Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

Creationism comes from religious beliefs. The Theory of Evolution stems from science.If Creationism is true, why would scientists bother to work towards refining and publicising the ToE? 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)?I'm not entirely sure where this should go, but I was thinking Faith and Belief. {Changed "Creations" to "Creationists" in topic title - Adminnemooseus]This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-11-2005 12:30 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Whirlwind, There is no consistent answer to this question. For a long time the different creationist groups have been subject to so much infighting that they haven't got a semblance of a coherent explanation for the activities of evolutionary biologists.The Institute for Creation Research claims that there is a conspiracy for "total mind control". The basic idea is that scientists, who are often funded by the state, after all, wish to have power over people's behaviour and ideas. Religion is therefore an enemy because it challenges scientists' monopoly over knowledge. This is exacerbated by the fact that many scientists are atheists who have a "bitter hatred" for Christianity. Here's a relevant quote from the ICR website (link) (emphasis added): Others tone this down a bit. Philip Johnson claims that scientists will perpetutate theories that support their ideology irrespective of whether those theories are correct or not. Scientists have a great deal of prestige in the public realm and admitting that they cannot account for the miracle of life would cause them to lose some of that prestige. It is more sensible for scientists to perpetutate the ideology that science can explain everything. Evolutionary theory is a consciously or subconsciously dishonest way of accommodating the miracle of life within a materialist framework that suits the aspirations of scientists for prestige and power.Here's a quote from a lecture by Johnson (link): It is an important part of Johnson's argument that science has been captured by an ideology. He even claims that naturalism is a religious ideology that has been imposed on science. For example, from this page: I'm sure there are many more conspiracy theories and other explanations out there - I'll post them if I come across any.in edit:I came across an alternative viewpoint. Details are available in an article by Ronald Bailey in "Reason Magazine"; here is the linkThe basic idea is that people who promote ID and denigrate evolution know that evolution is correct, but feel that scientists are being irresponsible in making this known in public. They feel that inculcating religious belief is essential to maintaining civilization. Bailey quotes Irving Kristol (a prominent US neoconservative): Please note that the above paragraphs were taken from various interviews and writings by Kristol, and I have made no effort to check their accuracy.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 11-11-2005 07:38 PM

Thanks for that! Nice to hear some well researched and consise points.It still doesn't really get to the heart of the matter as to where Creationsists think the ToE comes from. Why do Creationists have a problem with experimental evidense?The Strauss arguement is deeply thought provoking yet rather worrying, as I believe it was extended to convince the masses that there is/was an enemy to fight (communism, now "terrorists") who are out there to kill you, so don't question your government who are trying to protect you. Hence the war in Iraq. They did have weapons of mass destruction, oh yes.I do hope people will challenge the following issue it raises: If you are intelligent and can cope with the concept of a purposeless life, you are capable of learning all worldly truths. If not, you can wallow in the ignorance of religion and keep out of the intellectuals way until you die.

Great post!Was anyone else shaking his head while reading some of that crap?

I think that Creationist's[general] think that evolution comes from Darwin, and they think he was a determined atheist, hell-bent on getting an atheist viewpoint validated. (none of that is actually the case, as everyone here knows).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.Depending on the fervor of the creationist, they believe, to different degrees, that evolution originates from and is somewhat of a collusion amongst naturalist atheist philosophers. I know that from experience, most people I talk to haven't the brains to figure out why their own position is absurd. No offense to Christian creationists, but they should atleast read a book like "Short history of everything", by Bryson, in order to try and fathom how farcical and irrelevant the literal bible is to these giants of thought. Nor would they credit it with entertaining a theory that opposes it. They simply wouldn't bother.The bible, they say [creos], denies the human wisdom of this world, and evolution is not registered as valid in their minds. Infact, they seem to be too obtuse to register that the scientific method infact is not human wisdom as such, because it infact reveals universal fact. It's infact the universal laws that are revealed. SO God would have to be saying that facts are false. How silly.Evolution is, as Schrafinator regularly points out, (to a creationist), an exception. Because other theories don't apparently, to their minds, threaten their belief or are not contrary to scripture, they simply don't have a problem with them. Nor have they heard of them. Infact, they don't know much about evolution either, other than "they say we came from an ape and that's unacceptable".Creationists I regularly speak to, when I argue with them, tell me that intellectuallism is a path you shouldn't go down as it is Godless arrogance.The silliest thing about creationists, is that really they are not that at all (creationist). Mainly they are just ignorant Christians, or atleast all the ones I know are. They are people who accept creationism because it is simply the position that offers reinforcement of their religious dogma. It supports the bible, and apparently, in some cheap and pseudo-scientific way, proves the bible true, to them. Now that's all it takes!I know that this is the case as I have been a YEC, an OEC, and I've been Christian. So I speak from experience.Most "creationists", if you are talking about people who train themselves somewhat, are infact few and far between. I could name the popular ones on my hand. Hovind, Ham, Baugh, Ross... etcetera.True creationists, I would have to say, are very few in number, and many believers will be easily swayed by what they say...as I speak from experience. So the average creo, IMHO, is just a believer following whatever a creationist tells them. You could turn up at a believer's event, as a ridiculous parody-creationist, and they would accept you completely because you simply emphasize your sentences with a reinforcing "amen", and confirm their delusion in any way you can.Tragically, I am not being humourous. I am embarassed that I was creo. I think the only reason I got out, was because I am semi-intellectual. Average people are pretty content to not think about these things and so they render themselves gullible. I'm grateful I have a small compulsion to think. Infact, it is a total truth, that Crashfrog, "kickstarted" my dorment brain. Lol.

