• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

YEC's and Atheists: Strange Bedfellows?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are two distinct minority groups which most violently oppose the idea that evolution and Scripture can be entirely compatible:

Militant atheists and YEC’s.

I am not sure which first concluded that their mutual position was correct, but they have developed a symbiotic relationship, feeding off each other, quoting each other, believing each other’s statements since it is what they want to hear.

It is true that when the atheists first heard of evolution, it seemed to give them an "out", a method of explaining origins without God. Because you CAN describe evolution without God, there is no doubt about it. Sure, there are still first cause arguments, intelligent design issues, etc, but evolution itself CAN happen without God. Just as importantly, it was contrary to the traditional reading of Genesis. Atheists combined these two and leapt for joy: they had a platform to stand on.

They were wrong, of course. While evolution CAN happen without God being involved, this is not proof whatsoever that it DID happen without God, much less that God does not exist. No more than photosynthesis happening without God could prove that God does not exist. Nevertheless, atheists took full advantage of the new foothold they seemed to have gained and began presenting evolution as a blow against Christian teaching, proving the Creation stories false. If that is false, they argued, everything else may be false as well!

Many Christians bought right into this hook, line and sinker. Rather than learn the lesson of geocentrism and simply recognize that their traditional reading of Genesis and their concepts of origins and the age of the earth may be incorrect, they dug in, giving the atheists more and more ammunition. They began making their OWN statements agreeing with the atheists that evolution and Scripture were entirely incompatible, thus playing right into their hands. From then on, the more that science established evolutionary concepts, the shakier Christianity would become. And, I am sure this worked to a great extent. It is dismaying to think of all those souls lost to the Kingdom due to the combined teaching of these atheists and Creationists (as they were soon being called). These strange bedfellows created "all or nothing" propositions that led people with no choice but to accept Christianity or the persuasive new evidence of science. Who knows how many abandoned Christianity as a result. However many there were, the blame lies equally on both of those groups teaching the same "incompatibility" dogma.

What would have happened if the Christian community as a whole immediately stated that evolution could, indeed, be compatible with Scripture, we just had to adjust our traditional reading as we did with geocentrism? How many of these lost souls would still be in the Kingdom?

Over the years, the Christian community in general HAS come to apply the lesson of geocentrism and simply re-examine their traditional readings of Scripture. After all, just as with geocentrism, Man is able to err when reading God’s Word, and sometimes they can err BIG. This has taken a lot of the wind out of the atheistic sails and, I am convinced, has prevented the loss of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of souls.

But in the last few decades, we have had a resurgence of the debate, with Young Earth Creationists once again spouting the atheistic line that evolution and the Scripture are incompatible and that if evolution is correct, Scripture is false. While still primarily a movement in the U.S., it is spreading to the UK and Australia as well. They have ministries which spread these teachings and, once again, are presenting it as a choice: you can either accept the Scripture or the evidence supporting an old earth and evolution. The atheists are there in the background urging them on. Once again, souls are being lost to the Kingdom. I have seen it happen and it makes me very angry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gluadys

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Vance said:
There are two distinct minority groups which most violently oppose the idea that evolution and Scripture can be entirely compatible:

Militant atheists and YEC’s.

I am not sure which first concluded that their mutual position was correct, but they have developed a symbiotic relationship, feeding off each other, quoting each other, believing each other’s statements since it is what they want to hear.



How true. Both essentially believe in god-in-the-gaps and atheists rejoice to see the gaps narrowing while YECs struggle to keep them open.

I was introduced to YECism in 1980 when Duane Gish made an appearance at a nearby university and I was invited to attend. I was so astonished by the concept that I went just to see what possible argument could sustain a young earth theory.

What disturbed me most about the whole presentation was not the lack of evidence, or the literal interpretation of Genesis. It was that right at the beginning Gish presented a quote from Julian Huxley as the definition of evolution--a quote which incorporated atheism.

I could not understand why he would take an atheist's word for what evolution is over that of believing scientists. Would not an atheist present a view of evolution that was biased in favour of atheism?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a side note, it would be interesting to know whether Gish knew that Huxley's definition was not the mainstream one, and that it would be rejected by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Meaning: did he choose that definition to create the "enemy" he could then attack (which would be dishonest), or was it sheer ignorance? It is difficult to believe that Gish, who obviously had read up on evolution before giving the seminar, didn't know that he was using a misleading quote. I like to give my fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt, but it is difficult in cases like this . . .
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Vance said:
As a side note, it would be interesting to know whether Gish knew that Huxley's definition was not the mainstream one, and that it would be rejected by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Meaning: did he choose that definition to create the "enemy" he could then attack (which would be dishonest), or was it sheer ignorance? It is difficult to believe that Gish, who obviously had read up on evolution before giving the seminar, didn't know that he was using a misleading quote. I like to give my fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt, but it is difficult in cases like this . . .


He knew. He was questioned on it. He deliberately chose the Huxley quote to exclude theistic evolution as an open possibility.

