Creationists, why do you attack evolution?

[vijeno]

Having been an agnostic atheist for a while, I marvel at this. I know that, back in my religious days, evolution was the evil of evils for some folks - but on the other hand, I was raised catholic, and catholicism has long embraced evolution (which can be done easily within christianity, if you put your mind to it) - it was never so contentious to me. I guess I was never enough of a literalist.

Maybe you think evolution undermines your faith, so it must be done away with. Which is understandable, but then why bring it up in the company of atheists? I wonder if you imagine that you can sway atheists, if you only get us to admit that evolution is false. That, I must say, can't work - if it turned out that evolution was completely wrong, it would not make me believe in god. It would be an additional pebble on an endless beach of "things we don't know yet". Apart from intellectual curiosity, and maybe some nostalgic attachment, I just don't care. In fact, I'm sure that in 1000 years, the theory will have changed so much that we might not even recognize it as "evolutionary theory". So I see little sense in defending evolution.

(The same goes for abiogenesis, and the same goes for the big bang. We don't know how life begain, and it doesn't change a thing. We don't know what happened at the singularity, and again, so what.)

And the other way around, too - I don't think I ever saw a single theist go "Oh, so all those fossils really check out - that must mean that Jesus doesn't save souls after all!". Okay, maybe this happens once in a while. FWIW, it wasn't my personal reason.

So... if it's just to defend your faith, then I don't understand the need to bring it up. If it's an attempt to sway atheists, I don't believe it can work.

Or maybe you're looking for challenges? Do you want to put it out there, so you can refine the theory?

Hm... I must be missing something... what is the real reason?

 

[viole]

Having been an agnostic atheist for a while, I marvel at this. I know that, back in my religious days, evolution was the evil of evils for some folks - but on the other hand, I was raised catholic, and catholicism has long embraced evolution (which can be done easily within christianity, if you put your mind to it) - it was never so contentious to me. I guess I was never enough of a literalist.

Maybe you think evolution undermines your faith, so it must be done away with. Which is understandable, but then why bring it up in the company of atheists? I wonder if you imagine that you can sway atheists, if you only get us to admit that evolution is false. That, I must say, can't work - if it turned out that evolution was completely wrong, it would not make me believe in god. It would be an additional pebble on an endless beach of "things we don't know yet". Apart from intellectual curiosity, and maybe some nostalgic attachment, I just don't care. In fact, I'm sure that in 1000 years, the theory will have changed so much that we might not even recognize it as "evolutionary theory". So I see little sense in defending evolution.

(The same goes for abiogenesis, and the same goes for the big bang. We don't know how life begain, and it doesn't change a thing. We don't know what happened at the singularity, and again, so what.)

And the other way around, too - I don't think I ever saw a single theist go "Oh, so all those fossils really check out - that must mean that Jesus doesn't save souls after all!". Okay, maybe this happens once in a while. FWIW, it wasn't my personal reason.

So... if it's just to defend your faith, then I don't understand the need to bring it up. If it's an attempt to sway atheists, I don't believe it can work.

Or maybe you're looking for challenges? Do you want to put it out there, so you can refine the theory?

Hm... I must be missing something... what is the real reason?

I think they have very good reasons to.

What sensible, good and wise God, Who knows what He wants, would use evolution to create the pinnacle of His creation? That is arguably the most inefficient, amoral, wasteful and contingent mechanism I can think of. Relying on natural cataclysms, asteroids, climate changes on a planetary scale, so that a little rodent hiding for millions of years from reptile looking predators, will eventually be allowed to come out of that stinking hole and become the chosen one? I am not sure how any evolutionary Christian could possibly believe that without major cognitive dissonances.

in fact, a little thought should make it obvious that, say, the Christian God and evolution by natural selection, are mutually incompatible. On pure logical grounds.

ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

Having been an agnostic atheist for a while, I marvel at this. I know that, back in my religious days, evolution was the evil of evils for some folks - but on the other hand, I was raised catholic, and catholicism has long embraced evolution (which can be done easily within christianity, if you put your mind to it) - it was never so contentious to me. I guess I was never enough of a literalist.

Maybe you think evolution undermines your faith, so it must be done away with. Which is understandable, but then why bring it up in the company of atheists? I wonder if you imagine that you can sway atheists, if you only get us to admit that evolution is false. That, I must say, can't work - if it turned out that evolution was completely wrong, it would not make me believe in god. It would be an additional pebble on an endless beach of "things we don't know yet". Apart from intellectual curiosity, and maybe some nostalgic attachment, I just don't care. In fact, I'm sure that in 1000 years, the theory will have changed so much that we might not even recognize it as "evolutionary theory". So I see little sense in defending evolution.

