Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[McBell]

I didn't know that courts were the final authority on what is science. I thought evidence and data.. never mind.

That is the problem.
Someone makes up some crap and if you agree with and or like the crap, you have no problem calling said crap science.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe that if one believes all life arose from undirected "natural" causes, it is a short step to claim there is no God.

Well, it's a good thing that's not what evolution is then. Evolution is not about how life arose, which is a/biogenesis. Evolution is about the diversification of life after it already arrived.

While many professed "Christians" accept evolution, so do many atheists

Ignoring the 'No True Scottsman' overtone of this post, many more Christians accept evolution than atheists, as I already pointed out. Since, by sheer number, the evolution accepting Christian population is larger.

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.

I've never seen a scientific argument for ID which actually functioned under scrutiny, nor do I believe it's a movement divorced from its religious roots. Which is why it was ruled against in the Dover trial.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't know that courts were the final authority on what is science. I thought evidence and data.. never mind.

Courts are about making sound judgements, in this case to judge whether or not ID had a place in schools or whether it really was just an attempted religious insert. That doesn't change that the court case had dozens of scientists presenting data against the idea of ID and for evolutionary biology, making it the largest formal debate against creationism in history.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, look at the contributions of Christian scientists like Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Pascal, Newton and so on.

So? That was then. Today we just aren't finding many scientists who are theist. You also have to acknowledge though that even some other cultures with other religions, such as the Ancient Greeks and Ottoman Turks and even atheists, made significant advances in our understandings and knowledge of mathematics, medicine, philosophy, literacy, and even the very foundations of our society and even what can be called a primitive form of science.

Today's internet atheists think science explains everything

Actually, very few atheists do claim science has all the answers, because they know it doesn't. Many turn to fields such as philosophy for this reason.

and Christians aren't savvy with science

Today, especially among Conservatives, there are many who aren't savvy with science at all. And having went through their "science education" myself, I have the experience to know it is a very poor education and understanding of science they teach. Basically, according to them, a "scientific theory" starts as a hypothesis, which becomes a theory when proven true, which then becomes law once it has been firmly established as fact. This is why so many of the say evolution is "just a theory." It's because they aren't taught what a theory actually is. And because evolution is pretty much just about the only thing that tends to have "theory" attached to it, they can cling to this gross misunderstanding of what a hypothesis, a theory, and a law actually are. And because they don't really emphasis or teach that science is systematic form of inquiry, students never come to understand what science itself really is.

Name some atheist scientists and their big theories.

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god (which is not at all personal), Stephen Hawking is an atheist and on the forefront of astronomy and cosmology, as is Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Darwin revealed evolution via natural selection, Alan Turing is the founder of computer science, Rosalind Franklin's contributions towards Francis and Crick discovering the double helix of DNA were crucial and essential. And then there is Thomas Edison. And Leonardo Da Vinci, who figured out many things centuries before his time.

The Bible is the best selling non-fiction book of all time.

That proves nothing more than how many copies it has sold.

 

[Jenny Collins]

We

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?

Well evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

 

[rusra02]

Well, it's a good thing that's not what evolution is then. Evolution is not about how life arose, which is a/biogenesis. Evolution is about the diversification of life after it already arrived.


Ignoring the 'No True Scottsman' overtone of this post, many more Christians accept evolution than atheists, as I already pointed out. Since, by sheer number, the evolution accepting Christian population is larger.


I've never seen a scientific argument for ID which actually functioned under scrutiny, nor do I believe it's a movement divorced from its religious roots. Which is why it was ruled against in the Dover trial.

Since evolution teaches that all life forms evolved from previous life forms, "arose" was used in that sense. Let's not pick fly poop out of pepper here. In addition, trying to divorce the question of how life began from how it then developed is simply a way to dodge questions for which evolution theory has no answers, IMO.
The argument that one cannot decide whether someone is living and teaching what Christ taught is sophistry, IMO. The definition of sophistry is 'the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.'
As to scientific arguments for ID that stood up to scientific scrutiny, I must say the same for arguments for evolution. I believe each person should examine the evidence for himself.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, look at the contributions of Christian scientists like Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Pascal, Newton and so on.

Not exactly contemporary.

These people invented science.

No, that would be the ancient Greeks.

Today's internet atheists think science explains everything and Christians aren't savvy with science, but they aren't even close. The IA are brainwashed morons. Name some atheist scientists and their big theories.

'k. List of atheists in science and technology - Wikipedia

It's probably goofy because you're the one looking at it. The Bible is the best selling non-fiction book of all time. Nothing else comes close.

Meaningless: Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The above are facts.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

As pointed out earlier in this very thread, belief in a god doesn't require a belief in the bible (as being both literal and infallible,) so your point would be?

 

[Father Heathen]

In addition, trying to divorce the question of how life began from how it then developed is simply a way to dodge questions for which evolution theory has no answers, IMO.

Nothing is being "dodged" because evolution" is about adaptation, not abiogenesis. The theory of evolution doesn't need to answer questions that have nothing to do with evolution.

I believe each person should examine the evidence for himself.

If you realize this then what's holding you back?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

Ok, let's grant that for the sake of argument. Why then does that mean evolution = atheism?

 

[Jose Fly]

Since no creationists will explain why they think evolution = atheism, might as well just jump to this topic.....

