirely naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form from long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

You know him. Ask him and let me know.

I don't talk to Him about football games.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't talk to Him about football games.

If you want to know about Alabama's football team, now would be a good time to start.

 

[justlookinla]

You did read 9 and 10, didn't you?

9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.​

That kinda takes your claim that there is no evidence for common ancestry and blows it out of the water.

My issue isn't with common ancestry. My issue is with the demand that the only valid creationist view of humanity is the one offered by the inherently atheistic Darwinist creation view.

He didn't sign it because he doesn't agree with the statement especially the purpose behind it. He is opposed to intelligent design as put forth by the intelligent design advocates.

And you know why he didn't sign it how? Are you him (which would be quite awesome). Do you have a relationship with Collins to know why he didn't sign it.

But, as I said, it doesn't matter. He's against the view that humanity is totally, completely, solely by naturalistic means.

From an interview by Tucker Carlson at Tucker Carlson - Francis Collins Transcipt (PBS)
Dr. Collins says "Science investigates the natural world. It is the way to investigate the natural world. But if god exists, god must be outside the natural world and so science really is silent in terms of answering that question. In that regard, athiests, who say there is no god. Where does god fit in to this, if you think evolution explains life forms including our own? I think it's fairly straightforward. I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that requires god to step in and fill in these gaps in the development of the eye. I think evolution is self-sufficient. I think god is basically the mind that is behind it.

Looks like he believes evolution did it all after God started it up. It looks like he agrees with your definition of Darwinism and believes that is how humans came to be.

Looks like he doesn't believe the creationist view that only, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago. Darwinist creationism as taught in schools demand that views such as Collins' be rejected, discarded, eliminated, trashed. Try introducing Collin's concept that "God is behind it" and see what happens.

 

[justlookinla]

If you want to know about Alabama's football team, now would be a good time to start.

I know they're a pretty good football team.

So, who do you think will win the national championship this year?

 

[DerelictJunction]

It's not about teaching evolution, by all means teach evolution. Teach the lessons concerning 'Darwin's finches'. Teach the lessons concerning experiments with pepper moths. Show how medical science has advanced using evolutionary concepts. Those aren't the issues.

The issue is concerning teaching creationism, the view that all the variety of life we observe today is completely, totally, solely, only by naturalistic processes. That goes far far beyond the evolutionary teachings described above.

It does go beyond what you believe evolution should be taught but it doesn't go beyond the evidence for common descent. Even your oft quoted Dr. Francis Collins agrees in the evidence for common descent.

Should cosmology be taught differently since the current theory of how stars are created does not mention any God or gods?

Does this address how humanity was created?

Not directly, but we are star stuff. However, it does address creation "completely, totally, solely, only by naturalistic processes", which appears to be your reasoning for opposing the teaching of evolution as it is done in public schools today.

It's not about the inclusion of gods, it's about demanding that only one creationist viewpoint be taught.

What other evidenced viewpoint is there?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

What other evidenced viewpoint is there?

\

Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[1] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[2] As Jonathan Wells wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [3] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of creation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[4]

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

 

[justlookinla]

It does go beyond what you believe evolution should be taught but it doesn't go beyond the evidence for common descent. Even your oft quoted Dr. Francis Collins agrees in the evidence for common descent.

Actually, I didn't introduce Collins in the discussion, an anti-theist did. I'm sure they wish they hadn't by now.

I'm not arguing for or against common descent, I'm arguing concerning a certain creationist view.

Not directly, but we are star stuff. However, it does address creation "completely, totally, solely, only by naturalistic processes", which appears to be your reasoning for opposing the teaching of evolution as it is done in public schools today.

I'm opposing teaching atheistic creationism.

What other evidenced viewpoint is there?

There is no evidence for the atheistic creationism viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

\



Intelligent design - Conservapedia

But it's not inherently atheistic so it's not going to be allowed.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I didn't introduce Collins in the discussion, an anti-theist did. I'm sure they wish they hadn't by now.

I'm not arguing for or against common descent, I'm arguing concerning a certain creationist view.



I'm opposing teaching atheistic creationism.



There is no evidence for the atheistic creationism viewpoint.

Are you referring to me as an anti theist?

If so, what are you basing that on? Be specific.

And I am indeed the one who introduced Collins and I did for the reasons that I specified. HE FULLY EMBRASES THE TOE and is also a Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

But it's not inherently atheistic so it's not going to be allowed.

A workable theory and being falsifiable would help. But hey, don't want to ask for too much now.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I didn't introduce Collins in the discussion, an anti-theist did. I'm sure they wish they hadn't by now.

