Double Standards Hobble Atheists and Evolutionists
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
An aspect of discussions, debates, or even everyday life that can get almost anyone on the prod is when someone says or acts like something is all right for them but not for someone else. This can be referred to as special pleading, but a broader term is double standards. I reckon that we all have double standards to some extent, but Christians and biblical creationists need to be careful to minimize them, especially in apologetics encounters.
We hear that reports of "hate crimes" are increasing lately. No kidding, Sherlock! The category did not even exist a few years ago. (It is also a stupid designation. Someone once asked, "Ever hear of a love crime?" It requires the ability to know what is in the hearts and minds of the perpetrators to determine a hate crime.) If there is a complaint by a woman, a homosexual, an ethnic minority in the favored status of the left, it gets a large amount of attention. We don't hear much about how "hate crimes" turn out to be fake.
Actor Jusse Smollet faked a hate crime that kept the Chicago police busy for quite a while. After it was determined that the crime never happened, he was indicted. Amazingly, the charges were dropped. Is it because he is a homosexual and black? We may never know, but the suspicions remain.
Interesting that large-scale murders of Christians go mostly unreported.
I normally try to keep political things to a minimum in these posts and articles, but I wanted to show how double standards are rampant in political areas. Especially from leftists.
As usual, he sang from the sheet music of the Atheist Tabernacle Choir. One of their favorite stanzas is about how there are bad people who profess to be Christians, therefore, there is no God. (This is a version of the problem of evil; "How can a loving God allow...?") I have seen atheists and anti-creationists demonize Christians and creationists by pointing out adulterous preachers, embezzlers, weirdos who let their children die because they believe in healing by faith (or somesuch). Meanwhile, those religious folk who willfully indulged in sin as well as other bad things done by the church were claiming the Bible is true, but not living like it: a double standard. Unbelievers have also taken the bit in their teeth over something said or written that they disliked, but personal their personal preferences do not constitute valid arguments.
Christians show that the greatest mass murderers in history have been in the atheist spectrum: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (his pantheism could qualify his as essentially being an atheist), and others. Special pleading is engaged with remarks like, "They didn't say, 'I'm killing people in the name of atheism!'" They hated God and his people, seeking to either eradicate Christianity (and other religions, but mostly Christianity) or subjugate it for their own purposes. Atheists have no consistent moral standard that would give them pause in their atrocities. While it is true that many professing Christians do rotten things, there is a difference: they are not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.
The Norwegian terrorist is a social Darwinist, and one of the Columbine murderers wore a shirt that said "Natural Selection", which was consistent with his Nazi influences and hatred of humanity as a whole. Their worldviews made them de facto atheists. Evolution is being force-fed to students in those Western indoctrination centers known as schools. When kids are being taught that there is no Creator, life is by chance, there is no purpose, no final Judgement, no ultimate justice, they are just animals, when you die you're worm food — honestly, what kind of behavior do you expect from them?
Referring to the evolutionary view of origins (which is both historical and metaphysical) as "science" while suppressing evidence for creation is contrary to the goal of real science. The double standard can be seen when biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are bushwhacked by the secular science industry and the science press, and it is extremely difficult for these scientists to have papers accepted for major scientific journals and for peer review. Creationists had to establish their own peer-reviewed journals. Yes, some creationists are published in scientific journals, but evidence for the Genesis Flood or recent creation is allowed in them.
Dr. Jason Lisle publishes the occasional exchange between naysayers and himself. One featured Colin, an atheist who had the focus of a ball bearing in a blender. He began with his uninformed complaints that the Bible is unreliable and erroneous. Whenever Dr. Lisle challenged his remarks with the truth, he would change the subject. Sometimes he would resort to personal attacks. (I would have banned a jasper like this early on, but then, I am not a scientist and have a day job.) The discussion soon turned to evolution, since that is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism.
We need to ride down a side trail for a moment. One blatant example of special pleading is when atheists only use a narrow definition of religion so they can dispute those of us who use logic, philosophy, current events, and the courts who have defined atheism as a religion. Here, the rulings are considered ridiculous, but they hail the Kitzmiller v Dover caricature of law as a brilliant ruling, even though it is only binding on a local scale.
Okay, we're back. Colin the atheist made assertions about origins and had accusations against Lisle's qualifications as a scientist. (We see this repeatedly: when they cannot prevail, atheists and leftists resort to ad hominem, ridicule, red herring, genetic, straw man, and other fallacies. Oh, and appeal to motive. They adore that one!) Colin had a prairie schooner-full of fallacies and used dreadful thinking. It's rather long but worth the read. See "More on the Bible’s Historicity".
