Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[seanD]

Evolution doesn’t require apologetics. It is the key unifying theory that unites different branches of science, from cosmology to biology and recognized as such by 99% of earth and life scientists worldwide. The only objections are religion-based, not science-based



What supporters of ‘evolution are “trying to accomplish” is dispelling ignorance for the sake of the continuing advancement of knowledge. Are "pro-creation Christians" not open to reasonable, fact-based arguments?

How does a few naysayers who change and embrace a theory that explains where the origin of species came from advance higher knowledge or the study of ToE itself?

[Whag]

No he doesn't.

He seems only to be skeptical of evolutionary science, not an advocate for ID. Only theists advocate ID.

[lao tzu]

He seems only to be skeptical of evolutionary science, not an advocate for ID. Only theists advocate ID.

The Paranoid Style in American Science

Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute—a religious think tank that sponsors his work and promotes intelligent design—Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life. He describes his attitude towards ID as "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."

Because otherwise it would cost him money.

[Whag]

The Paranoid Style in American Science

Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute—a religious think tank that sponsors his work and promotes intelligent design—Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life. He describes his attitude towards ID as "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."

Because otherwise it would cost him money.

One can have a very lucrative career as atheist poster boy for evolutionary skepticism. There's an open market for good meat-and-potatoes "atheist anti-evolutionism." Christian book stores would have crowded signings. One could do many TV interviews on FOX News.

[Whag]

How does a few naysayers who change and embrace a theory that explains where the origin of species came from advance higher knowledge or the study of ToE itself?

What are you talking about? Who are the "few naysayers who change or embrace a theory"? He's simply saying that evolutionists are passionate because creationists still actively misunderstand the theory and write about it anyway. That's bad and that's why you see the concern. This isn't any mystery.

[seanD]

What are you talking about? Who are the "few naysayers who change or embrace a theory"? He's simply saying that evolutionists are passionate because creationists still actively misunderstand the theory and write about it anyway. That's bad and that's why you see the concern. This isn't any mystery.

I’ll give you that because the way I structured that sentence in my response to Tassman was pretty bad and the grammar was atrocious. So I'll ask you the question. Do you think that the “passionate” ongoing back and fourth debates here about evolution with people like... say... Jorge and magellon is a fruitful endeavor? Do you believe this passion will eventually convert them to the belief in the theory? And assuming this is so; how does the atheist benefit from this, how does Jorge and megellan benefit and how does the study of ToE advance anymore than it already is upon their conversion to the theory?

[pancreasman]

I’ll give you that because the way I structured that sentence in my response to Tassman was pretty bad and the grammar was atrocious. So I'll ask you the question. Do you think that the “passionate” ongoing back and fourth debates here about evolution with people like... say... Jorge and magellon is a fruitful endeavor? Do you believe this passion will eventually convert them to the belief in the theory? And assuming this is so; how does the atheist benefit from this, how does Jorge and megellan benefit and how does the study of ToE advance anymore than it already is upon their conversion to the theory?

If I may butt in I think that's a good question and one I've struggled with over the years. I don't like to use the term 'converted' for a start. I didn't 'convert' from Newtonian mechanics when I learned quantum theory. I was persuaded by evidence that quantum theory explained observations better. But as to your main point, you're right: Jorge and Magellan are NEVER going to accept evolution because it is an affront to their deeply held beliefs. They (apparently) believe that the ONLY way one can be a obedient Christian is to be a Biblical Creationist. Most of the rest of us are aware that there are many Christians who have no trouble with the theory of evolution, so it isn't the theory itself that has an impact on faith. Why engage with die-hards? I suppose the reason is to be sure that the counterpoint is put for lurkers. I imagine that's the same reason Jorge and Magellan post. They know that none of the active posters here are buying what they're saying but I imagine they feel their case (such as it is) needs to be put. Personally I can say that coming from an educational and scientific background I feel strongly that ignorance needs to be confronted wherever it is found.

