Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jenny Collins]

The days of creation are not literal 24 hour days. There is absolutely no evidence in fossils of evolution. I have a feeling though, that you are going to tell me there is. You will likely quote some off base evolution scientist and mimic his claims.

 

[Jenny Collins]

You say that there are very few scientists who reject evolution. Ad Populum fallacy is thinking that what the majority believes has to be true. If you believe the Bible you know that it says that the majority of mankind is misled by Satan and speaks of the "wisdom of the world" being "foolishness with God." There are actually some very credible scientists who reject evolution, and there are some who haven't totally defected from it, but who have doubts. Some who have defected from it said that even before they made the break, they had nagging doubts. When they did defect and made it public, different scientists told them in secret that they too had doubts, but were afraid to make them known. Their careers would be in jeopardy and they would face scorn and derision.

 

[Derek500]

You say that there are very few scientists who reject evolution. Ad Populum fallacy is thinking that what the majority believes has to be true. If you believe the Bible you know that it says that the majority of mankind is misled by Satan and speaks of the "wisdom of the world" being "foolishness with God." There are actually some very credible scientists who reject evolution, and there are some who haven't totally defected from it, but who have doubts. Some who have defected from it said that even before they made the break, they had nagging doubts. When they did defect and made it public, different scientists told them in secret that they too had doubts, but were afraid to make them known. Their careers would be in jeopardy and they would face scorn and derision.

You are missing the question asked. Let's repeat it:

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[Estro Felino]

What do others think?

It's a strange thing, because even my religion teacher and my Catholic priest have always insisted on saying that Creation is a myth, and that science explains how the world and humans came into being (through evolution indeed).
The first time I heard of the word "Creationism" was in this forum...I didn't expect some country in the Western world to take the Creation seriously from a scientific standpoint. It was a surprise, surely. It was also interesting, because I had never thought of that, given that I had always been inculcated at school into believing in Evolution.
So, answering your question, I've never believed in the equation Atheism=Evolution either, because my religious authorities have always spoken of Creation as myth.

The days of creation are not literal 24 hour days. There is absolutely no evidence in fossils of evolution. I have a feeling though, that you are going to tell me there is. You will likely quote some off base evolution scientist and mimic his claims.

I think that our upbringing totally influences our mindset, because I am not a biologist (I guess you are not either), so I think that you firmly believe in Creationism mainly because you were brought up that way. I completely understand that, because I believe in Evolution mainly because any teacher or priest has always told me that Evolution is right, so I've never doubted it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So why then do so many creationists persist in this falsehood?

Ignorance and insecurity.

 

[Polymath257]

To answer the basic question of the thread: Why do creationists think evolution=atheism.

The 'logic', such as it is, runs as follows:

1. The One True God (TM) is described literally in the Bible.
2. There is only one God.
3. So, anyone who doesn't believe in the literal description from the Bible doesn't believe in the One True God (TM).
4. Since there are no other Gods, that means that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal Bible is an atheist.
5. Those who believe in Evolution do not believe in the literal description from the Bible.
6. Hence, those who believe in Evolution are atheists.

The reason that bringing up Catholics doesn't help is that the creationists tend to think that Catholics are actually atheists because they don't believe in the One True God (TM),

 

[Polymath257]

Evolution is proven wrong. And it certainly isn't proven right.

Biological species change over geological time. That has been demonstrated. And *that* is evolution. The *mechanisms* of evolution are still being debated, but the basic fact of evolution isn't in dispute among scientists and hasn't been for over 150 years.

 

[Derek500]

To answer the basic question of the thread: Why do creationists think evolution=atheism.

The 'logic', such as it is, runs as follows:

1. The One True God (TM) is described literally in the Bible.
2. There is only one God.
3. So, anyone who doesn't believe in the literal description from the Bible doesn't believe in the One True God (TM).
4. Since there are no other Gods, that means that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal Bible is an atheist.
5. Those who believe in Evolution do not believe in the literal description from the Bible.
6. Hence, those who believe in Evolution are atheists.

The reason that bringing up Catholics doesn't help is that the creationists tend to think that Catholics are actually atheists because they don't believe in the One True God (TM),

I hear what you're saying. It seems as if they believe that Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, etc.; all are atheists.

To be nice to them I would call them ignorant; although I could think of a few more descriptive words for people like that.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I hear what you're saying. It seems as if they believe that Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, etc.; all are atheists.

To be nice to them I would call them ignorant; although I could think of a few more descriptive words for people like that.

This brings up the greater fault of Literal Biblical Interpretation; through their mistaken piety, they actually create a God who is not only inconsistent, but limited in size and scope.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's a strange thing, because even my religion teacher and my Catholic priest have always insisted on saying that Creation is a myth, and that science explains how the world and humans came into being (through evolution indeed).
The first time I heard of the word "Creationism" was in this forum...I didn't expect some country in the Western world to take the Creation seriously from a scientific standpoint. It was a surprise, surely. It was also interesting, because I had never thought of that, given that I had always been inculcated at school into believing in Evolution.
So, answering your question, I've never believed in the equation Atheism=Evolution either, because my religious authorities have always spoken of Creation as myth.

I agree that what one hears from religious leaders plays a big part in this. If one's pastor or other leader says you can't be an "evolutionist" without being an atheist, I guess there is a percentage of people who will just accept that as truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

To answer the basic question of the thread: Why do creationists think evolution=atheism.