A definition on an ID website describes ID as follows: "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program

Really? Where is their scientific research into "intelligent design"?

as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature

What do they claim are the indicators of "design"?

The theory of intelligent design

It is not a theory in the scientific sense. Many ID creationists even admit this.

holds that certain features of the universe and of living things

By what method do they differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things?

are best explained by an intelligent cause

And what exactly is this explanation? For example, what is the mechanism by which "intelligent design" occurs?

not an undirected process such as natural selection.

"Undirected" by what?

In my view, proponents of ID, such as Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, etc. present scientific evidence to support their views, not religious arguments.

Where?

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't know that courts were the final authority on what is science.

Then why did the ID creationists at the Dover trial ask the judge to rule on that question?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Since evolution teaches that all life forms evolved from previous life forms, "arose" was used in that sense. Let's not pick fly poop out of pepper here.

It's an important distinction, not an arbitrary one because:

In addition, trying to divorce the question of how life began from how it then developed is simply a way to dodge questions for which evolution theory has no answers, IMO.

Of irrational arguments like this. Abiogenesis and evolution are seperate theories which should be discussed separately because they're not even in the same areas of biology, let alone answering the same question. Abiogenesis concerns chemistry and evolution concerns zoology at large. This is like blaming germ theory for not covering cell theory, even though both apply in different ways to the operation of some cells.

Most Christians understand this difference, and realize that evolution with biogenesis is something that the vast majority of Abrahamic believers have accepted.

If you want to talk the materialist view, you can ask me why I reject biogenesis for abiogenesis, and have concluded that abiogenesis has the bulk of evidence. But don't strawman evolution and evolutionary belief as having a conclusion it does not.

The argument that one cannot decide whether someone is living and teaching what Christ taught is sophistry, IMO. The definition of sophistry is 'the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.'

Using arbitrary standards to determine which interpretation is the correct one is sophistry. You nor anyone else has the authority or compelling argument to determine which Christian sect is 'the correct one.' Hence No True Scotsman fallacy.

As to scientific arguments for ID that stood up to scientific scrutiny, I must say the same for arguments for evolution. I believe each person should examine the evidence for himself.

Then you should be happy to look at the evidence presented in the ID trial and why it ultimately concluded that ID is not scientific.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Their masters tell them that this is true, and they don't question their masters.

 

[idav]

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?

I have a friend who is atheist mainly because of science and evolution. They can't really believe it in a laissez-faire god and believe that I give the argument for such a god. "What kind of god would that be" is a pretty decent argument. Some people can't buy into a god that just started some sort of domino affect just to sit back and watch. It's certainly not the sort of god people normally preach. I find this typical though, once people start figuring stuff out they throw the whole god concept out, they "throw out the baby with the bath water".

 

[Jose Fly]

I have a friend who is atheist mainly because of science and evolution. They can't really believe it in a laissez-faire god and believe that I give the argument for such a god. "What kind of god would that be" is a pretty decent argument. Some people can't buy into a god that just started some sort of domino affect just to sit back and watch. It's certainly not the sort of god people normally preach. I find this typical though, once people start figuring stuff out they throw the whole god concept out, they "throw out the baby with the bath water".

So in that context, it's not so much evolution as it is science as a whole providing natural explanations for things, correct?

 

[gnostic]

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

To put it very bluntly, the anti-evolution creationists are stupid.

 

[Darkstorn]

I have a friend who is atheist mainly because of science and evolution. They can't really believe it in a laissez-faire god and believe that I give the argument for such a god.

It shouldn't be about belief though. If it is, then i don't think he's being very scientific or following his source material with the same conviction as those who made them.

That kind of a viewpoint sounds more to me like a reaction to theism than actual conviction. If that's atheism, then it's a very weak and shaky ground to stand on.

I personally find it preposterous to imagine something as fact without evidence. And well, there's no evidence for there NOT being a god. Nor is there for it.

And if there's no evidence either for or against a god, then that would in my view also mean that such a god is pretty damn weak if there's no verifiable effect of its (non-)existence. ;D

"What kind of god would that be" is a pretty decent argument.

I disagree. Good and bad are viewpoints. A god could be unknowable and alien in terms of morality. To reduce it to such base level is anthropomorphizing. Therefore, from my viewpoint, it's a terrible and inconsequential argument. It supposes the person you are telling that question to understands what your idea of good and bad is.

/E: I'll add my personal view regarding this whole matter: I think both "hardcore" atheists and theists are equally preposterous. Both groups imagine they know something they have no evidence for.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.....

Micro evolution... a distinction originated by scientists, btw... is accepted by all, or at least should be, since it is observed. But unproven CD evolution, coupled with the ever-present and touted "theory" of abiogenesis -- where else is it leading?

Slowly but surely, the establishment is trying to push God out of the picture. Those that don't see it and ignore the threat, are as naïve as Neville Chamberlain was about Hitler.

To me, it's the opposite: the more discoveries that are unveiled, the more integrated complexity is observed....the less an intelligent Source behind it can be ignored. But that's not the goal for those who promote macro evolution!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But that's how science works. Scientists "reduce to mechanistic processes" everything they study.

But is there consensus among scientists regarding these evolutionary mechanisms? No!

So your statement lacks substance.