Pantera

Even in the US creationists are a minority of Christians - worldwide they represent an insignificant minority of Christians. So given that, I actually find it a little surprising that more Christians don't take an interest in the debate. I can't recall ever having a Christian on the site who was willing to defend evolution (as opposed to just saying "I accept it" and changing the subject) - the closest we had was Thunder, an OEC who was strongly critical of YEC. Of course, Christians on an atheist board are probably going to be more interested in discussing the things they disagree with the atheists on, which is fair enough I suppose, but even on the Christian boards I've visited, Christians who bother to refute the lists of YEC "proofs" lifted from Hovind's site often seem pretty thin on the ground.

So why do you think this is? You say Christians have nothing to prove by discussing it, but my interest in the subject doesn't have much to do with atheism. I don't think the fact of evolution represents particularly strong evidence against Christianity, let alone theism in general. My interest is more to do with correcting ignorance in general, and particulatly with ensuring that a whole generation of schoolchildren don't end up growing up thinking that science if a religion and that "theory" means "wild guess", which would be disastrous for science education in this country. (Additionally of course, it is imposible to teach biology to any meaningful level without teaching evolution, any more than you can teach chemistry without teaching atomic theory.) I think probably a majority (though not all) of the E/C regulars would probably agree with me. So, do these issues not matter to Christians? Shouldn't a Christian care about accuracy and good science as much as the most ardent materialist?

Additionally, aren't you worried that the nonsense spewed by Hovind and his ilk reflects badly on all Christians? Wouldn't it be "good PR" if more Christians made a point of standing up and showing that not all of you are gullible enoug to fall for such nonsense?

Dr Rick

This must be a most difficult position to hold.

Basic Christian tenets include original sin: the idea that all of humanity is "born into sin" as a result of our most ancient ancestors making poor choices when it comes to selecting fruit and listening to the advice of talking snakes. They also include the possibility of salvation through the torture death of a complete innocent. However, the story of Adam and Eve is not compatible with evolution, and without their existance the whole story of how humanity fell from God's grace collapses. If there was no original sin, there was no need for Christ to die for it.

Photocrat

How difficult is it to say that Genesis is like a parable? That is, that it is meaningful, but not in a literal way?

This is where you need to cite other theologians than your local 'fire & brimstone fundamentalist' when you want to discuss this--that sort of thing won't get you very far in a discussion with Christians [as you may have observed by now...] especially so long as it contains that atheist slant.

Why not discuss the idea that the Genesis creation story was a myth 'turned on its head' into a polemic? Why not ask what species of tree bears the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" -- or ask if Jesus was literally a vine and we literally branches... [okay, maybe you have & it died out with the Leviathan in Job, or something... ;] Why not think of Jesus sacrifice as a necessary expression of solidarity, to make God and His ultimate values understood to us (e.g. 'some things are worth dying for' being proven to be more than rhetoric)?

Ummm, do you see what I'm driving at here? The minute you come down on them like that, you might as well have stuffed earplugs in their ears. OTOH, I'm sure that you have a lot of very sincere people praying for your conversion by now :]

As you might have said, why just say 'hahaha, come back when you learn more about evoltion' when you can work to convince them that it doesn't necessarily disprove their religion & that you're not some "evil atheist" with an axe to grind?

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Photocrat ]</p>

Photocrat

Fundamentalism, from which we derive most of the 'resistance' as it were, is pretty much a USA thing; though I understand that it reaches farther than that by now. Ask some Brits about it, if you care to--I remember something about Darwin being put on the pound notes there; one of the requirements for that being that the figure be "uncontroversial" ...

Frankly, most who consider themselves christians [according to polls] cannot tell you basic things about their religion.