The 'logic', such as it is, runs as follows:

1. The One True God (TM) is described literally in the Bible.
2. There is only one God.
3. So, anyone who doesn't believe in the literal description from the Bible doesn't believe in the One True God (TM).
4. Since there are no other Gods, that means that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal Bible is an atheist.
5. Those who believe in Evolution do not believe in the literal description from the Bible.
6. Hence, those who believe in Evolution are atheists.

The reason that bringing up Catholics doesn't help is that the creationists tend to think that Catholics are actually atheists because they don't believe in the One True God (TM),

That relies on changing the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn't believe in any gods" to "someone who doesn't believe in my God".

But I can see how some folks (fundamentalists prone to black/white mentality) would fall victim to that sort of thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

That relies on changing the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn't believe in any gods" to "someone who doesn't believe in my God".

But I can see how some folks (fundamentalists prone to black/white mentality) would fall victim to that sort of thinking.

Exactly. I have had conversations where I point out that other people believe in different 'Gods'. They reliably reply that there is only One God and hence those people are wrong and atheists.

It's like they can't even imagine having a different view of things.

 

[Jose Fly]

You could have just said.....

It's like they can't even imagine...

....and it would have been just as accurate.

 

[Polymath257]

That relies on changing the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn't believe in any gods" to "someone who doesn't believe in my God".

But I can see how some folks (fundamentalists prone to black/white mentality) would fall victim to that sort of thinking.

There is actually a fairly long tradition behind this mistake. For example, Christians in the middle ages often would say that Moslems were atheists or lump pagans, atheists, Moslems, and skeptics together.

 

[Thumper]

Exactly. I have had conversations where I point out that other people believe in different 'Gods'. They reliably reply that there is only One God and hence those people are wrong and atheists.

It's like they can't even imagine having a different view of things.

I'll sometimes refer to myself as a polyatheist to try and get the point across that there are numerous gods I don't believe in.

 

[gnostic]

The days of creation are not literal 24 hour days.

No one is saying it is "24-hour" day, Jenny.

The bible doesn't mention "hour" at all in Genesis 1. So I would agree with you, that there is no mention of literal "24-hour" period.

HOWEVER, with each successive creative day in Genesis 1, it always refer to each day, as being a cycle or period of one "evening" and one "morning", hence it is speaking of literal "day".

The Genesis never speak of any "hour" but it always referred to each "day" being an evening and a morning.

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

8 God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

31 And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Nowhere in these 6 verses mention anything about 24 hours, but those 6 verses always equate each literal day to a cycle of "evening and morning".

The Hebrew transliterated word yomm "by itself" may be unspecific period of time, but a cycle of evening and morning, gives context and very specific meaning to what yomm mean in those 6 verses as - a literal "day".

You can't look at the word yomm, you have to read yomm with other part of the verse - "And there was evening and there was morning...", which clearly indicated that yomm here is equal to a literal "one day", and evening and morning do not equal to a period of years, centuries or millennia.

Only a very dishonest idiot would think the cycle of evening and morning would equal to 1000 years, a million years or a billion years.

 

[gnostic]

There is absolutely no evidence in fossils of evolution.

There are evidences.

The fossils are evidences.

But the fossils are just one of many evidences. They are not the only evidences for evolution.

Evidences are what would either refute a claim or what would verify and validate the claim.

The fossils demonstrated that the differences between species over given amount of time, revealed the changes that occurred.

Just because you don't believe what biologists say about evolution, doesn't mean much at all, if you don't understand what evolution is.

And if you haven't studied biology beyond high school science, what make you qualified to be authority to say it isn't science?

Does your job relate to in any way to biology?

And if you haven't studied biology or worked in any of the fields relating to biology, then your disagreement with others here, you are merely expressing your unsubstantiated opinions or belief, nothing more, nothing less.

Would you ask someone to design and build a bridge, who have never studied civil engineering, never designed bridges with consideration to safety specifications and regulations?

Would you ask a doctor who only specialised in mending bone fractures or breaks, to perform surgery on the brains?

The members of Discovery Institute who advocate for Intelligent Design, only few of them are biologists, most like the founders of the institute - Bruce Chapman and George Gilder - and senior members - like Steve Meyer and Phillip Johnson, all strong advocates for ID, but none of these 4 members have any background in science, or more specifically - biology.

What would Chapman know about evolutionary biology? His background, qualification and experiences only involved in journalism and politics.

Gilder's background is in the field of economics and also in journalism. No education in biology.

Johnson, who is the founder of ID movement, his qualification is in law, again no qualifications in biology, or in any science for that matter. So what would he know about biology?

Meyer is the only one of the four, who have qualifications in science - but his focus in college was in Earth science and physics, not in biology.

None of them have any experiences in biology or related fields, therefore none of them have any authority to say what is biology and what isn't biology.

What I do know is that Intelligent Design and their Institute have nothing to do with science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution is proven wrong. And it certainly isn't proven right.

Evolution has not been proven wrong. However there is a mountain range of evidence to support its claims.

Mutations may occur that make them deformed

Mutations are not inherently good or bad for the organism. It could be beneficial, and may be a detriment.

But a moth remains a moth, they may change colors, size, etc. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. Mutations may occur that make them deformed, but they remain fruit flies.

We are talking about billions of years for these changes to accumulate.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Keep telling yourself that! No evidence whatsoever

 

[Jenny Collins]

No evidence in any way, shape or form of evolution, but your professors have convinced you there is and I know how compelling it is to have teachers spoon feed ideas to students