Separating Evolution from Atheism

[Michelle]

If Jon were doing videos promoting Mormonism, or videos promoting Islam would you be in favor of encouraging him in this also?

I would be interested in watching videos Jon made promoting Mormonism or Islam, but I probably would not be encouraging him or wishing him luck with his fundraising.

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

[jriccitelli]

I would put evolution in the same category as Islam and Mormonism, except for the fact that there is 'more reason' to believe in Joseph Smith and Mohamed than to believe in Evolution. All three are based on falsehood.

I would warn Jon that promoting something false will incur Judgment akin to being a false prophet (Sorry, that is what the Creator says). I have long incurred fear for those who promote falsehood in light of Gods warnings strictly against such. I would rather warn someone about something that God warns against.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is often seen by Christians as a doctrine of Atheism (Jon)

Jon does not seem to be able to see that picking the best products off a shelf (Natural Selection) does not cause them to be.
Jon does not seem to understand Christianity is based on ‘the God who does all these things’ (Isaiah 45:7). Belief in a God throughout all ages and religions is based on the observation that ‘there must be a God(s) since there is a Creation’. The God of Christianity is ‘The Creator’ (not someone standing by hoping something will develop. What is the point in this kind of god?)
So, of course religionists would think you are promoting atheism, because the god you promote does not exist along the one who did Create. You are saying then that all the beautiful works around us are not the works of God, rather it is of chance. We see Gods craftsmanship and super fantastic ability and intellect in the designs around us. Are you thinking flowers, horses, strawberries, children, and the beautiful parrot on your shoulder were ‘not’ the ideas of an amazing artist, rather just chance.

Evolution says nothing about God or religion (Jon)

True, it says nothing about God, yet Creation declares 'there is' a Creator. Evolution says all the beautiful creation is ‘not’ from the mind of a Creator.

It simply explains how biology works (Jon)

Evolution is ‘not’ how biology works, this is how design works.
(And note; there is absolutely nothing ‘simple’ about creating life, which reveals just how wrong the theory is)

Jon, Again;
1. Adaptation (not evolution) is built into the design (DNA).
2. Just because things ‘look alike’ does not mean they evolved, it means they had the same designer.

[Ian]

there is 'more reason' to believe in Joseph Smith and Mohamed than to believe in Evolution.

You can be incisively witty sometimes, JR.

Even if militant evolutionists were able to convince all Christians that evolution is true, it wouldn`t stop there. Intelligent Design would have to be totally discredited then tossed fully out too, and that`s where some of us start to get indignant. So often when some new discovery is made about the animal kingdom, evolution is mentioned in the text as the explanation, without a shred of evidence that this is the cause. It`s a given. And anyone who doesn`t swallow evolution by blind chance is ridiculed as a Middle Age/naiive idiot. God must indeed be offended and I think JR`s last post is pertinent.

[mattrose]

I think the terms 'false prophet' and 'false teacher'... since we're clearly using them b/c of their biblical usage... should be used in their biblical way. They should apply to people presenting false prophecies and false teachings about God. Jon has specifically said that his videos are meant to be neutral on the question of God.

What's more, Jon clearly believes in evolution. He is not purposefully trying to deceive anyone, which, I think, is most often part of the connotation of a 'false' prophet/teacher.

I don't believe in Darwinian evolution, but I also think we should reserve labels like 'false prophet' and 'false teacher' for those to whom they apply most directly. When somebody takes the time to put together a high quality resource supporting a view they think is true... that is not a bad thing (even if the view is false!). It is GOOD to have well-made resources SO THAT the truth/falsity of the belief can be rightly discussed.

[jriccitelli]

Matt, quickly I will note i was thinking of the warnings of promoting falsehood and lying in the Law. Bearing false testimony and such, do a word search on false and such. I noted I felt God's judgment on participating in art that is disrespectful. I fear Hawkings, Sagan, Dawkins and such will incur a very heavy penalty for promoting their theories wittingly or not. We are told to be weary as teachers and leading others astray. It is up to Jon to discern the warnings in scripture for himself, I have a terrible feeling about this, I'm just saying we've been warned, we decide how much we want to participate.

[SteveF]

JR wrote:

"I would put evolution in the same category as Islam and would put evolution in the same category as Islam and Mormonism, except for the fact that there is 'more reason' to believe in Joseph Smith and Mohamed than to believe in Evolution. All three are based on falsehood. , except for the fact that there is 'more reason' to believe in Joseph Smith and Mohamed than to believe in Evolution. All three are based on falsehood."


JR, I think we need to be watchful that our rhetoric and level of dogmatism doesn't rival that of Joseph Smith's.

[Michelle]

And anyone who doesn`t swallow evolution by blind chance is ridiculed as a Middle Age/naiive idiot. God must indeed be offended and I think JR`s last post is pertinent.

I see your point, Ian, that often Christian creationists are mocked and called ignorant. Honestly, I didn't get that from Jon's videos. He stated that he and his team endeavor to use religiously neutral terms. Even if he can't completely pull it off, I appreciate his attempt to do so.

Michelle

[jriccitelli]

Steve F, is there some lack of dogmatism here on this forum that only I can fill? Do I have a monopoly here on rhetoric?

If I made a list of arguments used in support of Islam and Joe Smith it would be a handful. If I had a list of good arguments refuting them it would be in the tens for Islam, and a hundred or so refuting Smithism. But in defense of evolution I see evolutionists propelling 2-3 'points' opposed to the zillion facts of design in Creation, and millions of ‘different’ species as good arguments for design in Creation.

[backwoodsman]

The forum says Jon hasn't logged in since he started this thread. Does anyone know if something might've happened to him?

[morbo3000]

I agree about Jon's videos. They are good.

When he says he is trying to separate evolution from atheism, he is differentiating between the *methodology* of naturalism necessary for scientific inquiry and the *philosophy* of naturalism that atheists take to explain things that can't be tested by science.

The scientific method requires the assumption that the subject you are trying to study has a naturalistic explanation. This requires the removal of "miracles" from the explanation of your subject. If you don't do this, when you encounter something you don't understand (like the motion of heavenly bodies) you'll pull the "miracle" card.

This doesn't mean that playing the "miracle" card is unreasonable. It is simply not scientific (by definition.)

Atheists take the *methodology* of naturalism a step further and turn it into a philosophy. The *methodology* of science cannot state that *everything* that has ever occurred has a natural cause. That's a *philosophy*. It assumes that anything that will be experienced in the future (which is unobservable) will have a natural explanation. And that everything that happens outside our field of observation (say a distant planet in another galaxy) will have a natural explanation. The bottom line is, we can't know, and we never will. So that statement goes beyond "science." You could say the atheist is playing the "miracle" card. Because the creation of the universe is supra-natural. There is nothing in nature that can explain spontaneous creation.

All scientists are (must be) methodological naturalists. Because that's what science is.
However, not all evolutionary scientists are philosophical naturalists. (atheists.) That's the point Jon is trying to make.

Evolution is the best *naturalistic* explanation for the origin of species we have. A supernatural explanation may be better. But in order for it to be scientific, it has to be naturalistic.