Ask a church group how many of them believe in 'YHWH' sometime for enlightening results :] You'll get a blank stare out of most everyone but clergymen [note that Jehovah's Witnesses do not count in terms of this discussion--they stick to a now repudiated notion of the pronunciation; the Masoretes added those vowels to tell the reader to read it as 'Adonai' instead of pronouncing the sacred name of the Lord (YHWH--Latin uses 'J' to represent 'Y' sounds & 'V' to represent 'W's); which is also why you can tell who is Jewish online--they say 'G-d']

I know one Catholic who spent years in CCD who could not tell me who wrote most of the Bible [e.g. Paul]. According to him, "it just went in one ear and out the other."

The point of all this? I would question the number of average folks who do not believe in evolution and yet who are educated enough to know much of anything about it. In other words, I don't think that there's enough support behind the anti-evolutionists to effectively legislate their beliefs, nor do I see how they could grow large enough to. Given how marginalized they are, I do not think that they could ever actually wield the power of the conservative right enough to do such a thing. That is not to say that other elements of the conservative agenda will never go forward, however...

Last I was aware, the Pope proclaimed something that was interpreted as more than a little in support of evolution [not to mention the allegorical interpretation of the Genesis cosmogony]? It's possible that this is mistaken, as I've only heard it second hand [I don't read that much Latin, sorry!] and am protestant, anyhow [not that I have any axe to grind against Rome, either]

In any event, I cannot claim any special proficiency in terms of evolution--certainly nothing more than a group of doctors & geneticists like you have here. I mean, most of my ability to understand it comes from my background in the other areas which I add to the rudimentary understanding of biology I have [namely, the cell process table, genetics, anatomy, a bit of organic chemistry, entomology ... nothing impressive] That is, I can make sense of your arguements & see that you're being reasonable, but I cannot really write my own without rewriting something I read somewhere.

The best I could do is with that silly old arguement over the 'information' in our DNA ... I've studied digital compression techniques (lossless & lossy) so I know that a random string contains the most information; certainly nothing which 'shatters' the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... [which isn't exactly relevant in this context, anyhow ...] I also realize that you're well aware of that, as I remember seeing someone discuss that here. Oh yeah, I could probably also argue over carbon dating [that it works], FWIW. I'm merely an informed citizen, not an expert. If you wanted to talk about computer security or something, however... :]

I do not believe that fundamentalism as you know it can survive indefinately. Eventually, something they take too literally will get disproven [moreso than is the case already] and, well ... you know about survival of the fittest I should think :]

The last time something like this happened [prohibition], they shot themselves in the foot, actually. I do not mean to say that you should try to get an anti-evolution bill passed just to see that happen, however...

*ahem* Of course, there was also the Scopes trial... Every such blow takes its toll, you know.

I thought I just did?

It's not like it's the first time I've mentioned that I believe in evolution on these boards, either... I'm not the only Christian here who believes in evolution, either--I know that Meta, for one, also does, though he's more of a "liberal arts" kind of person :] Bede also believe in evolution, IIRC. There are probably several others, but it's not like I've taken a poll, you know... :] FWIW, we even get along with the other Christians who don't believe in evolution, SFAIK.

However, all I can do for you in the way of arguement is to attest to the fact that it's valid science and prove that I understand what you're saying. If that's what you want, you have it right here.

Scrutinizer

Pantera,

Speaking from my personal perspective, I'm not much of a science-type. If I were more well-versed in science, I'm sure I would be more than happy to jump in and defend evolution. As it is, my ignorance on the whole subject is astounding.

When I'm talking to creationists, I simply say that I believe in evolution because it has the consensus of scientists. I'm sorry that I can't go further than that.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Dr Rick

Okay.

What do you mean by "athiest slant?" As an athiest, one could argue that everything I believe has an athiest slant, just as one could argue that everything you believe has a "Christian" slant. Such labeling hardly constitutes an enlightened exchange of views. The flaw here is that the perspective of the discussants should not be an issue, nor should one have to hold or be devoid of a particular belief to discuss related or opposing views.

