Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think it's important for any religious person to accept evolution for what it is, and then from that learn more about their God. The simple fact is that if we look in nature and how nature works, and if there is a God behind it, then nature wouldn't lie about God. Rather the opposite, what God is and how God does things is seen in nature. It's a matter of adjusting one's views of God according to the knowledge we have. Not changing our knowledge according to a childish view of what we want God to be.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution, i.e. through random changes alone and no God-, is a minority position as fundamentalist creationism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, forms of life have evolved in the same sense of the word cars have evolved, but according to blueprints, not accidentally.

 

[jeager106]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

Bold statements demand bold evidence.
You make a pretty damning statement without any citation to back up what amounts to a personal assertion.
Note that evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.
I make no claims about the creationist view. I don't need to because YOU made the damning statement without any
citation or statement of scientific facts. So the onus is on you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution,

... Doesn't exist. If anybody is defining evolution as meaning that there cannot be a God, they are misusing evolution. There are many people for whom evolution removes one of the primary impetuses behind belief in God (that is, the apparent complexity and suitability of living things to their environment), but there is no "fundamentalist evolution" movement that requires you to be an atheist to accept evolution. I have yet to meet a single person who believes that.

Note that evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

"Fact" is not a graduation of "theory" - they are different concepts. A fact is an observed and quantified phenomenon, a theory is a framework used to describe and explain the process and causes behind a particular phenomenon. Evolution is both.

The fact of evolution is changes of allele frequency over time in living populations. The theory of evolution explains how this occurs through mutation and selective pressures, and how this accounts for the genetic diversity encountered on earth today.

 

[metis]

Definition of (scientific) "theory": "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

 

[Parsimony]

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution, i.e. through random changes alone and no God-, is a minority position as fundamentalist creationism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, forms of life have evolved in the same sense of the word cars have evolved, but according to blueprints, not accidentally.

Which, at least so far, is a tenable position since there is still much about evolution that we do not understand. The general scientific consensus about evolution is that it did in fact happen (and continues to happen), but there is still much debate over the specifics of "how". At first, little was known about how how traits were passed from one generation to the next. Then we discovered genetics. After that, genetic factors responding to environmental pressures were considered the sole operating force. However, we now have epigenetic inheritance to consider (this field still being in its relative infancy). In the future, I imagine we will be in for even more surprises.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which, at least so far, is a tenable position since there is still much about evolution that we do not understand. The general scientific consensus about evolution is that it did in fact happen (and continues to happen), but there is still much debate over the specifics of "how". At first, little was known about how how traits were passed from one generation to the next. Then we discovered genetics. After that, genetic factors responding to environmental pressures were considered the sole operating force. However, we now have epigenetic inheritance to consider (this field still being in its relative infancy). In the future, I imagine we will be in for even more surprises.

I'd agree with that in general, I think epigenetics is interesting as it at least flirts with the concept of changes being not entirely random in generation. As in other fields some 'surprises' like the Big Bang and quantum physics were not always welcome and had certain unfashionable ideological implications at the time. Evolution is so charged with implications I think this might be an even greater headwind.

 

[jeager106]

Well here's a thought. If God created the first man and woman how do we explain the great diversity among
the current population of humans?
Add to that the story of Noah with few humans to spawn the great diversity we see today.
A minister once told me that it's entirely possible that one man and one woman could account for today's
diversity.
However, this came from a minister, not a scientist, for what it's worth.
I accept the creation account as a story for the audience of the time.
I have no issues believing in a God of my understanding in the face of genetics and evolution.

 

[Skwim]

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution, i.e. through random changes alone and no God-, is a minority position as fundamentalist creationism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, forms of life have evolved in the same sense of the word cars have evolved, but according to blueprints, not accidentally.

For any rational discussion of evolution and creationism fundamentalists don't get to define "evolution," no matter how desperate they may be.

Note that evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

Mistake # 132b *sigh*

And of course, "Bold statements demand bold evidence." So what ya got?

 

[Riverwolf]

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

I must staunchly disagree.

The accusations of lying and manipulation imply that they know the truth but are trying to sway people into what they know is untrue for whatever reason. In my experience, this is not the case: they fully believe this nonsensical idea, and thus are neither lying nor being manipulative. They're simply mistaken.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Bold statements demand bold evidence.
You make a pretty damning statement without any citation to back up what amounts to a personal assertion.
Note that evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.
I make no claims about the creationist view. I don't need to because YOU made the damning statement without any
citation or statement of scientific facts. So the onus is on you.