His argument was that a position of theistic evolution was unthinkable, because by definition evolution=atheism, and the Huxley quote was chosen to support that argument. And he insisted it was a correct definition of evolution---more correct than an unbiased one.
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟23,452.00
Faith
Protestant
gluadys said:
What disturbed me most about the whole presentation was not the lack of evidence, or the literal interpretation of Genesis. It was that right at the beginning Gish presented a quote from Julian Huxley as the definition of evolution--a quote which incorporated atheism.

What was the definition he provided for evolution?

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
tyreth said:
What was the definition he provided for evolution?

Sorry, that was over 20 years ago. I did tape the presentation, but I have long since lost the cassette. I could not quote it verbatim, though if I ever see it, I would recognize it. Guess I need to research Huxley's writings.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of evolution?

A change in the frequency of alleles in a given population from one generation to the next.

See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟23,452.00
Faith
Protestant
gluadys said:
Sorry, that was over 20 years ago. I did tape the presentation, but I have long since lost the cassette. I could not quote it verbatim, though if I ever see it, I would recognize it. Guess I need to research Huxley's writings.

That's not surprising :) I thought you may have recorded it somewhere, but not to worry.

A change in the frequency of alleles in a given population from one generation to the next.

See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf

That is the very same definition of evolution which the YEC's embrace and accept as scientific and verified. It is the same definition that I have quoted at various times to show the scientific definition of evolution. Though I worded it as "...a given population over time". Saying "from one generation to the next" is better wording.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have often noticed that; I think it's interesting how most atheists just think YEC beliefs are silly, but the ones who really want to proselytize and push atheism base it largely on attacks on creationism, and get very offended when Christians don't fall for their naive attack.

FWIW, I've spent a lot of time counseling people with the struggles they face when they start studying modern science. It's rough.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
tyreth said:
That is the very same definition of evolution which the YEC's embrace and accept as scientific and verified. It is the same definition that I have quoted at various times to show the scientific definition of evolution. Though I worded it as "...a given population over time". Saying "from one generation to the next" is better wording.

Yes, the basic "scientific" difference between biology and modern YEC is not really over whether evolution happens. Both agree it does. The basic difference is over whether a succession of allele changes can account for all the diversity we see in living things. Science says yes (see Futuyma), YEC says no.

And, of course, YEC must say no, because it doesn't allow for enough time for a single process of small changes to produce large differences.
 
Upvote 0

Underdog77

Active Member
May 27, 2004
340
8
38
Edmond, OK
✟23,064.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vance said:
There are two distinct minority groups which most violently oppose the idea that evolution and Scripture can be entirely compatible:

Militant atheists and YEC’s.
I don't have alot of time so I'll just say this for now: just keep trying. Just keep trying to paint YECs as a minority. It seems as though that is a major tactic of your belief, to belittle the opposing view. There was a guy that once said "If you say something loud enough and long enough, people will believe it". So good luck, since propoganda seems to be the biggest thing going for you.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Underdog77 said:
I don't have alot of time so I'll just say this for now: just keep trying. Just keep trying to paint YECs as a minority. It seems as though that is a major tactic of your belief, to belittle the opposing view. There was a guy that once said "If you say something loud enough and long enough, people will believe it". So good luck, since propoganda seems to be the biggest thing going for you.
It is inarguable that worldwide, less Christians will believe in a strict literal interpretation of Genesis than those who do not.
 
Upvote 0

PotLuck

Active Member
May 5, 2002
253
3
Visit site
✟408.00
Faith
Christian
herev said:
It is inarguable that worldwide, less Christians will believe in a strict literal interpretation of Genesis than those who do not.
After the gospel is firmly established then that may be true. But to spread the gospel among other cultures, including other cultures here in the States, there's an adherance for the literal simply for survival. Missionaries must be "on the same page" or their witness falters. Evangelists here in Salt Lake City (center of mormon culture) simply can not opt to view Genesis in any other way than literal. It just won't work here. The enemy of deception accepts Genesis as literal. Their ceremonies, rites and rituals are based on it. If christian testiomony included a belief that Genesis is a myth to align with evolution the LDS Church would not hesitate to use it against the christian influence we struggle so hard to nurture. Satan, the great deceiver, knows Genesis very well.

I'm not saying there are no TEs here, there is always exception. Yet I've not bumped into any during the 5 years I've been actively spreading the christian gospel. That belief simply has not reached or become the norm on the battlefields here behind enemy lines.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's a very specialized region. In most of the world, if you start out by denying mainstream science, you have done just what Augustine said; you have made Christianity look ridiculous, and killed any chance of having the Gospel genuinely heard.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PotLuck said:
Satan, the great deceiver, knows Genesis very well.
Yes, he does--but who really is behind the mask?
sterb029.gif
May the force be with all of us
 
Upvote 0

PotLuck

Active Member
May 5, 2002
253
3
Visit site
✟408.00
Faith
Christian
K.P. Yohannan, founder and president of Gospel For Asia, was in town for a while to gather support for spreading the gospel in India. Most of the congregation here are currently sponsoring a native missionary. It's found that native missionaries are very effective in spreading the truth in their own country. K. P. believes the literal also. He made it a point to convey that. After all, he knew where he was and who he was speaking with. He was either telling the truth or lying just to get money. Talking to him though leaves little doubt that the former was definately the case.
So he's teaching all potential missionaries the literal view throughout India. I'm not sure how many of the common folk there have even heard of Darwin let alone much about what the scientific journals say about evolution.
 