Woohoo! PJ and I agree on something!

Actually, many YECs are convicted that extreme ToEism (i.e., when taken to the extent of the natural academy of science) is: Anti-ID, anti-Bible, Anti-Christ, etc., and total folly. Many a YEC's *motive* seems to lay in the following 2 scripture passages:1) Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.2) Rom 1:18-29 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, ... (etc.)3) That Christ Himself (the Christian-YEC's only hope for Salvation, Holiness, Eternal Life, Eternal Love, etc.) is inferred to be a *punctuated equilibrium mutant* (left over from the Cambrian) might (methinks) make a few Creationists question *science*.

Well, this has certainly become a faith question. The problem I have with faith is that you "just have to believe things" without any real evidence. It relies on a lot of assumptions, ie believing that the Bible is a literal text. Please remember that quoting the Bible is not scientific evidence. edit-sorry for being a bit rude.It still doesn't get to the heart of the topic. Are you saying that people publicise the ToE because they are evil and are trying to be better than God?This message has been edited by Whirlwind, 15-11-2005 05:33 PM

Sorry if I drifted off topic WW.(WW, I *quoted* because my own words are weak, pathetic, and almost always off-target. I detect you are *open* to a little *dinner* discussion, however, so here goes...) YES: *Demonic Pride* (in ALL of its humble forms and origins) seems to me the major problem of *ToE religion* (hypocritically playing science), the real source of the ToE.*Puffed up scientists and sadduces* that proudly dismiss ID seem perverted and vegetative yet professedly perverted and vegetative. Note my pathetic avatar showing a *gay darwin* tossing out a tadpole and expecting evolution of everything.Now didn't those (Rom 1.21-28) scriptures do a far better job exposing the idolatry and fornication of extreme ToEists than my puny words and avatar?WW, you seem like a very nice person, nonsarcastic and non-bigoted ... looking for evidences and truth. But if you are professedly atheistic and dismiss ID (like the natural academy of science fiction) please excuse me from *dinner* now.

Firstly, sorry for my rather rude statement earlier.I've got a few broad points that I'd like to bring up.

1. Please don't get science and religion confused. The ToE is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. You can chose to believe all of it, parts of it, or none of it as you see fit.
2. Remember that scientists don't have all the answers (or they say they do to sell books, like Richard Dawkins). Research in all areas of science is constantly going on, theories are always being rewritten and always discussed.
3. I'm a bit confused about the definition of the word "vegetative" in this sense.
   

I'd still like to know from as many Creationsits as possible where they think the ToE comes from. It sounds as if Philip believes that publicisers of the ToE are evil. Does that mean the ToE itself is evil? If so, are the humans involved swayed by the devil or have they just strayed?I personally believe that the ToE came about and is still around today because it is the best explanation of all the species in the world from the scientific evidence we have. I see no other reasons for its emergence, because it doesn't do anyone any favours (its not nice to think that humans have no purpose). I do not think that it is intrinsically evil.P.S. Why *all* the *stars*?This message has been edited by Whirlwind, 15-11-2005 05:54 PM

Well, Henry Morris, founder of the ICR, has seriously suggested that evolution originated with Satan, meeting with Nimrod and his priests, at the Tower of Babel: I pulled this text from this website:The Alternative to Creation and Evolution:but I've read the original text. One of my first exposures to Creationism. Funny how I tend to think of creationism as religiously motivated anti-science.

Why? Admittedly, many YECs are suspicious of science authority as making false generalizations of evolution (i.e., when applying Evo-scientific methodology to quarks, universes, first-causes, *punctuated* evo-mutants, etc.) but "anti-science" ... seems false to me.I concede, however, that Morris here seems *overly-intrigued* with zany *Satanic* speculations (perhaps a fad of the late 80's) than historical etiologies (i.e., Darwin, Huxley, etc.) or even scriptural etiologies (i.e., Hebrews 11.3 Romans 1.21-28 (above)) ... of the mega-ToE.But many X-tian YECS seem to strongly agree that ToE-ism insidiously and irreverently became an ungodly *way-of-life* (science?) as per Romans 1.21-28.

Thanks for your patient reply. This is off-topic, WW, so I'll be brief.That word *vegetative* is a tentative word only, WW (because my vocab sucks). I'm concerned that the natural academy of science is against the teaching of1) spiritual influences in persons,
2) ID (see the Kansas news)
3) theistic beneficience upon creatures and creation,
4) Eternal Salvation for us losers, etc.... as if we're all *scientifically* on the same level as tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, slime, quarks, *sub-quarks* (oops), ... and totally lacking intelligence (...not being intelligently designed and all).(NOTE: I apologize to WW, Admins, and lurkers for getting off-topic for WW's sake. This post needs no response...)

Some corrections Not sure what's "natural academy ...". Perhaps it should be "national academy of science." The objection is to teaching these in the science class. If they are taught in philosophy or religion classes, the national academy would have nothing to say on that.