When reading the popular science reports, it is easy to see that evolutionists are presenting incomplete research, conjectures, fudge factors, and speculations as actual science. Variations and simple changes are conflated with evolution, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© grab this stuff and troll creationists using a "Gotcha!" attitude.
I'll allow that there are some areas where creation science needs more work. Scientists do not have all the answers, I don't care what they use for their starting presuppositions; it's the nature of science itself, old son. A favorite "Gotcha!" of materialists is the distant starlight "problem, which is under development by creation astronomers and physicists. Ironically, their "smoking gun" against creationists is saturated with bad science and insurmountable problems. Atheistic and evolutionary "reasoning" concludes that since they have no answers to areas of difficulties, we cannot know either, so there is no Creator.
I have seen and experienced tinhorns who actually believe it is their duty to protect the world from the evils of biblical creationists! They claim to believe in free speech, but seek to have ours suppressed. If not through legislation, then through social media complaints, email spam campaigns, and so on. Their shooting irons are loaded with defamation, misrepresentation, ridicule, and recruiting others to join in. Why? Because they are "right" and "tell the truth"; the end justifies the means. Well, those tyrants listed above thought the same things (Jer. 17:9, Rom. 1:21, Matt. 12:35, Isaiah 64:6).
William Lane Craig is supposedly known for defending the Resurrection of Jesus, but then he blatantly misrepresents biblical creationists. Hugh Ross has some strange views that involve both the twisting of Scripture and of misuse of science. A dodgy theistic evolutionist associated with the anti-creationist group Biologos contacted one of my Fazebook Pages and wanted to set both a creationist scientist and me straight on a few things.
These sidewinders actually claim that biblical creationists are hindering the gospel message, but that is the opposite of the truth. If you ponder it a bit, it is absurd to believe someone who claims to believe the Bible and then tells you that some sections need interpretation through atheistic science filters Such approaches are hidden reefs for the faith of Christians as well. Two standards, no waiting. For a related article, see "The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists".
Atheists, evolutionists, and religious compromisers all need to humble themselves and repent.
Political Double Standards
We see examples of "fine for me but not for you" in political situations, especially from those on the left. When Judge Brett Kavanaugh was being confirmed as a US Supreme Court justice, some women accused him of sexual misconduct from a previous decade. Although their stories had no substantiation, Americans were told to "believe the women". Why? Because they were women? Genetic fallacy. The blatant hypocrisy in this is that a Moslem, Keith Ellison, was accused of sexual abuse by women in recent history, and these were swept away even though they had evidence. (He eventually resigned.) The same thing happened when Bill Clinton was running for president, and his accusers were made to go away in one manner or another.We hear that reports of "hate crimes" are increasing lately. No kidding, Sherlock! The category did not even exist a few years ago. (It is also a stupid designation. Someone once asked, "Ever hear of a love crime?" It requires the ability to know what is in the hearts and minds of the perpetrators to determine a hate crime.) If there is a complaint by a woman, a homosexual, an ethnic minority in the favored status of the left, it gets a large amount of attention. We don't hear much about how "hate crimes" turn out to be fake.
Actor Jusse Smollet faked a hate crime that kept the Chicago police busy for quite a while. After it was determined that the crime never happened, he was indicted. Amazingly, the charges were dropped. Is it because he is a homosexual and black? We may never know, but the suspicions remain.
Interesting that large-scale murders of Christians go mostly unreported.
I normally try to keep political things to a minimum in these posts and articles, but I wanted to show how double standards are rampant in political areas. Especially from leftists.
Atheist Double Standards
Not long ago, I purchased a video download by Ray Comfort called The Angry Atheist, which should be available for public viewing in a few weeks. Mr. Comfort was street preaching again. One particular atheist hated God more than many that I have seen and encountered and argued loudly with him.As usual, he sang from the sheet music of the Atheist Tabernacle Choir. One of their favorite stanzas is about how there are bad people who profess to be Christians, therefore, there is no God. (This is a version of the problem of evil; "How can a loving God allow...?") I have seen atheists and anti-creationists demonize Christians and creationists by pointing out adulterous preachers, embezzlers, weirdos who let their children die because they believe in healing by faith (or somesuch). Meanwhile, those religious folk who willfully indulged in sin as well as other bad things done by the church were claiming the Bible is true, but not living like it: a double standard. Unbelievers have also taken the bit in their teeth over something said or written that they disliked, but personal their personal preferences do not constitute valid arguments.
