Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

Whirlwind asks, "Do Creationists believe that the ToE is the result of scientists wishing to further science, some rogue scientists trying to get attention, or the work of Satan trying to steer us away from the teachings of the Bible (or some other reason)?"...to which extent mike_the_wiz at one point replies, "YEC's in particular, like Mckay the YEC, seem to take the position that Charles Lyell was determined to get rid of Moses pertaining to Geology. His own theory is that Lyell wanted uniformatarianism validated in order to rid Moses from the Geological record so to speak. These are the more extreme views in regard to the premise that Scientists are out to get atheism validated. Infact I never heard McKay even mention James Hutton once, during his rants about the apparent conspiracies in scientific history."The only Creationist answer I've heard so far goes along the lines of Mike's response, in that it stemmed from uniformitarian catastrophism. John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris deals with this subject in their book, "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications" (Copyright 1961; 14th printing, August 1971; Chapter IV: "Uniformitarianism and the Flood: A Study of Attempted Harmonizations".But, on the other hand, it's always good to have some website to go to:The Biblical Flood and the Ice EpochThis site isn't as well versed as the book mentioned, but gives an overall idea.This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-06-2005 11:10 AM

Yes, jar. Good, good. Back to the topic at hand. What are your thought on their views on the origins of evolution in relation to uniformitarian catastrophism?

Sorry, Jar, for the confusion. I'm simply trying to make sure we stay on topic, which is "Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?""Who views?"Creationists: John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris & Donald W. Patten."What origins of evolution?"The origins of evolution within the book... ""The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications" (Copyright 1961; 14th printing, August 1971; Chapter IV: "Uniformitarianism and the Flood: A Study of Attempted Harmonizations"... and on the site mentioned previously:The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch...moreso specifically starting with the paragraph that says... "It should be noted that uniformitarian proponents do recognize local catastrophes on a minor scale; to this limited extent, uniformitarians do acknowledge catastrophism. Similarly, while catastrophists view the sculpturing of our sphere as having been achieved primarily by global catastrophes, they nevertheless recognize serene interludes during which the processes of climatic erosion function."... and following the rest of the article to the bottom of the page. Everything above this paragraph is the author talking about his personal views on catastrophe in relation to the flood, which is off topic to our particular discussion."What does that have to do with 'uniformitarian catastrophism' and what exactly does that mean?"The website answers both of those questions.I hope this helped...This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-12-2005 01:47 PM

Once again, the argument is :"Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?"We must also remember when this book, "The Biblical Flood & The Ice Epoch" was written (1966). Just as modern Darwinists don't believe and quote every nook and cranny from "The Origin of Species", the same is such with Don Patten's book by modern creationists.You said, "Further, the reference you linked to shows clearly a misrepresentation of what uniformitarians say. The uniform stance is that the processes we see now are the same processes that have happened in the past." In Patten's book, he says... (a little after paragraph 7), "Uniformitarianism: The doctrine that existing processes, acting as at present, are sufficient to account for all geological changes." Clicking on the small #1 at the upper right hand corner of this quote, we find his reference mentioned on a new pop-up page (just so we make sure there is no more confusion in the matter), "Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1946, 'Catastrophism,' p. 169; 'Uniformitarianism,' p. 1093." How is it that Patten is disagreeing?"The whole function of geology is just that, explaining what happened in a given instance. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the TOE."According to John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris & Donald W. Patten, if it wasn't for the foundation started by those such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell, the theory of biological evolution would have never really gotten off the ground. So, if they are correct, it has a lot to do with it.I can't believe I had forgotten about it until now, but there was also a book by Jonathon Wells titled, "Icons Of Evolution: Science Or Myth?: Why Much Of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong" by Jonathon Wells (2000). He goes through the book trying to show what he thinks to be plotholes in evolutionary thinking, such as the Miller-Urey experiment, for example. At the following site from the "National Center For Science Education", the book is debunked:http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-17-2005 10:35 AM

"Evolution was a paradigmatic shift...it was an idea who's time had come."Too true. The notion had already been in the human mindset. From a personal standpoint, much of the thought process had it's beginnings from those such as David Hume (1711-1766) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia
David Hume - Wikipedia
Anthropology - Wikipedia