No, they are an impressive attempt at fiction.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Well, since you're completely going to dodge my question until I reply to your garbage... here it is...
This is pretty funny. What the hell is "atheist science?" There is no such thing - which tells me that you have some pretty hefty bias going on. I mean, you already propose the term "creation science" as something near and dear to your heart - and that term is COMPLETELY loaded. First off, it pre-supposes "creation", which is a bias in and of itself. True "science" can't be partial like that and expect to be taken seriously.
Wrongo - don't believe this. My belief is that the matter of the universe has always existed, and that it is asinine to consider that there was ever a time when there was "nothing". Another reason I believe that the creation story is also asinine, by the way.
Well, I had to go look this crap up... and even the little bit here that you suppose is not even taken from the actual hypothesis (which science will readily admit is only a hypothesis - not fact, but guesswork - would your "creation scientists" ever admit the same about any of their ideas?). The true guess that you were referring to is that two large scale bodies collided (one of them being Earth - the other the size of something like Mars) and one of the pieces of debris from the collision (which would have been a mix of the two bodies) fell into orbit around the Earth. They suppose this because examination of the content of lunar rocks has put the content at a fair representation of Earth content, plus other, more foreign matter. All news to me, actually - and sounds plausible, at least. I don't know if it is accurate or not - so it is not as if I "believe" it.
I'm guessing this is in reference to the idea that life formed in water,and then the first mammals were evolved from aquatic creatures that had taken to land? I find this also plausible, do not know the specifics, but have seen some pretty compelling fossil and dating evidence that supports this. For example, the OP of this thread: Evidence
Again, assuming you're referring to the idea that birds are the evolutionary product of some prehistoric creature models? This is also just a hypothesis - again, a guess. A possibility that matches up to the realities of bird form and function. Also admitted as a guess - no one can know for sure. Again - would your creation scientist be willing to admit the same about their ideas?
I'm not even sure how this point remains in contention. The evidence is EVERYWHERE. You are, literally, BOMBARDED with the evidence at all times. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Stars. The light from many of the visible stars is millions of years old - because that's how long it took to reach us. Even if God created the stars and "turned them on" - it would still take just as long for the light to propagate from the stars' positions to the Earth. Not to mention the shape of the Earth - it is extremely spheroid. That doesn't simply happen to a body of mass overnight. It takes millions of years of volcanic activity coupled with earthquakes and gradual erosion and, of course, gravity. It is extremely easy to understand and accept if you put even a little thought toward it.
Dismiss the human fossil record all you want. What you still can't explain is how there are human bones as old as some of those they have found. It doesn't even matter if some of the guesses made about those bones are incorrect as to where they fit in the progression of humans from whatever our evolutionary ancestors were - you still can't explain their age. You can't.
Now... your turn. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MOON IS "A LIGHT?"
They are concerned with different purposes. Science seeks through observation to answer 'how' something came about. The Bible is not concerned with how, only with 'why'.
I did not say Darwin confessed to being an Atheist, only that he does not believe the Bible, or Christ. Neither did Thomas Jefferson, but he was not an Atheist.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
And atheists tend to be "erosionists", "gravitationists", "electromagnetists", and "ists" that relate to any other natural processes. And like evolution, acceptance of the reality of those processes is not at all limited to atheists (and is in fact a majority theistic viewpoint)
McBell
Unbound
I suspect it is a result of the black/white thought process.Several times now, I've seen in this and other forums, creationists operate under the assumption that evolution = atheism, where if a person is an "evolutionist" they must also be an atheist. This is odd, as the data shows that in the developed world, the majority of people who recognize evolution as reality are theists.
Public Acceptance of Evolution (Miller et al., 2006)
Here's the figure illustrating the level of acceptance of evolution in the developed world....
As you can see, in most of the developed world recognition of the reality of evolution is a majority opinion. Couple that with other data showing that, at the most, atheists constitute ~13% of the world's population, and we see that it is mathematically impossible for even a majority of "evolutionists" to be atheists, let alone all of them.
So why then do so many creationists persist in this falsehood?
I believe it's a reflection of a black/white mindset that is typical of fundamentalist thinking. In that way of viewing the world, complex issues are often boiled down to a simple binary choice. In this case, it's one is either a true Bible-believing Christian, or one is a atheist. Nuances or shades of gray are not considered. I've seen this sort of mentality expressed many times by creationists over the years, where they say things like "If evolution is true, we may as well throw the Bible in the trash".
What do others think?
the whole "if you are not with me, you are against me" mentality that most theists exhibit.
McBell
Unbound
um...
Because it is?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It seems that way. I've yet to see any creationist show up in this thread and explain why it's anything else.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
How so?
Because "intelligent design", like young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, Hindu creationism, etc., is a form of creationism.
But that's a topic for a different thread.
Actually, even the idea of "belief in" evolution is somewhat odd. Evolution no more matches "belief" than gravity or magnetism do.
Because it is.
There are more Christians who accept evolution than atheists who do. YEC is a small, diminishing belief mostly here in the states. The majority of Christians world over accept evolution.
Intelligent design as a movement is a specific wedge strategy for getting creationism taught in schools developed by Christian creationists in the US and ruled as creationism and unscientific in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
Intelligent design as a generalized belief that a creative non-human entity created the first life and shaped human evolution is still a kind of Creationism.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Well, it certainly seems pretty focused on how to avoid hell and attain salvation, doesn't it.
And I didn't say you did. All I was pointing out is how stupidly irresponsible your source is. It's blaring headline:
I'm sorry to inform you I do not believe in the Bible': Rare letter in which secretive Charles Darwin confesses to being an atheist is set to sell for $90,000 at auction
.
.
And you say that because...?
McBell
Unbound
It is.
Intelligent Design is nothing more than a sad attempt at getting Creationism into schools.
The Dover trial pretty much proved it.
A definition on an ID website describes ID as follows: "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "
On the other hand, Wikipedia describes ID as: "Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudo-science."
In my view, proponents of ID, such as Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, etc. present scientific evidence to support their views, not religious arguments. Consequently, I believe it is incorrect to claim ID = Creationism.
McBell
Unbound
the Dover trial says it is not science.
Now since the court ruling carries tons more weight that the bold empty claims of creationists, I gonna go with the court ruling.
I would suggest that if your god does not like the court ruling, that your god files an appeal.
I believe that if one believes all life arose from undirected "natural" causes, it is a short step to claim there is no God. While many professed "Christians" accept evolution, so do many atheists. As to the definition of ID, it depends what website you reference. Proponents of ID have published books presenting scientific arguments for ID, not religious ones.
McBell
Unbound
Name one.
And I mean one that has actual science, not pseudoscience.
I didn't know that courts were the final authority on what is science. I thought evidence and data.. never mind.