Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jose Fly]

The same reason that some scientists believe Darwin or neo Darwinism is evolution, it certainly is not.

What reason are you referring to?

The Catholic church knows it has a problem with evolution and the internal narrative of the faith, and they correctly assume that it will become clearer over time in God's time.

Could you expand on that?

 

[Altfish]

Here's what I wanted from the atheist scientists who run Nature and Science -- to bring in Genesis. What's so hard about that? Give a creation scientist a chance to speak on the origins of life. Isn't life and death determined by 1) religion, 2) science and 3) experience? Let these creation scientists explain their theories? If it's not a valid hypothesis, then what are they afraid of?

Why bring in Genesis? Why not Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?
Why is life and death determined by anything?
Creation scientists is an oxymoron.

 

[David T]

What reason are you referring to?

That narrative is the reality that determines the actuality. I could believe that mathematics determines the strength of a 2" x 4"x 8' boards latitude strength that's false. The boards latitude strength, it's actuality, is what determines the mathematical narrative. As a general contractor I run into this problem with engineers where the reality and math don't align and I ask them to align their math to reality.

Could you expand on that?

In regards to the church and it's most certainly not monolithic they are aware of the lack of alignment of evolution with the long history of accedemic philosophy in religion as it has developed. There is a serious narrative problem between accedemic philosopy or theology and evolution that is not aligned. Please don't expect them to become darwinists interpretively hardly. I would say that st Francis statement on evolution is more where the church is slowly ever so slowly heading he called it , family of God. That actually is very very accurate but certainly not clear today because of how God is understood in the church and affirmed outside the church in science.

 

[Willamena]

Who really cares what creationist think, do they really think ?.

Brilliant debate technique.

 

[Jose Fly]

In regards to the church and it's most certainly not monolithic they are aware of the lack of alignment of evolution with the long history of accedemic philosophy in religion as it has developed. There is a serious narrative problem between accedemic philosopy or theology and evolution that is not aligned.

So you're saying that despite the Catholic Church's statements that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity, deep down they know that's not true, and there really is a conflict?

Please don't expect them to become darwinists interpretively hardly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "become darwinists interpretively". Do you mean we shouldn't expect them to interpret the Genesis creation accounts as consistent with evolution?

I would say that st Francis statement on evolution is more where the church is slowly ever so slowly heading he called it , family of God. That actually is very very accurate but certainly not clear today because of how God is understood in the church and affirmed outside the church in science.

I guess I don't follow the Catholic Church enough to fully appreciate what you're saying.

 

[David T]

So you're saying that despite the Catholic Church's statements that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity, deep down they know that's not true, and there really is a conflict?
I stated the exact opposite. It's their understanding of the text that's out of alignment. Christianity is as stated in their text a something bigger than just the Roman Catholic church. ContemporAry science says life is 4 billion years old. The NT makes the outlandish claim that in fact life is 14 billion years old. deep time is very very new scientifically 1790. The new testament already stated deep time 2,000 years earlier and it also has 2 not one but two types of framework for time clearly stated. One is called chronos the other kairos. The text is not written by completely un self aware individuals that have no clue about nature. It's written for them not by them. How many interpretations are there of the something simple like the bible something the church created? Would something not created by man such as nature be easier? Science says yes!!! Ha now thats very very cute.

I'm not sure what you mean by "become darwinists interpretively". Do you mean we shouldn't expect them to interpret the Genesis creation accounts as consistent with evolution?
What do you mean by evolution exactly? The narrative or the actual?


I guess I don't follow the Catholic Church enough to fully appreciate what you're saying.

It like any human group of more than one has all kinds of views and one one hand it must be sensitive to the aggregate of the faith and at the same time confront challenges that often times are self created. It's a wierd time we live in. The popes have for long stretches been political Dim wits more worried about political power than the new testament. There is a Change occuring and I think The dali Lama has heavily influenced the changes in leadership. I see it I pope Francis and Bartholomew of the eastern orthododox. One has to remember they have a schism that dates to 1094 AD. They know it's stupid, they have been engaged 50 years to overcome it but these things take time in church. They definitely understand evolution in that manner like a flower blooms when A flower blooms not based on hyper reductive mechanicalism but in context to a larger reality that it's an Aspect of Not a part of like a clock.

 

[Jose Fly]

It like any human group of more than one has all kinds of views and one one hand it must be sensitive to the aggregate of the faith and at the same time confront challenges that often times are self created. It's a wierd time we live in. The popes have for long stretches been political Dim wits more worried about political power than the new testament. There is a Change occuring and I think The dali Lama has heavily influenced the changes in leadership. I see it I pope Francis and Bartholomew of the eastern orthododox. One has to remember they have a schism that dates to 1094 AD. They know it's stupid, they have been engaged 50 years to overcome it but these things take time in church. They definitely understand evolution in that manner like a flower blooms when A flower blooms not based on hyper reductive mechanicalism but in context to a larger reality that it's an Aspect of Not a part of like a clock.

