To the creationists: do you think evolutionists have a motive in opposing creationism?

Question

Why do you think people believe in evolution? Choose one of the following:
a) Evolutionists just want to oppose religion. That's all. They'll try to find any reason to disprove Creationism, just for the sake of opposing religion.
b) Evolutionists truly believe that evolution is the way to go. They are not purposefully trying to opposing religion. They simply rely on what they observe -- whether that contradicts or supports religion, they don't care.

I ask this because some people seem to think there is a "conspiracy" going on, with evolutionists deliberately trying to fight religion. To those people I ask: what motive do we have in opposing religion? How would that benefit us? Heck, we'd be all thrilled if Creationism was really true -- it's not very flattering to know that your great great great ... grandfather wasn't human. What do we gain from opposing creationism? Money? nope. Fame? nope.

andromedasview@sbcgl…:
But creationists do have a possible motive: they may be influenced by religion. Some claim to be motivated purely by science, but there's always the possibility of religious influence.
On the other hand, evolution can ONLY be motivated by science. There's no other reason why anyone would choose to believe in it.

Answer 1

There is no conspiracy. Evolutionists do rely on what they observe. They see the similarites in genes, dna, and body structures. They also do not rely on what they cannot see. Sure, creationists can say that there's proof in literature (aka Bible) or the complexity of the human being. I thought of something the other day though. It does not matter what we believe. Whatever happens will happen. That's the great thing about science. We can only discover the facts, not create them.

Answer 2

First off, I'm an "evolutionist", but it's an awful word. It implies some sort of belief in the theory of evolution, which is not at all what science is about. There is evidence (mounds and mounds of it, in fact) that support it, which leads to the fact (along with lack of evidence for any competing theories) that it is how the natural world works. It doesn't require that anyone believe in it, because the forces that cause it will continue to work whether it's "believed" in by us mere mortal humans or not. That aside, I'll get more to the point...

I don't think that fundamentalist Christians (which are the loudest voice I hear protesting evolution) think people "believe" in evolution just for the sake of opposing religion. I think they are simply scared by what they perceive as a threat to their belief structure, which is absolutely absurd. Because they seem to think that the theory directly conflicts with their Scripture, and since they base their entire moral system on that same Scripture, that they can imply some sort of directly opposing moral system based on the theory. Not the case.

First, there is nothing stated directly about morality in any scientific endeavor. None, nada, etc. A scientist who bases his/her work on a belief system is probably not a very objective scientist, and the work will undoubtedly be disregarded by the majority of his/her peers.

Second, biology deals with the natural world...religion with the supernatural. Since any branch of science doesn't have the ability to rationally or logically deal with the supernatural, religion shouldn't feel at all threatened by developments in science.

Demonizing those who work in biology or teach evolution is not necessary. Claiming they are somehow immoral isn't necessary. The opposite is also true--it's not necessary to claim all fundamentalists stupid or foolish or uneducated because they don't "believe" in evolution. Saying the work is amoral is an absolute must, as I said before--that's the approach that is strived for when studying the natural world. But that doesn't mean the people who do the research are amoral, just that they take that approach in their work. Without it, we would still think that the sun revovles around the Earth, that lightning is the wrath of God (or a god), and we'd all still be reading slate boards by candle light.

Answer 3

Many non-scientists are surprised to learn that in fact, many "evolutionists" do believe in God. Scientists don't Believe in evolution, because evolution is based entirely on science, and not on faith. If ever there were any scientific data to oppose evolution, scientists would have no qualms about accepting the more qualified explanation and abandoning evolution. Many scientists feel that human beings have 2 kinds of birth, physical and spiritual. Evolution can explain the processes of our physical birth and origins, while only religion can account for our spiritual birth. Some believe, that this phenomenon of evolution is God's creation. It takes some flexibility about your interpretation of religious literature, but evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Answer 4

Hi,
I think that part of the reason for "evolution" being preferable to "Creation" is that with evolution there is no accountablility and a validation of "selfishness". This is generally put forward as the drive to reproduce your "own kind" at any cost. Religions generally focus more on on "moral" concepts rather than just survival.
"Evolutionists" in my opinion have just replaced the concept of a "moral God " with an "amoral "Force" that somehow produces increasing order and specialisation.
To me and most people who actually observe nature,
"living processes"are about the only things that produce order, except for various forms of "crystal growth".
One of the "laws of thermodynamics"states that "entropy"(disorder) increases.
So if you think about it the the evoulutionists have just created a new god called "Evolution" who doesn't require any accountability and promotes the "me first"concept.

Answer 5

No more of a motive than creationists have in opposing evolution. Read your own question, just switching the 2 words around. You'll see there's no difference in the "motivations" of the 2 schools of "thought".

Answer 6

The only reason needed for believing in evolution is that the evidence supports it. There is no evidence for creationism. Evolution is not "the way to go", it is "the way it went".

The truth is its own reward. Nobody should need to justify the pursuit of truth.

Science and religion are like two immiscible liquids. They don't occupy the same territory, regardless of how hard creationists try to make their theology seem like science. Science is concerned only with what can be (or seems like it ought to be able to be) observed. God is impossible to measure, therefore science can neither prove god exists, nor prove god doesn't exist. If it cannot be measured, science simply does not care about it.

However, science does care about creationists trying to brainwash people with bad science. Science is inherently self-correcting.

Answer 7

Your religion has a creation story that you like. Budhists have another, the Hindu's have another. Why is your story right? Why is your religion right and not theirs? There is probably a billion Hindus and another billion Budhists so more people beleive a different creation story then yours. Evolution is supported by observables. The evidence is found to be consistent no matter which creation story is popular in that area.

Answer 8

I have a real good book for you to read if you would like. It's called " Did man get hear by evolution or creation. " I will mail it to you or post office box free of charge. With no obligations.

Sincerely yours,
Fred M. Hunter
[e-mail]

Answer 9

"Evolutionists" oppose ignorance and stupidity. Such intelligent people want science, reason, and logic; and not dogma, taught in science classes in schools.

With more science, reason, and logic in classrooms, we wouldn't end up with stupid gits like these turkeys running the country:
Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo

Answer 10

The creationists need to wake up and smell the coffee; evolution is now a proven fact. (Details available on request.) In any event, creationism is useless: it can't predict anything.