(The same goes for abiogenesis, and the same goes for the big bang. We don't know how life begain, and it doesn't change a thing. We don't know what happened at the singularity, and again, so what.)

And the other way around, too - I don't think I ever saw a single theist go "Oh, so all those fossils really check out - that must mean that Jesus doesn't save souls after all!". Okay, maybe this happens once in a while. FWIW, it wasn't my personal reason.

So... if it's just to defend your faith, then I don't understand the need to bring it up. If it's an attempt to sway atheists, I don't believe it can work.

Or maybe you're looking for challenges? Do you want to put it out there, so you can refine the theory?

Hm... I must be missing something... what is the real reason?

Because if Evolution is proved to be true; their whole belief system falls apart.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Ask @SavedByTheLord , he seems to be obsessed with it.

 

[McBell]

Ask @SavedByTheLord , he seems to be obsessed with it.

Problem with asking @SavedByTheLord is that @SavedByTheLord does not attack evolution.
They attack a long long list of strawmen they call evolution.

 

[Heyo]

Having been an agnostic atheist for a while, I marvel at this. I know that, back in my religious days, evolution was the evil of evils for some folks - but on the other hand, I was raised catholic, and catholicism has long embraced evolution (which can be done easily within christianity, if you put your mind to it) - it was never so contentious to me. I guess I was never enough of a literalist.

Maybe you think evolution undermines your faith, so it must be done away with. Which is understandable, but then why bring it up in the company of atheists? I wonder if you imagine that you can sway atheists, if you only get us to admit that evolution is false. That, I must say, can't work - if it turned out that evolution was completely wrong, it would not make me believe in god. It would be an additional pebble on an endless beach of "things we don't know yet". Apart from intellectual curiosity, and maybe some nostalgic attachment, I just don't care. In fact, I'm sure that in 1000 years, the theory will have changed so much that we might not even recognize it as "evolutionary theory". So I see little sense in defending evolution.

(The same goes for abiogenesis, and the same goes for the big bang. We don't know how life begain, and it doesn't change a thing. We don't know what happened at the singularity, and again, so what.)

And the other way around, too - I don't think I ever saw a single theist go "Oh, so all those fossils really check out - that must mean that Jesus doesn't save souls after all!". Okay, maybe this happens once in a while. FWIW, it wasn't my personal reason.

So... if it's just to defend your faith, then I don't understand the need to bring it up. If it's an attempt to sway atheists, I don't believe it can work.

Or maybe you're looking for challenges? Do you want to put it out there, so you can refine the theory?

Hm... I must be missing something... what is the real reason?

Power.

Science allows people to view the world in a rational way without the need of a clergy who explains it to the masses. Evolution is just a convenient target. It triggers emotions ("I ain't come from no monkey!") and is just on the brink of too complicated to wrap one's head around (quantum mechanics) and bat**** crazy (flat earth). Creationism is a simple solution to a complex question so it also triggers intellectual laziness.
And once people question science the power of the church is restored. Or so is the strategy. (Wedge strategy - Wikipedia)

 

[Sand Dancer]

If any little thing in the Bible is proven wrong, then some will chuck the whole thing. I wonder why they no longer fight the heliocentric universe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since this was addressed to creationists, I'm a bit amused by the fact that they are not responding...

 

[Audie]

Problem with asking @SavedByTheLord is that @SavedByTheLord does not attack evolution.
They attack a long long list of strawmen they call evolution.

Well in that he is not so unique.
Have you seen any counter claim
that wasnt?

 

[Viker]

Most creationists are literalists and young earthers as well. If evolution is fact then they believe this contradicts a literal interpretation of their creation narrative. So they feel they have no choice but to confront and attempt to tear down evolution.

 

[vijeno]

I think they have very good reasons to.

What sensible, good and wise God, Who knows what He wants, would use evolution to create the pinnacle of His creation? That is arguably the most inefficient, amoral, wasteful and contingent mechanism I can think of. Relying on natural cataclysms, asteroids, climate changes on a planetary scale, so that a little rodent hiding for millions of years from reptile looking predators, will eventually be allowed to come out of that stinking hole and become the chosen one? I am not sure how any evolutionary Christian could possibly believe that without major cognitive dissonances.

in fact, a little thought should make it obvious that, say, the Christian God and evolution by natural selection, are mutually incompatible. On pure logical grounds.

ciao

- viole

I mean, you're right in all that you say, but two remarks:

1. I know that the "inefficiency" argument is irrelevant, because I've been in that space for a while, and it's surprisingly easy to handwave away. If you believe in christianity, "god knows best" really works. At least for me, evolution was never a challenge to my faith.
2. Sure, if you are a literalist/creationist, evolution might be a challenge that you have to fight - but you won't make any headway on this forum, or even, say, on reddit. One possible explantion is that they are desparately trying to convince themselves, clutching at straws, have to leash out because their faith is fragile to start with.... I would really like to hear their own reasoning, rather than put my own thoughts into their mouths, but it doesn't seem like they are prepared to respond, so there you go.

