Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jenny Collins]

If you ask a biologist, which is the profession this relates to, instead of the general populace, you might get a more consistent answer.

In biology, we are a type of ape. So, yes, the person who claimed otherwise was talking about something they are ignorant about. That is just as bad for 'evolutionists' as it is for anyone else.

Frantisek Vyskocil is a biologist! And that is the other gripe I have about some evolutionists! If you say that such and such scientist doesn't believe in evolution, they say "He is not the right kind of scientist" But the ones telling me this are either not scientists at all, or aren't evolutionary biologists either! They still think they are educated enough to make an educated judgment but more experienced, often older and better studied, and prize winning, scientists are not the RIGHT kind of scientists!

If the only scientists entitled to an opinion are evolutionary biologists, and the rest of us poor slobs (joke) are at loss to understand it, that means there is a group of great individuals at the very top who are telling the rest of us what to think! If all the rest of us are incapable of figuring things out, how do we know that the evolutionary biologists are right! None of us understand the stuff! It can be compared to a cult if that is the case! The leaders at the top are all knowing, and the rest of us have to accept that!

When people were ganging up on me a few days ago, one told me "would you go to an auto mechanic to get your plumbing fixed?" I told them that that all depended! Because an auto mechanic may know something about plumbing! For instance, I am a housekeeper at a hospital (awaiting an ambush of ad hominem attacks!) There are at least two housekeepers who are former school teachers!

So if someone asked: "Would you ask a housekeeper about history?", well yes, yes I would! If they were knowledgeable about it!

But back to the plumber/auto mechanic example! Those are two very dissimilar fields!

Let's look at medical doctors! There are general practitioners and there are specialists! Although one is specialized, it doesn't mean that the general practitioners are clueless! They know medicine and while not being as specialized, they work together with specialists when they refer their patients to them!

And it is the same with science! It is divided into different specialized areas, but it doesn't mean that the other scientists are clueless about making decisions! And they are related enough to give some validation to having an opinion about evolution! It isn't like contrasting a hair dresser with a figure skater

 

[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?

It is probably because theists think that if they can effectively refute evolution (they can't) then they can say that proves heir god exists (it doesn't).

 

[Jenny Collins]

I

The experiment is specifically set up to show a population evolving a new trait that wasn't present in the parental population. We know it wasn't present in the parental population because all its members are descended from a single clone that didn't have the trait. So once you see the trait in the evolved population, you know it came about via mutation.


And that's just fine. Very honest of you to say.


Good for him.


Thank you. But I'm curious.....what makes you think I'm an atheist?

thought you were atheist because I am dealing with several atheists at once and can't keep track, plus you had that mad scientist-like avatar! It seemed kind of what an atheist might have! Sorry if I misjudged

 

[Jenny Collins]

I know

The experiment is specifically set up to show a population evolving a new trait that wasn't present in the parental population. We know it wasn't present in the parental population because all its members are descended from a single clone that didn't have the trait. So once you see the trait in the evolved population, you know it came about via mutation.


And that's just fine. Very honest of you to say.


Good for him.


Thank you. But I'm curious.....what makes you think I'm an atheist?

I know very well that there are theists who are evolutionists or agnostics! What makes you think that I am a creationist! I do not define myself that way

 

[Milton Platt]

Frantisek Vyskocil is a biologist! And that is the other gripe I have about some evolutionists! If you say that such and such scientist doesn't believe in evolution, they say "He is not the right kind of scientist" But the ones telling me this are either not scientists at all, or aren't evolutionary biologists either! They still think they are educated enough to make an educated judgment but more experienced, often older and better studied, and prize winning, scientists are not the RIGHT kind of scientists!

If the only scientists entitled to an opinion are evolutionary biologists, and the rest of us poor slobs (joke) are at loss to understand it, that means there is a group of great individuals at the very top who are telling the rest of us what to think! If all the rest of us are incapable of figuring things out, how do we know that the evolutionary biologists are right! None of us understand the stuff! It can be compared to a cult if that is the case! The leaders at the top are all knowing, and the rest of us have to accept that!

When people were ganging up on me a few days ago, one told me "would you go to an auto mechanic to get your plumbing fixed?" I told them that that all depended! Because an auto mechanic may know something about plumbing! For instance, I am a housekeeper at a hospital (awaiting an ambush of ad hominem attacks!) There are at least two housekeepers who are former school teachers!

