In my opinion, one of the most damaging aspects of the YEC movement is how it associates science with atheism. There’s so much baggage behind that label. The result is that it just flat out drives young people away from careers in science or it simply causes many of them to leave their faith when they do learn it. Sadly, both of these results are used to reinforce the ideology, the first through ignorance, and the second through fear.
9 Likes
You are claiming that the seashells themselves are designed. You need a bit more evidence to support that claim.
4 Likes
I will gladly agree with you on this point. There are tons of Christians and people of other faiths in science. We may be losing out on some really great scientists only because they were scared away from science because of the false dichotomy of theism v. science.
7 Likes
That too is a problem, since there’s nothing wrong with being an atheist. It shouldn’t actually constitute a smear to associate something with atheism. That just goes to show the pernicious historical influence of theism through the centuries, as if not buying into fatuous magical myths is somehow a bad thing.
2 Likes
Yeah. I had no idea there were so many people of faith in the “evolutionism” sciences. That would have changed the way I thought much earlier.
Great point. There are just wheels within wheels within wheels. My old community would quote Psalm 14:1 to set the groundwork for how we should think about atheists:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
And would tack on Romans 1:18 to boot:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
The main idea being that not only are atheists fools, but they are fundamentally dishonest, as they know the truth already, and are just suppressing it because they love to sin. This fits in sooo well with the “pseudo-conspiratio” narrative YEC pushes.
And let me tell you, it’s been a real struggle for me to try to maintain relationships with friends and family who now consider me to be a fundamentally dishonest person. How much more difficult for those they don’t even know?
And let me say as a maybe unnecessary disclaimer that I realize not every religious group interprets things the same way.
4 Likes
Yes, and we have a case in point here. There’s a guy in this thread who seems to think that just pointing out to biologists that biological things are complex is enough to settle the case for creationism. You should probably talk to him and point out how that’s just the sort of thing which opens one to ridicule. At one point someone asked him for a citation to the primary literature, and got nothing but evasion. Doesn’t look good. Maybe you can set him straight.
7 Likes
Same here. When I was still YEC/OEC, I thought only secular people believed in evolutionary theory, reinforcing my belief that it was a just a replacement for God to them.
That’s important too. Is creationism a conspiracy theory? It depends IMO. Someone like Todd Wood recognizes the great evidential support for evolutionary theory, but chooses to hold on to his YEC views. Would I label him a conspiracy theorist? Heck no, because he clearly knows its good science but sticks to his religious presuppositions. AFAIK, Todd doesn’t go about claiming evolution is atheistic or satanic unlike many YECs, but tries to challenge it scientifically. For many YECs, evolutionary theory is a satanic weapon deployed by atheist scientists to erase belief in God from the world, and that my friends is where conspiratorial thinking festers.
4 Likes
And as I have posted on this forum multiple times, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” is not referring at all to the modern day definition of an atheist. It is talking about the morally deficient religious hypocrite who believes in God but make decisions as if God doesn’t exist.
@Patrick asked me to explain that one almost two years ago and here is the link:
5 Likes
I try to explain the atheist position when there is a proper chance to do so. Hope you don’t mind.
Christians can be secularists as well. Secularism simply means separating government and religion, and most Christians I know here in the US support the secular First Amendment and its separation of state and religious institutions. Both secularism and science are two ideas where atheists and theists could find a lot of agreement.
We atheists are often amused by the way theists view us (in a good way). Most atheists are just fine with “I don’t know” or “it’s just a mystery”. We aren’t looking to replace religious beliefs. Skepticism is by far the most common guiding principle within atheism, and that is more about the method of how one attains knowledge than about specific beliefs themselves.
Todd Wood gets a lot of my respect as well.
8 Likes
Sounds like you’re pretty sick and tired of hearing that! You know, I’ve never actually taken the time to look at other interpretations of the passage. I appreciate the link, that makes a lot of sense.
I haven’t read any of the literature on this, so I don’t know if this is true or not, but I heard somewhere that the modern concept of atheism is pretty new (I think some Greek philosophers mention it, maybe?)—perhaps that should have clued me in to the context of the passage.
2 Likes
The Book of Mormon is famous for its anachronisms and gaffes, and usually what people find amusing in that department are the physical things, e.g., horses and scimitars. But to me the funniest is probably Korihor, who is the very image of a post-Enlightenment atheist.
3 Likes
I still have my copy, and keen observers may have noted that I sometimes end message with a fnord. 
Good news. We are rescheduled now for this coming Wednesday.
3 Likes
Archeologists begin with the assumptions that humans exist and can create artifacts. They do not dig up artifacts and declare they have discovered the human race.
5 Likes
I haven’t seen the fnords.
1 Like
I suspect that, in some cases, this misapprehension is not accidental. It is far easier to dissuade your flock from delving into evolution if you present it as purely atheistic, than if you admit that there are Christians, and even some Christians with theological views not dissimilar to your own, studying the field.
1 Like
I would whole-heartedly agree. I would probably term the conspiratorial form of Creationism ‘Apologetic Creationism’. They are more concerned about rhetoric, winning arguments, and convincing a lay audience, than in making sure that what the say has a solid, evidential basis. Todd Wood, and Kurt Wise, display none of this win-at-all-costs attitude. I may consider them misguided, but I would view their work with no more skepticism than I would to any other scientist.
6 Likes
Can you name any theory in science that is solely supported by the claimed disqualification of competing theories without any positive evidence for the theory under question? I can’t name any.
A God-of-the-Gaps is not scientific. You need positive evidence for your claims. On top of that, your theory needs to explain the observations we do have, such as the nested hierarchy. One specific data set you could tackle is the bias in substitution mutations:
2 Likes
In reviewing this thread I’m frustrated that, despite multiple requests, @Edgar has not provided evidence or documentation of these claims:
What do you consider your most impressive citation from the peer-reviewed “empirical science” literature which supports this “perfectly obvious” claim about what couldn’t happen “by chance”?
And why do you appear to dismiss the idea that God uses chance to achieve his purposes? Do you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient God is capable of creating a universe where “functionally complex” “viable life” arises by chance? In other words, couldn’t God have created a world where the laws of physics naturally and inevitably bring about biological life?
What scientific authority, board, or academy published this official declaration?
Meanwhile, the Bible states that God is sovereign over chance (e.g., Proverbs 16:33) so why would “abiogenesis-by-chance” be a problem?
I would actually agree with you that God willed the existence of complex biological life. But that is a philosophical/theological position on my part. I readily admit that I cannot establish my position by means of the Scientific Method. Aren’t you likewise simply claiming that your philosophical/theological position is a scientific one?
7 Likes
You want an hypothesis that explains the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis? A miracle, by definition, defies scientific explanation.