Christians show that the greatest mass murderers in history have been in the atheist spectrum: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (his pantheism could qualify his as essentially being an atheist), and others. Special pleading is engaged with remarks like, "They didn't say, 'I'm killing people in the name of atheism!'" They hated God and his people, seeking to either eradicate Christianity (and other religions, but mostly Christianity) or subjugate it for their own purposes. Atheists have no consistent moral standard that would give them pause in their atrocities. While it is true that many professing Christians do rotten things, there is a difference: they are not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.
Darwinist Double Standards
Evolution is not simply an academic discussion about biology and origins. Social Darwinism has given us eugenics, abortion, and a host of other evils. Indeed, Darwin's ideas have been applied to Nazism, Communism, Socialism, "scientific" racism, and a host of other evils.The Norwegian terrorist is a social Darwinist, and one of the Columbine murderers wore a shirt that said "Natural Selection", which was consistent with his Nazi influences and hatred of humanity as a whole. Their worldviews made them de facto atheists. Evolution is being force-fed to students in those Western indoctrination centers known as schools. When kids are being taught that there is no Creator, life is by chance, there is no purpose, no final Judgement, no ultimate justice, they are just animals, when you die you're worm food — honestly, what kind of behavior do you expect from them?
Referring to the evolutionary view of origins (which is both historical and metaphysical) as "science" while suppressing evidence for creation is contrary to the goal of real science. The double standard can be seen when biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are bushwhacked by the secular science industry and the science press, and it is extremely difficult for these scientists to have papers accepted for major scientific journals and for peer review. Creationists had to establish their own peer-reviewed journals. Yes, some creationists are published in scientific journals, but evidence for the Genesis Flood or recent creation is allowed in them.
We need to ride down a side trail for a moment. One blatant example of special pleading is when atheists only use a narrow definition of religion so they can dispute those of us who use logic, philosophy, current events, and the courts who have defined atheism as a religion. Here, the rulings are considered ridiculous, but they hail the Kitzmiller v Dover caricature of law as a brilliant ruling, even though it is only binding on a local scale.
Okay, we're back. Colin the atheist made assertions about origins and had accusations against Lisle's qualifications as a scientist. (We see this repeatedly: when they cannot prevail, atheists and leftists resort to ad hominem, ridicule, red herring, genetic, straw man, and other fallacies. Oh, and appeal to motive. They adore that one!) Colin had a prairie schooner-full of fallacies and used dreadful thinking. It's rather long but worth the read. See "More on the Bible’s Historicity".
When reading the popular science reports, it is easy to see that evolutionists are presenting incomplete research, conjectures, fudge factors, and speculations as actual science. Variations and simple changes are conflated with evolution, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© grab this stuff and troll creationists using a "Gotcha!" attitude.I'll allow that there are some areas where creation science needs more work. Scientists do not have all the answers, I don't care what they use for their starting presuppositions; it's the nature of science itself, old son. A favorite "Gotcha!" of materialists is the distant starlight "problem, which is under development by creation astronomers and physicists. Ironically, their "smoking gun" against creationists is saturated with bad science and insurmountable problems. Atheistic and evolutionary "reasoning" concludes that since they have no answers to areas of difficulties, we cannot know either, so there is no Creator.
I have seen and experienced tinhorns who actually believe it is their duty to protect the world from the evils of biblical creationists! They claim to believe in free speech, but seek to have ours suppressed. If not through legislation, then through social media complaints, email spam campaigns, and so on. Their shooting irons are loaded with defamation, misrepresentation, ridicule, and recruiting others to join in. Why? Because they are "right" and "tell the truth"; the end justifies the means. Well, those tyrants listed above thought the same things (Jer. 17:9, Rom. 1:21, Matt. 12:35, Isaiah 64:6).
Old-Earth and Theistic Evolution Double Standards
One of the purposes of apologetics is to show that the Bible is true and that we can trust it for our salvation and in all subjects that it touches on — including science. Theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists accept atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence and science philosophies, then subjugate the Bible to those views.William Lane Craig is supposedly known for defending the Resurrection of Jesus, but then he blatantly misrepresents biblical creationists. Hugh Ross has some strange views that involve both the twisting of Scripture and of misuse of science. A dodgy theistic evolutionist associated with the anti-creationist group Biologos contacted one of my Fazebook Pages and wanted to set both a creationist scientist and me straight on a few things.
These sidewinders actually claim that biblical creationists are hindering the gospel message, but that is the opposite of the truth. If you ponder it a bit, it is absurd to believe someone who claims to believe the Bible and then tells you that some sections need interpretation through atheistic science filters Such approaches are hidden reefs for the faith of Christians as well. Two standards, no waiting. For a related article, see "The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists".
Atheists, evolutionists, and religious compromisers all need to humble themselves and repent.