Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jose Fly]

Haven't read the whole thread so I'm not 100% sure where I'm jumping in on this conversation. But, to respond to the OP, from my experience as someone raised in an "evolution = atheism" household, the argument was based on the supposition that evolution was theorized for the express purpose of removing God from study of the natural world. In the minds of many prominent YECs (e.g., Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis), it is a spiritual bankrupt position to be Christian and an evolutionist because you're "pulling for the wrong team" against a literal understanding of the Bible and are thus on a slippery slope towards atheism personally and further secularism societally, neither of which are positive outcomes.

Have you ever gotten the sense that by pushing this black/white scenario, where there is no ground between YEC and atheism, Ham and AiG are actually driving some to abandon Christianity? IOW, if Christian leaders are telling their followers that they have to choose between reality as determined by science and Christianity, a certain number are just going to walk away from the faith, right?

 

[littlefire]

...a certain number are just going to walk away from the faith, right?

Definitely. I'm a prime example.

When people push faith over science in one area, they do it in others, like things to do with vaccinations and mental health, and that's just not ok.

 

[Jose Fly]

Definitely. I'm a prime example.

I've always wondered if the fundamentalists who force the dilemma even realize what they're doing. It's like for them, it's not good enough for people to be Christians, they have to be the "right kind of Christians" (and by that I mean young-earth creationists).

When people push faith over science in one area, they do it in others, like things to do with vaccinations and mental health, and that's just not ok.

It's downright dangerous.

 

[littlefire]

I've always wondered if the fundamentalists who force the dilemma even realize what they're doing. It's like for them, it's not good enough for people to be Christians, they have to be the "right kind of Christians" (and by that I mean young-earth creationists).

THIS. ALL OF THIS. I could go on and on and on about the "right kind of Christians" thing...but that's not the point of this thread. I think in Ken Ham's case he knows exactly what he's doing. He's a phenomenal salesman.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What "right" does God have to rule?

Revelation 4:11.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If Adam and Eve and the rest of Creation had been truly "perfect," this corruption could not have happened.

What makes you think that?! If that was the case, the Devil would never have tried to tempt Jesus. Human 'Perfection' does not alter free will. Are you thinking that, if a person is perfect, he already knows everything? He could make mistakes, simply because he's inexperienced. You're attributing qualities to perfection that don't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Revelation 4:11.

That's not a good enough reason.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What makes you think that?

Because God himself said everything was good. But if it was so good, why was it so easy to thwart?

Human 'Perfection' does not alter free will.

Free will does not exist.

if a person is perfect, he already knows everything?

A real person will never be perfect. If god made a perfect creation, why could a rogue angel mess up the design in such a profound way?

You're attributing qualities to perfection that don't exist.

When something is labeled as perfect, I expect it to be perfect.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's not a good enough reason.

That's like saying to a patented inventor, "You don't have the right to control your invention, just because you made it."

The patent office would disagree!

Or tell a parent, "You can't tell your child what to do!"

Take em to court....See how far you'd get.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's like saying to a patented inventor, "You don't have the right to control your invention, just because you made it."

Actually, whoever holds the patent for an object generally has no control over how the invention is used or control. They invented it. They can't prevent people from doing with it as they will, not unless the copyright laws are stacked in such a way that generally most people would find them unsuitable and inequitable if they took the time to actually read them. If you want to buy a book or CD with the intentions of destroying it in protest, the copyright holders can't prevent you from doing so.

Or tell a parent, "You can't tell your child what to do!"
Take em to court....See how far you'd get.

When a child turns of age the parent has no legal right to tell them what to do.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because God himself said everything was good. But if it was so good, why was it so easy to thwart?

It was good. But that doesn't mean it can't be ruined by others.

Free will does not exist.

You and many others are living proof there is....God "desires all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)", but it ain't happening.

The book of Jonah highlights that, too. The city of Nineveh repented. and God didn't do what he said he would.

Why does the Bible tell us, many times, that God "was hurt" by someone's actions, if they were predestined? God isnt a masochist, lol.

A real person will never be perfect. If god made a perfect creation, why could a rogue angel mess up the design in such a profound way?

And yet, Jesus was.

Even that Angel (Satan) was created perfect, but he began thinking too much of himself, acted on it, and made himself a Satan.

When something is labeled as perfect, I expect it to be perfect.

I guess you think perfect means indestructible.

Again, Satan tried to tempt Jesus. It could've worked.

Goodnight, my cousin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was good. But that doesn't mean it can't be ruined by others.

But yet it so so easily ruined, and ruined far beyond reparation to the point the suffering of this failure was experienced far beyond humans.

You and many others are living proof there is.

I'm actually living proof there is no free will. Such as, I have Asperger's Syndrome, and pretty much act like it (which makes sense since I have it). I never freely chose to have a disposition for interpreting things literally, it just happens that way.

Even that Angel (Satan) was created perfect, but he began thinking too much of himself, acted on it, and made himself a Satan.

Satan is actually a Hebrew verb meaning roughly "to oppose," while Ha-Satan is the title of an angel in Judaism. This Satan you are thinking of did not debut until the book of Matthew, when we find he has been reinvented into an entirely different character that is not recognized or accepted by Jews, and according to some of the even blasphemous against Elohim.