Power.

Science allows people to view the world in a rational way without the need of a clergy who explains it to the masses. Evolution is just a convenient target. It triggers emotions ("I ain't come from no monkey!") and is just on the brink of too complicated to wrap one's head around (quantum mechanics) and bat**** crazy (flat earth). Creationism is a simple solution to a complex question so it also triggers intellectual laziness.
And once people question science the power of the church is restored. Or so is the strategy. (Wedge strategy - Wikipedia)

Just like I said above... sure, but a place like this is not going to give them that power. Well... that might explain why therre seem to be only one or two outspoken creationists here...

Since this was addressed to creationists, I'm a bit amused by the fact that they are not responding...

Haha, yeah, the thought has crossed my mind. I guess there is nothing to be gained by explaining yourself and thus showing vulnerability.

 

[exchemist]

Ask @SavedByTheLord , he seems to be obsessed with it.

I did that and got an answer! He said he believed the scientists - and by implication everyone who accepts the science - have all been deceived by the Devil.

It is somewhat reminiscent of Philip Henry Gosse, the c.19th Plymouth Brother (Brether?) , who thought the fossils were put in the rocks by God artificially, at the moment of creation.

Bonkers.

What is so irrational about @SavedByTheLord 's approach is to claim evolution is inconsistent with science, using supposedly scientific arguments. Does he really think all the scientists are so stupid that they would not have not realised if the theory was not consistent with the rest of science? If he simply claimed it was all the work of the Devil and inconsistent with the bible, that would at least be a logically coherent approach. But then I suppose he would be forced to dismiss a great deal of other science, that supports evolution, as the work of the Devil too, from radioactivity to DNA analysis. He is probably is not willing to appear as mad as that. So we end up with this illogical mishmash of claiming one theory of science is wrong, by trying to using the rest of science against it.

 

[Heyo]

Just like I said above...

The wedge document is probably the most honest answer you'll get. It was planned as an internal memo and only got accidentally leaked.

sure, but a place like this is not going to give them that power.

Yep.

Well... that might explain why therre seem to be only one or two outspoken creationists here...

There used to be more. They are (probably) still creationists but they have learned when and where to keep quiet. The creation/evolution forum has become pretty desolate. OPs are only from newbies and the old guard wouldn't show up to support them. It's usually over very quick.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Problem with asking @SavedByTheLord is that @SavedByTheLord does not attack evolution.
They attack a long long list of strawmen they call evolution.

That's not a problem unique to @SavedByTheLord though... that's a problem which is rather native to the entire creationist movement.

I have yet to meet a creationist who isn't strawmanning evolution.
Even so-called "theistic evolutionists" seem to have this problem many a time.

 

[exchemist]

The wedge document is probably the most honest answer you'll get. It was planned as an internal memo and only got accidentally leaked.

Yep.

There used to be more. They are (probably) still creationists but they have learned when and where to keep quiet. The creation/evolution forum has become pretty desolate. OPs are only from newbies and the old guard wouldn't show up to support them. It's usually over very quick.

The wedge document however was specific to "Intelligent Design". That was a bogus science, invented by a lawyer, for the purpose of getting religion taught in school science classes in the United States. It was a wholly cynical attempt at social engineering.

Creationism more generally is somewhat more honest, if delusional, and sprouts from biblical literalism. The latter came into vogue in certain extreme Protestant sects in the c.19th and took root particularly in the Bible Belt of the USA.

 

[viole]

1. I know that the "inefficiency" argument is irrelevant, because I've been in that space for a while, and it's surprisingly easy to handwave away. If you believe in christianity, "god knows best" really works. At least for me, evolution was never a challenge to my faith.

Well, I think that "God knows best" needs a challenge. "God knows best" is nothing but checking reason at the door. A simple excuse for not coming to the obvious conclusions. In fact things like theology would be useless, if God knows best anyway.
Personally, I would have known better than Him. Easily. DO I know what I want? Yes? "Poof", here it is. Do not need to complicate things beyond need. Or to make them de-facto strangely identical to blind naturalistic processes.