Go ahead...present your evidence that this is so and that we shouldn't just reject the whole bizzare story in favor of that for which we have much evidence: the naturalistic view and evolution.

This makes me feel quite silly, but if you think it will help win your argument, here it goes: "What species of tree bears the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Ditto, only more so: we are literally humans, though in a parable we could be figuratively referred to as "branches."

So was there an original sin that caused our fall from grace? If not, how is it that we are all "born into sin" from which we can be "saved" through Jesus? These assertions are an essential component of Christian teachings; any theology that denies these beliefs is something other than Christianity.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

daemon

The problem here is that the average person is not educated well enough to understand that evolution is the only seriously discussed theory of biological diversity in science as well as why that is the case. Furthermore, the majority of people in the US are Christian, and it does not seem too long a reach to assume that someone is more likely to be swayed by religious beliefs than scientific theories. Thus we arrive at a situation where, while the majority still does not believe in creationism ueber alles, an increasing number of persuasive creationists is a threatening indicator of things to come.
This is not entirely accurate--the Pope declared that evolution is not incompatible with Catholic beliefs, but he in no way endorsed evolution. Creationism is still found among Catholics as the Church has made no ruling in regards to evolution's correctness or even likelihood. This is mostly a nitpick, though, as his statement certainly makes evolution at least an acceptable theory for Catholics.

This is the ironic quality of fundamentalism, however, and actually is attributed to its growth--fundamentalism is on the rise in the US. The more a fundamentalist pillar of belief is attacked, the stronger the perception among fundamentalists that their belief is correct.

Thankfully, all theists are not fundamentalists, but I think we'll likely continue to see increasing numbers of fundamentalists in the future, especially as mainstream religion becomes more ecumenical.

diana

Dr Rick,

What do you mean by "athiest slant?" As an athiest, one could argue that everything I believe has an athiest slant, just as one could argue that everything you believe has a "Christian" slant.

If you're going to say "athiest," it would be only fair to say "Christain."

d

Dr Rick

oh...damn; here I am correcting someone's English in this thread and I can't even spell...

Photocrat

The tone of "They also include the possibility of salvation through the torture death of a complete innocent" came off wrong. Upon rereading it, it's not quite so bad as it seemed, though. I myself make this mistake all too often, too.

You cannot always deal rationally with irrational people.

Eh? That's a rhetorical question. I should think that issues like those clearly indicate that the text is meant to be understood in a symbolic way... Don't you? Okay, maybe someone would try to convince you it was some relative of Robinia pseudoacacia, but I just don't find that reasonable.

Not really. To say that a story is a parable does not deny that it tells us *some* truth--in fact, they're used as teaching devices to explain hard to understand things in simpler terms. It's just that the truths they tell us are the morals of the story; not some sequence of literal events (e.g. it would be improper to reason from them that they really imply that the earth came to be 6000 years or so ago)

After shooting themselves in the foot as has happened in the past, everyone realizes how silly this is, the damage is repaired, they fade back even more & life goes on. At least, that's what history tells us.

Yeah, that's what I thought he did. But I could've sworn that I remembered hearing of some statement to the effect of "there may be something to this theory."

I'm also quite sure that he's not willing to divide the RCC over this, which is why he wasn't more forthright. OTOH, I don't know if you realize how big a victory for you this is--merely by making it acceptable, he's removed a huge hurdle from your path.

Which is why you should strive not to come off as an enemy... The "evil atheist" [yes, I can spell, but my right fingers type faster than the left ones; hence the typos! :] perception is what kills your arguements; not some lack of proof.

As mainstream religion becomes more ecumenical, they are likely to be further marginalized; yet they may be more likely to have contact with chrisitans who do not believe evolution to be a threat to their faith. That will more likely convince them than your best rant on something like the extensive similarities among organelles in various species & how rock solid that evidence is ... :]

Sorry, I snipped a couple things, I know. I don't have time to do them justice, right now.