I guess you think perfect means indestructible.

If it's truly worthy of being called perfect.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want to buy a book or CD with the intentions of destroying it in protest, the copyright holders can't prevent you from doing so.

OK, there you go! Others can ruin it, even if it's perfect.

"When a child turns of age the parent has no legal right to tell them what to do."

And it's obvious, with all the trouble within society on the Earth, we need more intelligent guidance. We are really children!
-- Jeremiah 10:23.

OK....Now I'm done, I promise.lol. Hope you have a good night.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

OK, there you go! Others can ruin it, even if it's perfect.

I never claimed those things are perfect. I never even said they were good. I only pointed out that patent holders only own the design they create and have no control over how people use it.

And it's obvious, with all the trouble within society on the Earth, we need more intelligent guidance. We are really children!
-- Jeremiah 10:23.

I am not a child.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What makes you think that?! If that was the case, the Devil would never have tried to tempt Jesus. Human 'Perfection' does not alter free will. Are you thinking that, if a person is perfect, he already knows everything? He could make mistakes, simply because he's inexperienced. You're attributing qualities to perfection that don't exist.

You must be using a different definition of "perfect" than I am. What's perfect about a couple of kids that make a mistake the first chance they get? Their skin?

How about this: "I just built a perfect car in my garage. I test drove it. It broke down in the driveway backing out."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You and many others are living proof there is....God "desires all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)", but it ain't happening.

The book of Jonah highlights that, too. The city of Nineveh repented. and God didn't do what he said he would.

Why does the Bible tell us, many times, that God "was hurt" by someone's actions, if they were predestined? God isnt a masochist, lol.

If your argument begins by assuming a god, you need not make it to a skeptic. It will be stillborn.

Likewise when citing scripture as authoritative.

Certainly you can understand that. If you're having difficulty trying, imagine a Muslim making an argument with you that depends on the existence of Allah and the authority of the Qur'an. What would that mean to you? Nothing at all, right?

 

[Jenny Collins]

As long as we don't assume the days of Creation in Genesis to be our literal 24 hour days but rather large stretches of time, we see the gradual appearance of various species, which is what the theory of evolution states.

How life got here and how life developed are two different questions. It's not dodging a question but science function properly because a single theory will not cover two separate questions in such a manner.

ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because of its lack of predictions, its lack of falsifiabililty, and lack of testability. Charles Darwin, when realizing the process of natural selection, made many predictions that were accurate, the fossil record supports his claims, and we see evolution happening all around us.

Yes, actually there is. There are very, very few scientists who do not accept evolution, with natural selection being the primary driving mechanism (but of course there are also things such as selective selection).

Actually there are many of those, including scientists, who couldn't care less about the gods and religions others follows except when they try to push their religious views on others, such as teaching Creationism as science. Scientists aren't going to churches and making demands about what they teach - the church needs to learn to extend the same courtesy and not butt in and demand a science education be adjusted to fit their views.

 

[Jenny Collins]

As long as we don't assume the days of Creation in Genesis to be our literal 24 hour days but rather large stretches of time, we see the gradual appearance of various species, which is what the theory of evolution states.

How life got here and how life developed are two different questions. It's not dodging a question but science function properly because a single theory will not cover two separate questions in such a manner.

ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because of its lack of predictions, its lack of falsifiabililty, and lack of testability. Charles Darwin, when realizing the process of natural selection, made many predictions that were accurate, the fossil record supports his claims, and we see evolution happening all around us.

Yes, actually there is. There are very, very few scientists who do not accept evolution, with natural selection being the primary driving mechanism (but of course there are also things such as selective selection).

Actually there are many of those, including scientists, who couldn't care less about the gods and religions others follows except when they try to push their religious views on others, such as teaching Creationism as science. Scientists aren't going to churches and making demands about what they teach - the church needs to learn to extend the same courtesy and not butt in and demand a science education be adjusted to fit their views.

Shadow Wolf The days of creation are not literal 24-hour days. And I repeat, evolution is not compatible with the Bible. If evolution is true, so is atheism or some other religion not based on the Bible. If evolution is false, it leaves room for the possibility that the Bible is true. Anyone who thinks that the Bible can be compatible with evolution, really doesn't know the Bible very well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even that Angel (Satan) was created perfect, but he began thinking too much of himself, acted on it, and made himself a Satan.

In JW theology, does Satan require worship the way Jehovah does?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Shadow Wolf The days of creation are not literal 24-hour days.

Disagree. We have two pieces of evidence to suggest otherwise. The six days of creation each included a sunrise and sunset.

And we are commanded to imitate the Lord by making every seventh day, the Sabbath, a day of rest.

And I repeat, evolution is not compatible with the Bible. If evolution is true, so is atheism or some other religion not based on the Bible. If evolution is false, it leaves room for the possibility that the Bible is true. Anyone who thinks that the Bible can be compatible with evolution, really doesn't know the Bible very well.

Agree, provided that by evolution, you mean Darwinian (blind) evolution rather than what is called "theistic evolution." The scientific theory is incompatible with a god that intended man to exist and fashioned him in His own image.