So if someone asked: "Would you ask a housekeeper about history?", well yes, yes I would! If they were knowledgeable about it!

But back to the plumber/auto mechanic example! Those are two very dissimilar fields!

Let's look at medical doctors! There are general practitioners and there are specialists! Although one is specialized, it doesn't mean that the general practitioners are clueless! They know medicine and while not being as specialized, they work together with specialists when they refer their patients to them!

And it is the same with science! It is divided into different specialized areas, but it doesn't mean that the other scientists are clueless about making decisions! And they are related enough to give some validation to having an opinion about evolution! It isn't like contrasting a hair dresser with a figure skater

This problem easily solved....what is the concensus of the particular branch of science? If you do not cherry pick those that agree with you you are much more likely to find the correct answer.

 

[Jenny Collins]

It is probably because theists think that if they can effectively refute evolution (they can't) then they can say that proves heir god exists (it doesn't).

I don't think that all evolutionists are atheists, so your suggestion for my reasons are wrong! I just told him why I judged him that way!

 

[Jenny Collins]

This problem easily solved....what is the consensus of the particular branch of science? If you do not cherry pick those that agree with you you are much more likely to find the correct answer.

Consensus can be WRONG! And I have much broader of a world view than just this one issue! I pick the world view which makes the most sense, I don't have to be the expert of a particular subject! We all give our trust to those with more experience! When you were first introduced to the theory of evolution, did you have enough overall knowledge to judge it as true? You built knowledge! But did you reserve judgment until that day that you had arrived and had enough knowledge? You had to trust your teachers! So I trust some people with more knowledge than I have too

 

[Jenny Collins]

This problem easily solved....what is the concensus of the particular branch of science? If you do not cherry pick those that agree with you you are much more likely to find the correct answer.

consensus means general agreement! That is appeal to majority

 

[ImmortalFlame]

consensus means general agreement! That is appeal to majority

Not quite. Argumentum ad populum is the argument that, because a majority of people believe it, it must be true. However, citing the consensus opinion of experts in a specific field isn't the same thing. If the expertise of the group is taken into account, it is not an argumentum ad populum.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

consensus means general agreement! That is appeal to majority

Not quite. Argumentum ad populum is the argument that, because a majority of people believe it, it must be true. However, citing the consensus opinion of experts in a specific field isn't the same thing. If the expertise of the group is taken into account, it is not an argumentum ad populum.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I don't really know, I sure don't! There are many people who profess belief in the Bible and think it is compatible with evolution! But I sure don't think the two are compatible

Then there are Muslims some of whom are evolution believers, some who aren't! I have known both!

I at first thought you were Atheist because of the avatar you had at the time! Plus I was dealing with the shark attacks (joke, don't get mad anyone) of about 10 atheists at once, and you got in amidst my juggling act and I thought you were one too! Sorry about that! So what religion do you belong to or are you agnostic!

And by the way, what makes you think that I am creationist? Although there is some definition that others have created and it has become an umbrella term, I don't define myself that way!

 

[Milton Platt]

consensus means general agreement! That is appeal to majority

yes, as opposed to appeal to extreme minority. It increases your chances of being on the correct side of a question, barring a solid grounding in the subject matter, does it not????

 

[Deeje]

Reminds me of Kathleen Hunt's summary of the horse fossil record, where she concludes with.....

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?​

Does that fall under the category of "God works in mysterious ways"?

Can you provide photographs of the actual fossils that have been found. Not diagrams or illustrations, but actual bones of these creatures that show us what they looked like. Please provide this "unmistakable sequence of fossils" in the evolution of horses or whales, since these seem to be the favorites.

Here is a diagram, illustrating what science believes explains horse evolution.....

But what hard evidence do they have that this is true? Who was there to observe what happened 60 million years ago? And where did Echippus come from?How does anyone know what they looked like from the actual evidence they have? How much of this diagram is the result of imagination? Who knows if they had spots or stripes?

I see emphasis placed on forelimbs and teeth. But do similarities prove relationship? That is an assumption, that is suggested but its not provable. It is just as easily explained by individual acts of creation. The Creator is a designer of things.....if we are created in his image and likeness, then how do we "create"? Don't we make prototypes and tweak them until we have a desired outcome? Evolutionists labor under the assumption that the Creator must be some great invisible magician who just 'poofed' things into existence with a wave of his hand. That is not how the Bible describes creation.