So, we have two alternatives here:

1) The Universe is entirely naturalistic. Evolution is ultimately a natural phenomenon without any ultimate purpose whatsoever. Like gravity. The fact that it is so wasteful, amoral and brutal is just a reflection of the fact that Nature, unlike us, is agnostic about morality and suffering. For nature, a baby eaten alive by a lion must be as upsetting as a stone smashing on the floor because of gravity. It is nothing but blind mechanisms and adaptive reproduction that led to complex systems, one of them slightly smarter than the others, to cause it to ask pointless existential questions. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) God wakes up one morning after an infinite time and realizes He needs some company. Someone in His image, so that He is not so alone anymore. So, He decides to create a Universe, a Big Bang, several zillions of solar systems, so that a planet can go through the prepared plan of hosting different forms of lives, and a very active geology, so that after billions of years, and a huge amount of destructions of species, and the fine tuning of volcanoes eruptions, asteroids bombardment, solar activity, would eventually favor the evolution of a rodent into an ape with existential problems who can finally believe in Him. Or Them, since those same apes believe and believed in totally different and mutually exclusive gods, which must have been a bitter disappointment for that lonesome God looking for company (imagine God being like Mozart, and His creatures believing in Mariah Carey, instead).

What do you think it is more likely?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Eli G]

Technically, it is the evolutionists who attack the Genesis account of the creation of each animal according to its kind. The theory of evolution with all the speculations and effort invested is much later than respect for the Scriptures, and only very recently has the position of evolutionists become practically a religion with aggressive militants... It is the atheists who attack believers.

Those of us who believe that the Bible is the revelation of God through human writers accept as true the revelation that each animal was created separately, according to its kind. Genetics shows that different animal species are insurmountable.

Gen. 1:24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Even plants were created according to their kinds:

Gen. 1:11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

That is actually what facts prove and evolutionists are still fighting the reality in their own delusion ....

What did an apple tree have to adapt to survive, so that it had to become a banana plant?

 

[McBell]

Technically, it is the evolutionists who attack the Genesis account of the creation of each animal according to its kind. The theory of evolution with all the speculations and effort invested is much later than respect for the Scriptures, and only very recently has the position of evolutionists become practically a religion with aggressive militants... It is the atheists who attack believers.

Those of us who believe that the Bible is the revelation of God through human writers accept as true the revelation that each animal was created separately, according to its kind. Genetics shows that different animal species are insurmountable.

Gen. 1:24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Even plants were created according to their kinds:

Gen. 1:11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

That is actually what facts prove and evolutionists are still fighting the reality in their own delusion ....

What did an apple tree have to adapt to survive, so that it had to become a banana plant?

The truly sad part about it is that you do not even know enough to be embarrassed by that above quoted...whatever you want to call it.

 

[Heyo]

Technically, it is the evolutionists who attack the Genesis account of the creation of each animal according to its kind. The theory of evolution with all the speculations and effort invested is much later than respect for the Scriptures,

That is true, but

That is actually what facts prove and evolutionists are still fighting the reality in their own delusion ....

Facts, proves, evidence and reason are also modern inventions and their systematic application leads to what science shows. I find it very greedy when believers claim that they are reasonable. Reason is the enemy of superstition. Why don't you stick to your epistemology and let us have our own?
Why don't you openly state what you effectively do anyway? Why do you have to misrepresent science and reason as confirming your view when it clearly doesn't and you hate science and reason anyway?
Martin Luther was honest and correct when he said:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”​

 

[viole]

Technically, it is the evolutionists who attack the Genesis account of the creation of each animal according to its kind. The theory of evolution with all the speculations and effort invested is much later than respect for the Scriptures, and only very recently has the position of evolutionists become practically a religion with aggressive militants... It is the atheists who attack believers.

Technically, that is not true. In fact, we do not attack believers, since most believers have no issues with evolution. Nor with the Big Bang, and many of them are quite scientifically fit. Even though they would still count as creationists, albeit in a weaker sense.

So, it is not a fight between atheism and theism. It is a fight between people who can tell the difference between a BBC nature documentary and the Flintstones, and the ones who don’t. And it is not uncommon to see Christians allying with atheists in this fight.

My challenge here is directed to evolutionary theists. Because I consider their position problematic on pure logical grounds. But for sure I am not attacking their belief in a literal Genesis, for the simple reason that they do not hold it, by definition of evolutionary theist.

Ciao

- viole