Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[tumbleweed41]

No, not at all. Let me separate two important points.

Point #1. Evolution is not evil, however the claim that evolution could have occurred without God is borderline evil. It can easily be ascertained that such “evidence” allows the doubters or enemies of God to relax and ill-advisably convince themselves all the more that there is no God they need be accountable to.

Point #2. If evolution did occur, then all three of the following tenets, I say, would have to be true. 1. It could have only happened by God (intelligent design) 2. God did a good job of hiding the evidence for it. 3. He stopped the process altogether since man has been on the planet.

So Christians could believe in evolution as long as they accept God of the Bible was the architect. But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

So, you do not agree with the official stance of the Catholic Church?

 

[Agnostic75]

So Christians could believe in evolution as long as they accept God of the Bible was the architect. But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

But you cannot use science alone to reasonably prove that God is the God of the Bible since it is possible that some other God created life on earth. You need to provide reasonable evidence that God is the God of the Bible.

Why are you debating at this forum instead of at the General Religious Debates forum since it is not evolution that you are necessarily disputing, only whether or not the God of the Bible is involved with evolution?

If a God inspired the Bible, I doubt that he requires that people study science at all in order to become saved.

If a God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him.

 

[thau]

But you cannot use science alone to reasonably prove that God is the God of the Bible since it is possible that some other God created life on earth. You need to provide reasonable evidence that God is the God of the Bible.

Why are you debating at this forum instead of at the General Religious Debates forum since it is not evolution that you are necessarily disputing, only whether or not the God of the Bible is involved with evolution?

If a God inspired the Bible, I doubt that he requires that people study science at all in order to become saved.

If a God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him.

I agree with everything you just said above in its entirety.

Sorry for the wrong category to pursue this. I hope I can fulfill my desires later.

 

[thau]

So, you do not agree with the official stance of the Catholic Church?

They have no official stance on evolution and never have.

 

[tumbleweed41]

They have no official stance on evolution and never have.

Oh..


159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997)


Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
Pope Benedict XVI
Meeting Of The Holy Father Benedict XVI With The Clergy Of The Dioceses Of Belluno-Feltre And Treviso

"In his encyclical (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
John Paul II
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution

...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question
Humani Generis

OK....

 

[Agnostic75]

I agree with everything you just said above in its entirety.......Sorry for the wrong category to pursue this.

This is the Evolution Vs Creation forum. It has become apparent that evolution is not really an issue for you, only why it occurs. Are you going to start a new thread at the General Religious Debates forum, and provide some of your evidence that the God of the Bible exists? Reasonably proving whether or not God is the God of the Bible cannot be decided with discussions about biology.

 

[shawn001]

They have no official stance on evolution and never have.

They won't put out a true "official stance" but the unoffical one for many many years now is Theistic evolution.
Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism

Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism | Fox News


Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.


Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph



Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (1996)

 

[thau]

They won't put out a true "official stance" but the unoffical one for many many years now is Theistic evolution.
Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism

Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism | Fox News

Nothing official about any of that, and surely not doctrinal.

The headlines are horribly misleading. But if you haven’t noticed, the secular media loves to use the phrase “Vatican says this or that…” giving the impression it is always coming with the endorsement of the pope, which is patently false. One monsignor was quoted as saying “creationism is useless,” that’s it.

The whole article is dealing with clergy sympathizers at some scientific gathering. Do you think that demonstrates that most Catholic bishops or priests believe in evolution? I don’t.

More importantly, the Catholic Church, or The Vatican, would be quick to add (and certainly have) a more official position that “no Catholic faithful is required to accept or believe any of this” (for lack of a better phrasing). Just as they do on many diverse ideas, including limbo.

I notice the last sentence of the article seems to support my point: “Cardinal Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories.”


As to recent pope’s giving tacit endorsement to evolution, I do not think it is as clear as it may appear. I do not say that because I want to believe that, I say that for good reasons which I cannot take the time to elaborate on now. Even still, even if John Paul II strongly believed in evolution that would not shake my faith in any way. I will also quickly add popes have been wrong on many positions in the past, just not the ones where it concerns faith and morals, doctrine and dogma.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

Such as...?

 

[tumbleweed41]

But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

Guess Pope John Paul II disagreed with you.

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."


But I am sure you have looked into this much deeper than he did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did I say that?