Psalm 90:2 says:
"Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)

Giving birth does not indicate a wave of the hand. Ask any woman who has gone through labor if it was easy. What happened before birth occurred? There was lots of unseen preparation before the birth took place.

Creation is not as mythical as you imagine.

 

[Jenny Collins]

yes, as opposed to appeal to extreme minority. It increases your chances of being on the correct side of a question, barring a solid grounding in the subject matter, does it not????

First of all, it is impossible to truly know statistically how many scientists question evolution! Statistics don't reflect everything accurately! And when some have defected from the theory of evolution, others have approached them in secrecy to tell them they have questioned it also!

And since when do you think that extreme minority can't be correct? There always has to be a first person to question the status quo, and until others catch on he is in the extreme minority! Charles Darwin was in the extreme minority too! He got a cult following and here we are today! Falsehoods can be reversed however

Don't know if you are atheist or not, but atheists don't believe in God because there is "lots" of religion in the world

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you provide photographs of the actual fossils that have been found. Not diagrams or illustrations, but actual bones of these creatures that show us what they looked like. Please provide this "unmistakable sequence of fossils" in the evolution of horses or whales, since these seem to be the favorites.

Here is a diagram, illustrating what science believes explains horse evolution.....

But what hard evidence do they have that this is true?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Equine_evolution.jpg

Who was there to observe what happened 60 million years ago?

Do you honestly believe the only way to accurately deduce what happened in the past is to read accounts of people from around that time? Do you not realize that events in the past often leave behind evidence of their occurence?

And where did Echippus come from?

Earlier equid ungulates.

How does anyone know what they looked like from the actual evidence they have?

By examining the morphology of the fossils. It's the exact same technique scientists use today to accurately predict the physical appearances of decayed human bodies.

How much of this diagram is the result of imagination?

Probably mostly just the colouration.

Who knows if they had spots or stripes?

Does it matter?

I see emphasis placed on forelimbs and teeth. But do similarities prove relationship?

No, but singling out one fact and asking it if "proves" a relationship is like looking at me and my father and saying "So you both have the same colour hair, but does that PROVE that you're related?". No, of course it doesn't. What's convincing is the abundance of other evidence and how it call comes together to indicate a very specific conclusion.

That is an assumption, that is suggested but its not provable. It is just as easily explained by individual acts of creation.

No, it isn't, because they could have been created in any form whatsoever. Unless you believe each one of the species in the above sequence appeared, fully formed, from nothing and then disappeared entirely for no reason whatsoever, and was then replaced by the miraculous appearance of a somehow very similar species. It simple makes no sense. If that's how God designs things, God is clearly an idiot.

The Creator is a designer of things.....if we are created in his image and likeness, then how do we "create"? Don't we make prototypes and tweak them until we have a desired outcome?

So what makes you think that the process God used to "tweak" his prototypes wasn't evolution? That would make perfect sense.

Evolutionists labor under the assumption that the Creator must be some great invisible magician who just 'poofed' things into existence with a wave of his hand. That is not how the Bible describes creation.

Psalm 90:2 says:
"Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)

Giving birth does not indicate a wave of the hand. Ask any woman who has gone through labor if it was easy. What happened before birth occurred? There was lots of unseen preparation before the birth took place.

Creation is not as mythical as you imagine.

So you believe God put tremendous physical labour and pain into creating life? So you believe God is not all-powerful?

 

[Polymath257]

Consensus can be WRONG! And I have much broader of a world view than just this one issue! I pick the world view which makes the most sense, I don't have to be the expert of a particular subject! We all give our trust to those with more experience! When you were first introduced to the theory of evolution, did you have enough overall knowledge to judge it as true? You built knowledge! But did you reserve judgment until that day that you had arrived and had enough knowledge? You had to trust your teachers! So I trust some people with more knowledge than I have too

Yes, consensus can be wrong. But the consensus of experts is much, much less likely to be wrong than the opinions of a non-expert. This is especially true in those areas where extensive testing has been done over the last century or so. The places where experts are most likely to be wrong are those where testing has not been done or where there is controversy in the field.