Upvote 0

PotLuck

Active Member
May 5, 2002
253
3
Visit site
✟408.00
Faith
Christian
Null-Geodesic said:
Interesting someone mentions the Mormon church. If I remember correctly they don't specifically deny evolution. I also seem to remember that the chairman of the BYU biology department (which supports evolutionary theory) has a couple of times debated Creationists.
It's not mainstream in LDS doctrine any more than it's mainstream christian doctrine here either. The LDS church and BYU have been known to butt heads a few times on lesser issues.
 
Upvote 0

Alchemist

Seeking in Orthodoxy
Jun 13, 2004
585
100
39
✟23,744.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hi guys,

As a former-YEC Christian, who has had to deal with the concept of evolution in my academic studies, I find it so difficult to understand the vehement anti-evolutionist stance of many Young Earth Creationists. I know to many it may seem as though we theistic evolutionists are somehow compromising what the Bible says, but it does not at all.

I personally have been through many struggles with the creation of the World... as I say, I was once a vehement YEC; I dismissed evolution as garbage, believing uncompromisingly in a literal 6-day creation, just as I was taught by the common teachings of the Church. To me, this seemed quite fine and theologically sound, and perhaps it is. But for YEC to say that a literal 6-day creation of the world 6000 years ago is the ONLY possible interpretation of the Bible is, imo, quite a naive position, and quite dangerous to Christianity.

I, like the original author of this post, have witnessed several of my friends and acquaintances be turned away from the Church. Why? Because of a church that is unwilling to accept evolution. Believers in this scenario are lead to believe that their scientific views are somehow at odds with what the Bible says, and that believing in evolution as a source of speciation is heretic. I do not ask YEC's to change; theologically Young Earth Creationism is a sound doctrine, if the 6 days in Genesis are taken literally. It is said, 'Anything is possible with God', and I strongly believe this. It just puzzles me that the Church is so unwilling to accept the POSSIBILITY that evolution is possible. With a stance like this, it is no wonder that a) so many atheists use science to try and disprove Christianity, and b) so many people, growing up in the Age of Science, are taught that Christianity is a naive religion, and as such never stop to search for the wonderful light that God is.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I do not think that being a YEC is stupid, naive, or anti-biblical; I am but human, like we all are, and am not to judge. Personally, I am Young Earth in a sense... I believe that world has only been around for ~6000 years, and that Adam and Eve were literally the first people on the Earth. However, I do not believe in a literal 6 days, as my interpretation of the Bible is that the sun and moon (markers of day and night) were not created until the fourth day:
'And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years...'

'... And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.'

- Genesis 1:14, 16
As such, I believe that the 'light' mentioned in Genesis 1:3 refers to the spiritual light of God, in which all life is able to survive. As such, for me, whether the 'days' of Genesis are days of 24 hours or 240 million years is irrelevant; the key messages are a) God created the Earth, and b) God created the life on Earth. The Bible says this, and I believe it. The Bible teaches that man descended from Adam and Eve (taking this passage literally), making the Earth approximately 6000 years old. The Bible says this, and I believe it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Science says that evolution is the way by which animals / plants change over time. I do not find it anti-biblical to suggest God used evolution to create the great diversity of life on Earth. I chose evolution as a model by which God works because science says so, and the Bible does not contradict it. I also choose evolution, because I think that Creation Science completely misses the point... we should not believe in God by science, but by faith alone. Trying to shape science to fit theology is completely unnecessary when theology can be explained by science itself.

I don't want to rave on about my own personal struggle with evolutionary theory and its relationship with Christianity; if I am asked to I will however. I just don't think that slamming evolution when it can be justified by the Bible is a good idea, especially when it provides such a HUGE stumbling block to so many could-be Christians in the world. How is one supposed to come to the Lord if (supposedly) His own people are so judgmental about the way that he or she views the Creation of the universe? Surely accepting that God created the Earth is what is required for our salvation, not how it was created?
 
Upvote 0

PotLuck

Active Member
May 5, 2002
253
3
Visit site
✟408.00
Faith
Christian
Out of the entire world populace how many are "up" on the theory of evolution? Spreading the gospel to the uneducated is going to be the major effort. My point is that mixing evolution and gospel simply won't work throughout most of the world when spreading the "good news" because those people don't have a clue about the concepts of evolution.
One must first educate the peoples of third world countries what evolution is and who Darwin was and AFTER the christian gospel has been firmly established, has become at least close to being the predominant faith or religion, then and only then can TEism be spread.
I don't think anyone can argue that there's more poverty than education throughout the world. Education is not the prime goal of the leadership of many countries.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.