I said you have no moral code to uphold. Which means if you are an atheist, you are not accountable to a higher power for your decisions. Whether you choose to be moral or not is for your own personal self worth. There are no eternal consequences in that, and consequently, you will see a lot more liberties taken when there is no accountability.

Care to give an example? What "liberties" am I more likely to take, exactly? In my experience, I tend to take far less "liberties" than most theists I know. The fact that I am an atheist has not hindered my morality in any way.

Forget the abortion doctor bombing if you would be so kind? Christians denounce those who act crazy, unlike Muslims and their terrorists.

Because Christians never act crazy? By like, say, burning people as witches, or telling people in AIDS-stricken third-world countries not to use contraception?

Neither would I accuse you of having a Joseph Stalin mentality just because neither of you believe in God.

Well, thanks, I guess?

No, not at all. Let me separate two important points.

Point #1. Evolution is not evil, however the claim that evolution could have occurred without God is borderline evil. It can easily be ascertained that such “evidence” allows the doubters or enemies of God to relax and ill-advisably convince themselves all the more that there is no God they need be accountable to.

You need to get rid of this notion of accountability. Not everyone who doesn't want to believe in God does so out of a desire to "not be accountable" to any such being. Frankly, I find that presumption incredibly ignorant.

Point #2. If evolution did occur, then all three of the following tenets, I say, would have to be true. 1. It could have only happened by God (intelligent design) 2. God did a good job of hiding the evidence for it. 3. He stopped the process altogether since man has been on the planet.

Then why do we still see evolution occurring? Your tenets are clearly wrong.

So Christians could believe in evolution as long as they accept God of the Bible was the architect. But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

If you sincerely believe that there's a lack of evidence, then you clearly haven't read or considered enough evidence.

 

[McBell]

If you sincerely believe that there's a lack of evidence, then you clearly haven't read or considered enough evidence.

It is what happens when someone is merely looking to ratify their beliefs instead of looking for truth and facts.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I said you have no moral code to uphold. Which means if you are an atheist, you are not accountable to a higher power for your decisions.

My moral code is based upon the simple logic that if I don't want something done to me, I shouldn't do it to others. I don't want to be murdered, raped, stolen from, lied to, maimed, discriminated against, or anything of the sort. So, if I'm to live in a society where my survival means co-operation with others, I better try my best to get along with others.

Let me turn it around on you. Let's say tomorrow your "higher power" sanctioned murder. Would you be okay with murdering your child? Herein lies a fundamental problem with theistic morality. When you are told what is moral by a "higher power" (particularly one that probably doesn't exist!), you leave yourself open to the possibility that the same "higher power" can legislate a particular morality that you find repugnant.

This begs the question: If your "higher power" has the ability to legislate morality that you find repugnant, isn't morality then independent of your imaginary friend? Wouldn't atheists who don't subscribe to your little fairy tale be content with going around murdering children? But, of course, we don't see anything of the sort. This renders your notion that morality cannot exist without a cosmic dictator telling us what is moral false.

Whether you choose to be moral or not is for your own personal self worth. There are no eternal consequences in that, and consequently, you will see a lot more liberties taken when there is no accountability.

But there IS accountability. I am accountable to whoever I wronged and also to society. If I lie to someone, I am accountable to them. If I lie to someone under oath in court, I am accountable to society. There are consequences for our "immoral" actions right here on Earth. At times, people get away with doing wrong, but those people are not only atheists. They're everyone. We're human and we're opportunistic beings. If we have a chance to screw someone over for our own benefit, we'll generally take it. What's preventing us from going on a killing spree is the fact that our survival means co-operation to form a society. Any breach of that co-operation translates into a reduced chance of our survival. No magic man required.

Forget the abortion doctor bombing if you would be so kind? Christians denounce those who act crazy, unlike Muslims and their terrorists.

But Christians were the ones who did the abortion doctor bombings. If your point that we are all accountable to a higher power were true, why did these Christians take the opportunistic liberty to advance their own sick and twisted ideology? There are several explanations. Mental illness, drugs, desperation of circumstance, indoctrination, and more. All these alter our faculties to make bad decisions and often decisions that harm themselves or others. Clearly atheists and Muslims do not have a monopoly on immorality. The fact that some Christians may denounce these actions is irrelevant if you are unwilling to accept that atheists denounce the crimes of other atheists and Muslims denounce the crimes of other Muslims.