Which assertion do you require citations or further evidence for: That evolution is a fact; or that religious leaders who try to convince you that you must not believe evolution in order to be devout in that religion?

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution, i.e. through random changes alone and no God-, is a minority position as fundamentalist creationism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, forms of life have evolved in the same sense of the word cars have evolved, but according to blueprints, not accidentally.

First, as has been pointed out to you, there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist evolutionist". This is because evolution is a science; not a doctrine, not a religion, not a philosophy.

Second: your statements regarding that "most of us are somewhere in the middle" is exactly my point; as in the words of my coworker who accepts evolution -- and God; as in Robert T. Bakker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia who has been quoted as saying, "To interpret the Bible as a mere historical document is to diminish its eternal meaning". As in the leaders of the Catholic church, who urges Catholics to accept Evolution while reminding them that it is not a threat to their faith.

It appears that you understand my point and are not a blind follower of the likes of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard and others who follow their examples blindly.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I must staunchly disagree.

The accusations of lying and manipulation imply that they know the truth but are trying to sway people into what they know is untrue for whatever reason. In my experience, this is not the case: they fully believe this nonsensical idea, and thus are neither lying nor being manipulative. They're simply mistaken.

Maybe some; but not all. For brevity's sake, I have omitted further comment; because if you can grasp that those who make this claim -- "one must not believe in Evolution to be a (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Asatru, >enter religion here<)" -- are "mistaken", then you have grasped my point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

More than that. It is actually an insult to their faiths.

 

[LuisDantas]

It would depend how you define evolution. Fundamentalist evolution, i.e. through random changes alone and no God-, is a minority position as fundamentalist creationism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, forms of life have evolved in the same sense of the word cars have evolved, but according to blueprints, not accidentally.

Dude... are you even serious?

Whatever you are discussing is not from this reality, but rather from fantasyland.

In the Real World (TM) there is no such dependence on how one defines evolution, because evolution is a demonstrable fact, not a speculative idea.

Fundamentalist evolution looks like an interesting idea for some sort of fictional universe. I would like to read about it in some fantasy novel that shows what it is like to be in a world where such things are a matter of opinion or of competing dogmas. I for one would love to see how one would propose it.

But you really ought not to demean your stance by talking about those things as if they could fit reality as we know it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe some; but not all. For brevity's sake, I have omitted further comment; because if you can grasp that those who make this claim -- "one must not believe in Evolution to be a (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Asatru, >enter religion here<)" -- are "mistaken", then you have grasped my point.

That point would have been better served by the omission of the use of "lie" and "manipulate". Otherwise, the point is lost.

I didn't grasp your point so much as I had to reveal it, since I had no idea you were making it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Maybe some; but not all. For brevity's sake, I have omitted further comment; because if you can grasp that those who make this claim -- "one must not believe in Evolution to be a (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Asatru, >enter religion here<)" -- are "mistaken", then you have grasped my point.

There are many reasons why evolution is not compatible with various religious beliefs. One cannot just simply 'pick and choose' which parts of a religious belief, one can ignore. And it isn't just ''Genesis'', it's the nature of Deity, why deity would even create ''evolution'', why there would be deities in an evolution paradigm, etc.

 

[Izdaari]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

Yes, it's a lie. I have never believed the biblical creation story literally, and I have remained a devout, if very un-fundamentalist, Christian for some 40 years now.

 

[Shad]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

This only works against literalism; Islam, Evangelicals, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which assertion do you require citations or further evidence for: That evolution is a fact; or that religious leaders who try to convince you that you must not believe evolution in order to be devout in that religion?



First, as has been pointed out to you, there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist evolutionist". This is because evolution is a science; not a doctrine, not a religion, not a philosophy.

Second: your statements regarding that "most of us are somewhere in the middle" is exactly my point; as in the words of my coworker who accepts evolution -- and God; as in Robert T. Bakker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia who has been quoted as saying, "To interpret the Bible as a mere historical document is to diminish its eternal meaning". As in the leaders of the Catholic church, who urges Catholics to accept Evolution while reminding them that it is not a threat to their faith.

It appears that you understand my point and are not a blind follower of the likes of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard and others who follow their examples blindly.

yes, I don't think we are too far off the same page, but you could argue that the essence of evolution, as taught, is that life, humanity are arbitrary creations of a purely natural process, not a product of creative intelligence-
and that is a minority position. Like most I accept that the design of cars and life both evolved, not that this was a random process with no particular purpose.