Do Creationists really believe that 'evolutionists' lack morals?

Question

I just a read a few articles on a creationist website ( http://creationism.org ) that suggests that anyone with 'belief' in evolution has a 'survival of the fittest' outlook on life and therefor only looks out for themself.

How can you people think that morals and conscence require adherement to religion?

Faith Walker: That's BS I'm afraid, Darwin never wrote such a thing and he was already a Christian.

Anyone who dismisses proof of evolution is kidding themselves. They are the ones who are immoral in the fact that they would prefer everyone to believe scripture as 'truth' rather than accepting the answers in front of their eyes.

And I'm sorry but believing that God is the 'truth' is a personal thing. Just because I don't believe in God that doesn't mean I'm inherently selfish.

Answer 1

Absolutely. The question is: "Do they believe evolutionists exist?" They coined the term and spew a lot of rhetoric, but in all my training in biology, I am yet to have met an evolutionist. The fact they believe in literal interpretation of the Bible and use pseudoscience to defend weakens the ground they stand on. They created a fictional enemy that would believe in literal interpretation of Origin of Species and would use pseudoscience to defend it. Since geneticists aren't out to prove evolution, but rather, seek understanding of human disease, and keep proving evolution in the process, they make lousy targets. As a result, they group cosmologists into "evolutionists" and they accuse them of trying to "destroy" God.
The theory of evolution has expanded to include altruism, which allows for morality within groups, but that fact is incompatible with Creationist rhetoric. Of course, lies and deceptions to defend the literal interpretation aren't immoral.

Answer 2

They realise that they no longer have a monopoly on 'truth' so they are really trying to push the monopoly they once had on 'ethics'. They do this through simple character assassination and straw-man arguments.

As the theist 'invents' his vision of God, the afterlife and human origins, he is unable to realise that the rational person makes a distinction between 'how life is' and 'how life ought to be'. For someone with no interest in proof or ways to back up his claims, he forces the world to fit his ideals of 'how the world ought to be'.

It's ridiculous to say that the scientific observation that animals in nature can be quite ruthless is equal to the moral statement that ruthlessness is good. Mud-slinging creationsist, in their heart, know this too - it's the open-minded person in the middle that they're focusing on - the one who might realise, given the opportunity, that evolution is real and that you can be a moral person without being a quasi-hysterical creationist. These people need to be subjected to enough anti-scientific propaganda that sooner or later they will give up all attempts at rational thought and just passively accept whatever their church spoon-feeds them.

If not, then the Church goes the way of the dodo.

Answer 3

i develop into bout to type that i have not considered human beings calling non-evolutionists stupid, yet realized that that develop into no longer authentic. on the different hand, once you've been following R&S adequate you may have considered fairly some questions and solutions from both area that do not inspire self assurance in the present academic equipment. I have a tendency to believe that in preserving with the vast majority of Christian's statements about evolution, that maximum of them have not pursued the sciences previous intense college, nor are prepared to do any style of diagnosis previous "Creationist pseudo technology" web content. So no, i for my section do not call both area stupid, yet there is an inclination for Christians to be woefully uneducated in the sciences and unusually gullible even as it contains what some Creationists pawn off as technology. Edit: no longer fairly particular about your use of the note "candor" and what it might want to ought to do with assessing some one's cognitive skill.

Answer 4

So, some people will say anything that they think is necessary if they feel that might influence one person. When I was a young kid our teacher had us all count our ribs and the class came to the consensus that boys had one rib less than girls. Many years later, watching Cold Case Files, it came to light that even doctors can't tell the sex of a skeleton by the number of ribs...we all have the same number of ribs.

Answer 5

Morality requires adherence to absolute Truth. Since evolutionists practice a religion that has no absolute Truth, or source of authority, they do what is right in their own eyes. That is not righteousness, but self-righteousness, and that is not morality. Everyone is born with some realization of right and wrong, however, so I do not question whether evolutionists have a concience, but whether they serve their own desires and flesh. Religion is not important, but knowing Truth, and thus knowing God and obeying Him is.

Answer 6

morals themselves are not dictated by religion. I don't think an atheist is any less moral than I am and I am a Christian. I simply think they lack faith in God. Each to his own.

Answer 7

It's just one of the many ridiculous arguments put forth by hardcore opponents of evolution.

Answer 8

The story about Darwin's deathbed conversion is a proven hoax.

Evolution is voodoo science that has no proof to support it.

Darwin has made a monkey out of all those evolutionists.

HA HA HA

Answer 9

you will need to have surviival of the fittest to surive because if all the holy wars the christians start

Answer 10

Keep in mind, too, that not all religions reject evolution. Buddhists embrace it; and we all know what awful morals those Buddhists have. ;)