Point #1. Evolution is not evil, however the claim that evolution could have occurred without God is borderline evil. It can easily be ascertained that such “evidence” allows the doubters or enemies of God to relax and ill-advisably convince themselves all the more that there is no God they need be accountable to.

Firstly, it's utterly idiotic to reject a concept with evidence behind it merely because of the consequences that concept may bring (real or, in your case, imagined). Should we reject chemotherapy as a viable means of treating cancer patients because it also has the undesirable effect of making them really weak and lose their hair?

Secondly, as I said before, we ARE accountable. We are accountable to ourselves. We have to live with the consequences of our actions. We are accountable to others. We need to co-operate with others in order to progress as a society. We are also accountable to society itself. Violation of this accountability leads to consequences like prison time for the offenders. This is to keep society orderly, co-operative, and safe.

Point #2. If evolution did occur, then all three of the following tenets, I say, would have to be true. 1. It could have only happened by God (intelligent design) 2. God did a good job of hiding the evidence for it. 3. He stopped the process altogether since man has been on the planet.

1. No, it couldn't have. Besides, you are making an argument from ignorance. "I personally see no other way that evolution could have happened without God doing it, so therefore God must have done it." You don't know everything. You don't know what new evidence the future will bring that may reinforce or even utterly disprove evolution (though this is unlikely). Evolution also only describe how populations evolve and how speciation occurs, not the origin of life itself. You are talking about abiogenesis, something completely different.

Lastly, the "design" is hardly "intelligent". There are many design flaws in the human body and other organisms that are the result of a continuing evolutionary process. These are not accounted for if the designer is supposedly all-intelligent.

2. If your God would want to hide evidence and knowledge from us to keep us ignorant about anything, let me break it to you: your God is an ***.

3. Incorrect. Evolution is still occuring. It takes a long time to happen. It takes MILLIONS of years for speciation to occur. The changes occuring right now are minute and gradual. They have to spread significantly through a population numbering around 7 BILLION who live in different environments. You are on the planet for, assuming you live in a developed country, around 70-80 years. Hell, let's say you're here for a century. Do you think a single mutation can spread through a significant amount of people in the 100 years you are on this planet? You're ignorant if you do.

So Christians could believe in evolution as long as they accept God of the Bible was the architect. But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”

Continuing from my last point, obviously observing a mutation spreading through a significant human population in your 100 years of existence is very difficult. It is very difficult because humans don't make very many babies in their lifetime and it takes a long time for those babies to have babies of their own (compared to other organisms like bacteria). Some bacteria, on the other hand, reproduce in a matter of HOURS. The result is an exponential increase. You can observe these mutations spread through a bacterial population because they have a high rate of reproduction and they reach sexual maturity really quickly. In fact, we have OBSERVED bacterial evolution in the lab.

To say that there is a lack of evidence for something that is demonstrable and has been observed is ludicrous and wilfully ignorant.

 

[Father Heathen]

Consequently, they have no moral code to uphold and order their lives howsoever they choose.

Not only do most atheists have a moral code, they tend to be more ]moral than your typical fundamentalist. Of course I'm talking about real morals based on reason and compassion rather than based on the rigid, random and arbitrary cultural norms and superstitions of ancient primitives.

An invisible sky daddy isn't a prerequisite for morality. A healthy mind and heart are all that one needs. For someone to be "moral" simply because they fear punishment and hope for reward betrays their poor character.

 

[thau]

First of all --- your avatar is disturbingly disgusting. Must not be any little kids around your house?

2) I appreciate you taking the time to attempt to address many of my points. But this raises a second thought --- what is your objectives for your short years of existence? Is this what gives you satisfaction and pleasure? I am only curious, not trying to be too critical.

3) For me personally, if I were one who thought once I die that's it, life is over ---- I would seriously go mad. I could not continue with that terrifying and morbid thought. I mean, just how important is life if it is so quickly obliterated and forgotten? (spare me the "good qualities you may pass on to your offspring, etc." because even that becomes moot and valueless over time)

4) I am off to work outside the office today and if I were a good Christian I will be hard at work tomorrow. If I am a deceiver, I just might find the time to respond to your fine post. (sooner or later I plan to)

5) The good news for you: there are some atheists in heaven, especially if they are super kind and charitable and humble and so on ---- IOW, very hard to find (even among the Christian ranks). The bad news --- most people in hell did not believe it existed. Those are the words of the Virgin Mary.