Ok thanks. But I'd prefer to keep this thread focused on the original question in the OP.

 

[David T]

Ok thanks. But I'd prefer to keep this thread focused on the original question in the OP.

I did it's exactly the same problem in science.

 

[Jose Fly]

I did it's exactly the same problem in science.

Sorry, but you've completely lost me.

 

[David T]

I did it's exactly the same problem in science.

My background is life sciences originally. That is Much more inclined to self select people who are inclined towards systems. Genetic studies tend to self select reductionists. The two over Lap but one just has to look into religious creationism to realize reductionism is well reductionism and nothing More and really really silly If taken too far in religion and science. Its Not primary but secondary and nuts when primary.

 

[james bond]

Why bring in Genesis? Why not Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?
Why is life and death determined by anything?
Creation scientists is an oxymoron.

As usual, you're backing down and avoiding the issue. Just read your puny post. First, I'm right in that science will not peer-review creation because if creation makes a better theory, then it destroys evolution. Second, you know nothing about science and evolution while I do. All you know is about Harry Potter and LOTR ha ha. Good day.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The main reason people might say that is because macro evolution makes atheism more plausible in their eyes

Evolution is not atheism. In fact all believers accept some form of evolution and even a very conservative view accepts change after the fall, change after Noah's flood, modification within a species and even survival of the fittest (or luckiest)

Goo to you via the zoo is problematic biblically speaking.
Theistic evolution is problematic and doesn't represent Biblical views well.

 

[Altfish]

As usual, you're backing down and avoiding the issue. Just read your puny post. First, I'm right in that science will not peer-review creation because if creation makes a better theory, then it destroys evolution. Second, you know nothing about science and evolution while I do. All you know is about Harry Potter and LOTR ha ha. Good day.

...and you reckon it's me that is backing down. All you do is make assertions with absolutely no evidence.
To be peer reviewed it has to be science; i.e. apply the scientific method. That means coming to conclusions based on evidence NOT inventing evidence to suit the conclusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

The main reason people might say that is because macro evolution makes atheism more plausible in their eyes

Evolution is not atheism. In fact all believers accept some form of evolution and even a very conservative view accepts change after the fall, change after Noah's flood, modification within a species and even survival of the fittest (or luckiest)

Goo to you via the zoo is problematic biblically speaking.
Theistic evolution is problematic and doesn't represent Biblical views well.

But if evolution contradicts the Biblical view, how does that necessitate atheism? The only thing I can come up with is that to those prone to black/white thinking, there are only two possibilities.....Christianity or complete lack of belief in God.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's not so much that as it is they believe the Bible is the literal and true word of God. Every word in it, they believe it actually happened. So anything that opposes their views and deviates from this strict literal reading is interpreted as an affront on their religion. Evolution isn't what the Bible and God said, so they doubt it. It is also a problem with Christian schooling, where students are taught just enough about science to declare the evolution is "just a theory."
As for why "evolution = atheism," it is simply because they just do not understand evolution or know anything about it really, and they assume it must be atheism because god is not inherently at the center of it.

So by that logic, people of other religions are "atheists" since their beliefs don't comply with the bible.

 

[Father Heathen]

This is a stupid thread, Jose. You should follow your own advice in the sig ha ha.

Let's bring Genesis into the science world. Then we can talk.

How is it a stupid thread? The assertion that a belief in a god also requires a literal interpretation of a specific book is a rather goofy one.

 

[psychoslice]

Brilliant debate technique.

Yes, but what could I say, lets be honest here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So by that logic, people of other religions are "atheists" since their beliefs don't comply with the bible.

They wouldn't label them as atheists, but rather worshipers of demons and devils. Anything that challenges their faith is generally viewed as something that Satan himself is ultimately behind. From there, some will proclaim that Christianity is the only religion that should be called a religion because all the others are false, while some will state that "religion" is for those who have it wrong while Christianity just is because it is assumed to be true.
And, no, I'm not making this up. Some even believe evolution is a tool of the devil to lure people away from god. If there are any grey areas or questions (such as the idea of "loosing your salvation or once saved/always saved"), the answers will pretty much depend on who you ask.

 

[whirlingmerc]

But if evolution contradicts the Biblical view, how does that necessitate atheism? The only thing I can come up with is that to those prone to black/white thinking, there are only two possibilities.....Christianity or complete lack of belief in God.

Evolution, strictly speaking, is not atheism. There are theistic evolutionists (which I disagree with if they mean one giant evolutionary tree instead of an evolutionary orchard)
but atheists will tend to be evolutionists, some might believe in other theories like aliens seeding the earth, etc... but usually evolution

 

[james bond]

How is it a stupid thread? The assertion that a belief in a god also requires a literal interpretation of a specific book is a rather goofy one.

Well, look at the contributions of Christian scientists like Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Pascal, Newton and so on. These people invented science. 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. Jose Fly?

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.

The above are facts.