When it comes to evolution, there is essentially no controversy among the experts. Furthermore, the concepts have been extensively tested. In that case, it is very likely the experts are correct.

 

[Deeje]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Equine_evolution.jpg

Do you honestly believe the only way to accurately deduce what happened in the past is to read accounts of people from around that time? Do you not realize that events in the past often leave behind evidence of their occurence?

OK, what is the real evidence in the fossil record....?

For "Lucy" the actual bones found are highlighted in brown...the rest is made up.

This is Lucy without the reconstruction...

Impressive, is it?

And this is Pakicetus

The shaded parts are the actual remains...the rest is filled in with imagination, assuming that Pakicetus was even related to whales.

Here are some whale fossils....

Now, depending upon whose imagination was evoked by those bits of bone, here Pakicetus can be drawn like this....

or this

It is assumed that whales evolved.....over millions of years.

Do you see the remotest resemblance between the first and the last in this series of images? Did Darwin observe the Galapagos animals and birds as anything other than what he saw on the mainland, but with adaptations that allowed them to survive in a more marine environment? Did he see any of them "morphing" into something else?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

And what about Timurlengia euotica? The red bits indicate the actual fossil remains.

Are you seeing what I am seeing? How much actual science is used in evolution compared to how much is assumed and suggested? If there were no diagrams and illustrations based on those suggestions, how would the fossils tell their own story?

According to the Davidson Institute, whole intact skeletons are very rare.....

"Regarding the number of skeletons found to date – this is a great question since the number of complete components is relatively small (the average dinosaur has about a hundred different bones). Currently it is estimated that around 2,100 “good skeletons” have been found, and the number of known species is several hundred (300-500). Therefore, even without an entire skeleton, but with other skeletons from the same species, we have a good chance of completing the full picture. In addition, researchers often rely on the bone structure of contemporary reptiles and birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs and therefore their distant relatives."

Have any fossilized whole skulls of dinosaurs ever been found?
So evidence wise, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But back to the plumber/auto mechanic example! Those are two very dissimilar fields!

That was the point. If you need the intake manifold gasket in your car engine changed, are you going to turn to the Yellow Pages and look up auto mechanics or a plumber?

thought you were atheist because I am dealing with several atheists at once and can't keep track,

Probably not as many as you are assuming. Just because some accepts evolution does not inherently or automatically make them an atheist, which is the point of this thread. It's a very frequent misconception that particularly anti-evolution Christians have.

Impressive, is it?

Actually, it is very impressive for how complete it actually is.
Also you may not want to doubt the ability to recreate organisms from their bones, even if not complete.

 

[Jenny Collins]

That was the point. If you need the intake manifold gasket in your car engine changed, are you going to turn to the Yellow Pages and look up auto mechanics or a plumber?

Probably not as many as you are assuming. Just because some accepts evolution does not inherently or automatically make them an atheist, which is the point of this thread. It's a very frequent misconception that particularly anti-evolution Christians have.

Actually, it is very impressive for how complete it actually is.
Also you may not want to doubt the ability to recreate organisms from their bones, even if not complete.

Yeah, but scientists are not as dissimilar as a plumber and auto mechanic, do you follow the logic there? And if one scientist isn't as good as the other, well unless you are a scientist yourself, you are absolutely not entitled to an opinion on evolution! And if you are a scientist are you an evolutionary scientist?

By the way, I am sure that most scientists have also studied biology! My friend who drives a truck, studied biology in college

 

[Jenny Collins]

That was the point. If you need the intake manifold gasket in your car engine changed, are you going to turn to the Yellow Pages and look up auto mechanics or a plumber?

Probably not as many as you are assuming. Just because some accepts evolution does not inherently or automatically make them an atheist, which is the point of this thread. It's a very frequent misconception that particularly anti-evolution Christians have.

Actually, it is very impressive for how complete it actually is.
Also you may not want to doubt the ability to recreate organisms from their bones, even if not complete.

Maybe I was mistaken about a few who aren't atheists, but then I am even less impressed with their belief in evolution, particularly if they believe the Bible! Because the Bible is NOT compatible with evolution! I have been studying the Bible for 40 years, I know! If the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is not literal, why is Adam always listed first in the lineage to Jesus? Why is Adam referred to as a real person later in the Bible as well?

Even many atheists who have read the Bible, will tell you it is not compatible with evolution