Enjoy one of your precious days left on earth here today.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

vanityofvanitys, two points: 1. every Islamic organization in the west has denounced terrorism. To lump all Muslims into that category is not only false, it's dishonest. If you don't wish to be lumped in together with abortion clinic bombers and the Crusades, please show the same courtesy to others, and 2. atheism is not accepted because one wants a license to commit immorality. This is very absurd statement, not to mention misleading and dishonest. Very many atheists are very moral people, and they do so, not with the hope of reward or the threat of punishment, but simply because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

None of his rhetoric has anything to do with the thread topic.

 

[thau]

1. every Islamic organization in the west has denounced terrorism. To lump all Muslims into that category is not only false, it's dishonest. If you don't wish to be lumped in together with abortion clinic bombers and the Crusades, please show the same courtesy to others, and


I am not lumping all Muslims into anything. I guess I made some comment earlier where you surely would get that impression, but it was only for the purpose of being brief and using it to make a larger point I am sure. Once again I am short on time, but let me say this much. I expect most Muslims are well intentioned people who want to both please their God, Allah, and be kind to their fellow man as their book mostly asks. However, there is only one God and one true faith. Islam and Christianity cannot both be correct, and therefore, something is amiss in God’s eyes if we think it does not matter what religion we follow.

There is so much hatred and intolerance and terrorism coming out of radical Islam that I believe that speaks to something wrong with the religion itself. I mean, the fringe is so large (the fringe being those willing to kill for Allah and hate anything that treads on their beliefs) that there must be something wrong with the core.

I still believe most Muslims are not that way and they will be judged kindly by God.


2. atheism is not accepted because one wants a license to commit immorality. This is very absurd statement, not to mention misleading and dishonest. Very many atheists are very moral people, and they do so, not with the hope of reward or the threat of punishment, but simply because it's the right thing to do.

I did not say that is why atheism is accepted by many of its adherents, I only said by being an atheist there is less accountability to any moral code so given by an assumed higher power. Yes or no?

If an atheist is very moral as you say, then that person is moral and kind and giving because that is what they choose, and certainly not because they are an atheist. Those who believe in God and consequences are more likely to be that “nice person” even if they are not inherently that way. Because they are subject to judgment.

So the chances of a Christian being kind and humble and forgiving are greater than that of someone who has no regard for any God or eternal consequences.

I might add, I am not impressed with people in the West in general, be they Christians, “lazy Christians”, atheists, or unidentified. I think this nation and Europe are totally fooling themselves. I think most people view themselves as being very kind and very generous and surely to be judged as a good person.

And I think for every person who views themselves that way and its found to be actually true (by God), there are 10 more who will be shocked to find out they were wrong. The greatest sins (I am told and I believe) are not sins of commission, but sins of omission. IOW, the sin of indifference towards the needs of others and how we view or treat others.


(Did I mention I have to go to work today?)

 

[thau]

None of his rhetoric has anything to do with the thread topic.

Then ask the others to quit provoking me.


"The path of ignorance is guided by fear."

Not sure what your signature quote is saying, but I do know this: "The beginning of wisdom is fear of God." (proverbs)

 

[tumbleweed41]

I expect most Muslims are well intentioned people who want to both please their God, Allah, and be kind to their fellow man as their book mostly asks. However, there is only one God and one true faith. Islam and Christianity cannot both be correct, and therefore, something is amiss in God’s eyes if we think it does not matter what religion we follow.

There is so much hatred and intolerance and terrorism coming out of radical Islam that I believe that speaks to something wrong with the religion itself. I mean, the fringe is so large (the fringe being those willing to kill for Allah and hate anything that treads on their beliefs) that there must be something wrong with the core.

It's funny, one could remove Muslim. Islam and Allah from the above statement and insert Christian, Christianity and Jehovah and many would agree.

I would say this is entirely off topic, but I think it does answer part of the question of why this particular type of Creationist refuses to accept biological evolution.

If it is counter to dogmatic belief, it will not be accepted. And no amount of reason, empirical evidence, or common sense will change that. All literalistic dogma will be rationalized as absolute truth without question. Anything counter to the literalistic dogma is automatically seen as lies and deception.