Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟171,314.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would also add that most home schooled creationists are taught the lie that the ToE is inherently atheistic or even anti-theistic and it's impossible to accept it and still be a Christian. Once they actually study it it quickly becomes apparent that that is not true.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

EJ M

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2018
228
113
MT
✟68,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If evolution is as false as creationists claim it is, wouldn't understanding it lead to its rejection, not its acceptance?

Ref: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tand-evolution-are-more-likely-to-accept-it1/

If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.
All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.
All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.
And that has what to do with the theory of evolution?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
If evolution is as false as creationists claim it is, wouldn't understanding it lead to its rejection, not its acceptance?

Ref: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tand-evolution-are-more-likely-to-accept-it1/

In my opinion String Theory, The Anthropic Principle, The Cyclic Model of the Universe, The Law of Probability all prove that the first Intelligent life form would originate in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy....... .not in four dimensional space time where electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force are all separated from each other.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.

What does any of this have do with evolution?

All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.

You might want to refresh your understanding of what those words mean in a scientific context.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would also add that most home schooled creationists are taught the lie that the ToE is inherently atheistic or even anti-theistic and it's impossible to accept it and still be a Christian. Once they actually study it it quickly becomes apparent that that is not true.

To be fair, this isn't just a problem on the Creationistic side. When evolutionary biologists become anti-theistic polemicists, they tend to double down on the idea that evolution entails materialism and is inherently atheistic also. When the major public figures involved in evolutionary theory are the vocal anti-theists, you're going to run into serious problems.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To be fair, this isn't just a problem on the Creationistic side. When evolutionary biologists become anti-theistic polemicists, they tend to double down on the idea that evolution entails materialism and is inherently atheistic also. When the major public figures involved in evolutionary theory are the vocal anti-theists, you're going to run into serious problems.

That's a fair point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟171,314.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
To be fair, this isn't just a problem on the Creationistic side. When evolutionary biologists become anti-theistic polemicists, they tend to double down on the idea that evolution entails materialism and is inherently atheistic also. When the major public figures involved in evolutionary theory are the vocal anti-theists, you're going to run into serious problems.
Maybe im out of the loop but who are all these major scientist that are anti-theistic? I can only think of one and im not sure i even classify him as antithestic.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: DennisTate
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To be fair, this isn't just a problem on the Creationistic side. When evolutionary biologists become anti-theistic polemicists, they tend to double down on the idea that evolution entails materialism and is inherently atheistic also. When the major public figures involved in evolutionary theory are the vocal anti-theists, you're going to run into serious problems.

Maybe im out of the loop but who are all these major scientist that are anti-theistic? I can only think of one and im not sure i even classify him as antithestic.

I was going to say Silmarien that you appear to be specifically referring to Dawkins. Are there any others, or just him? (and I'd agree with jacknife's second sentence.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Maybe im out of the loop but who are all these major scientist that are anti-theistic? I can only think of one and im not sure i even classify him as antithestic.

Of the evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins is the big one. Jerry Coyne is another. Those are the only two names that spring to mind at the moment, though I don't know any evolutionary biologist who is as large a name as Dawkins. (Daniel Dennett, while not a biologist himself, could count as another who likes to use evolutionary theory to argue for atheistic conclusions.)

In physics, things get wild as well. Laurence Krauss is the most radical anti-theistic polemicist I can think of, but Sean Carroll tends in a similar direction. Then there are figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Stephen Hawking who are not quite anti-theists but should probably be a bit more cautious about mixing science and anti-religion in the public sphere.

I would definitely consider Dawkins an anti-theist rather than an atheist. His agenda is very obvious, since he's basically built a career out of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Of the evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins is the big one. Jerry Coyne is another. Those are the only two names that spring to mind at the moment, though I don't know any evolutionary biologist who is as large a name as Dawkins. (Daniel Dennett, while not a biologist himself, could count as another who likes to use evolutionary theory to further an intellectual case for atheism.)

In physics, things get wild as well. Laurence Krauss is the most radical anti-theistic polemicist I can think of, but Sean Carroll tends in a similar direction. Then there are figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Stephen Hawking who are not quite anti-theists but should probably be a bit more cautious about mixing science and anti-religion in the public sphere.

I would definitely consider Dawkins an anti-theist rather than an atheist. His agenda is very obvious, since he's basically built a career out of it.

Another one is Paul Zachary Myers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,287
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,569.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
To be fair, this isn't just a problem on the Creationistic side. When evolutionary biologists become anti-theistic polemicists, they tend to double down on the idea that evolution entails materialism and is inherently atheistic also. When the major public figures involved in evolutionary theory are the vocal anti-theists, you're going to run into serious problems.

Rubbish!

Of all the names mentioned so far only one, Dawkins is a biologist. The rest are an assortment of other disciplines.

Any atheist is going to lean towards materialism - it goes with the territory. There are also many Christian biologists who accept evolution as a reasonable proposition. Are they also inherently atheistic or materialistic?

In general terms the current crop of new atheists, while vocal, are more concerned about the teaching of ID/Creationism in schools, masquerading as science, as are the Christian scientists who accept evolutionary theory.

Visit Biologos or the Smithsonian and you'll find them also trying to combat the ignorance inherent in ID/Creationism.

OB
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,287
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,569.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Myers is a biologist.
OK that makes 2 biologists. That doesn't change the fact that ID/Creationism is opposed by the majority of both Christian and atheist scientists, with qualifications and experience in biology, along with neutral institutions like the Smithsonian and national and international scientific bodies.

To suggest that this issue is owned by materialistic atheists is patently ridiculous.
OB
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.
All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.
This literally has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution.

Not to mention that it is a gigantic strawmen and thus misrepresentation of running theories in cosmology as well.

So, combo points for the double fail.
 
Upvote 0