I'm not arguing for or against common descent, I'm arguing concerning a certain creationist view.



I'm opposing teaching atheistic creationism.



There is no evidence for the atheistic creationism viewpoint.

Bells and whistles go off as you got something right!!!

Correct, no evidence for atheistic Darwinian creationism, because it doesn't exist.

Next false claim please, we will wait patiently.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you referring to me as an anti theist?

While I didn't have you specifically in mind, I do view your position as an anti-theist position.

If so, what are you basing that on? Be specific.

Your self-identification as an atheist.

And I am indeed the one who introduced Collins and I did for the reasons that I specified. HE FULLY EMBRASES THE TOE and is also a Christian.

He doesn't embrace the position that God was absent from the creation of humanity.

 

[DerelictJunction]

My issue isn't with common ancestry. My issue is with the demand that the only valid creationist view of humanity is the one offered by the inherently atheistic Darwinist creation view.

This is either a poor memory or a lie. You said earlier that there is no evidence for Darwinism. In fact you have repeated it multiple times, when another poster has mentioned evidence for common ancestry.

And you know why he didn't sign it how? Are you him (which would be quite awesome). Do you have a relationship with Collins to know why he didn't sign it.

I don't know but I can make a pretty good guess based on things Dr. Collins has said and written.
He states that he disagrees with intelligent design and intelligent design advocates are the ones who put out the letter.

Looks like he doesn't believe the creationist view that only, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago. Darwinist creationism as taught in schools demand that views such as Collins' be rejected, discarded, eliminated, trashed. Try introducing Collin's concept that "God is behind it" and see what happens.

Try reading what I quoted him as saying. He believes that evolution was the mechanism that God used and that God did not interfere once the process started. So....
1. God makes the first life form.
2. God makes the natural laws that allow evolution to occur.
3. God does nothing else except lets the process of evolution move forward.
3. Totally by naturalistic mechanisms, that God created, humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

Looks like Dr. Collins actually does agree that with only, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Bells and whistles go off as you got something right!!!

Correct, no evidence for atheistic Darwinian creationism, because it doesn't exist.

Next false claim please, we will wait patiently.

Sure the position of Darwinist creationism exists. Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity, and all of the life we observe today, is the complete, total, sole result of naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[bhsmte]

While I didn't have you specifically in mind, I do view your position as an anti-theist position.



Your self-identification as an atheist.

All atheists are anti theists to you? Are you trying to set the record for false claims?

He doesn't embrace the position that God was absent from the creation of humanity.

He places a non falsifiable element behind evolution, which is his personal decision. No problem with that.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure the position of Darwinist creationism exists. Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity, and all of the life we observe today, is the complete, total, sole result of naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Only in your mind, which is where it is needed most.

 

[DerelictJunction]

What other evidenced viewpoint is there?

\
Intelligent design - Conservapedia

It appears that you missed the word "evidenced". I bolded it in the quote above so you can see it in context and supply a more applicable answer.

 

[justlookinla]

This is either a poor memory or a lie. You said earlier that there is no evidence for Darwinism. In fact you have repeated it multiple times, when another poster has mentioned evidence for common ancestry.

There is no evidence for Darwinist creationism. None. Zip.

I don't know but I can make a pretty good guess based on things Dr. Collins has said and written.
He states that he disagrees with intelligent design and intelligent design advocates are the ones who put out the letter.

I'm aware that he disagrees with the position of intelligent design. That has nothing to do with his theistic creation position and rejection of the creationist view that mankind was completely and totally created by naturalistic processes.

Try reading what I quoted him as saying. He believes that evolution was the mechanism that God used and that God did not interfere once the process started. So....
1. God makes the first life form.
2. God makes the natural laws that allow evolution to occur.
3. God does nothing else except lets the process of evolution move forward.
3. Totally by naturalistic mechanisms, that God created, humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

Looks like Dr. Collins actually does agree that with only, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

The creationist view that mankind was created only, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms disallows that 1) God made the first life form and 2) God makes the natural laws that allow evolution to occur. Collins disagrees with the view which eliminates, disallows, discards such inclusion in their creationist ideology.

You aren't reading this from Collins' website, BioLogos......

"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”​

Do you recognize the creationist concept which is referred to as "evolutionism"? Do you recognize that Collins disagrees with the concept?

 

[justlookinla]

All atheists are anti theists to you? Are you trying to set the record for false claims?.

No, I don't claim that all antheists are anti-theists, but anti-theism is common within the atheist philosophy.