[seanD]

If I may butt in I think that's a good question and one I've struggled with over the years. I don't like to use the term 'converted' for a start. I didn't 'convert' from Newtonian mechanics when I learned quantum theory. I was persuaded by evidence that quantum theory explained observations better. But as to your main point, you're right: Jorge and Magellan are NEVER going to accept evolution because it is an affront to their deeply held beliefs. They (apparently) believe that the ONLY way one can be a obedient Christian is to be a Biblical Creationist. Most of the rest of us are aware that there are many Christians who have no trouble with the theory of evolution, so it isn't the theory itself that has an impact on faith. Why engage with die-hards? I suppose the reason is to be sure that the counterpoint is put for lurkers. I imagine that's the same reason Jorge and Magellan post. They know that none of the active posters here are buying what they're saying but I imagine they feel their case (such as it is) needs to be put. Personally I can say that coming from an educational and scientific background I feel strongly that ignorance needs to be confronted wherever it is found.

I seriously doubt there are any lurkers here, who happen to be fence-sitters about evolution, that would be persuaded one way or the other. Besides, the defenders of evolution here don't do it any better than many of the defenders of Christianity in the tektonics section. Many people see right through that style of argument and interpret it as a weakness in the argument.

[pancreasman]

I seriously doubt there are any lurkers here, who happen to be fence-sitters about evolution, that would be persuaded one way or the other. Besides, the defenders of evolution here don't do it any better than many of the defenders of Christianity in the tektonics section. Many people see right through that style of argument and interpret it as a weakness in the argument.

Many people?

[fm93]

Besides, the defenders of evolution here don't do it any better than many of the defenders of Christianity in the tektonics section. Many people see right through that style of argument and interpret it as a weakness in the argument.

Which would be a woeful error for them to commit if the argument is actually strong and correct. Doesn't matter what the style of it is.

[Whag]

I’ll give you that because the way I structured that sentence in my response to Tassman was pretty bad and the grammar was atrocious. So I'll ask you the question. Do you think that the “passionate” ongoing back and fourth debates here about evolution with people like... say... Jorge and magellon is a fruitful endeavor? Do you believe this passion will eventually convert them to the belief in the theory? And assuming this is so; how does the atheist benefit from this, how does Jorge and megellan benefit and how does the study of ToE advance anymore than it already is upon their conversion to the theory?

I like your question, too. I would say no, but I would also point out that many things people do aren't ultimately fruitful. Everyone, not just atheists, goof on Jorge for the same reasons. It does not translate to being a "religious" defense. Human beings are ardent about the things that fascinate them and that they see convincing evidence for.

IOW, atheists as a group defending evolution doesn't really say much about whether they accepted evolution before or after declaring disbelief in God. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your view?

[Whag]

Which would be a woeful error for them to commit if the argument is actually strong and correct. Doesn't matter what the style of it is.

Woeful how? In terms of not convincing the individual Christian, or do you see wider implications in terms of creating lackluster science students? I worry seriously about the latter. It is indeed woeful if you consider the sharp minds needed to create enlightenments in history.

[seanD]

Which would be a woeful error for them to commit if the argument is actually strong and correct. Doesn't matter what the style of it is.

How strong the argument is or isn't isn't the point. Pancreasman stated that the objective of the passionate debates about evolution is to convince the lurkers the possibility that it's true. But if the lurkers interpret the way its being presented as a sign of weakness, then it doesn't matter how strong the argument is itself beyond how it's being presented. So this sort of makes Pancreasman's rationale pointless.

[pancreasman]

How strong the argument is or isn't isn't the point. Pancreasman stated that the objective of the passionate debates about evolution is to convince the lurkers the possibility that it's true. But if the lurkers interpret the way its being presented as a sign of weakness, then it doesn't matter how strong the argument is itself beyond how it's being presented. So this sort of makes Pancreasman's rationale pointless.

Hang on. I wasn't aware I was commenting on 'passionate' debates. I was just talking about commenting on threads about evolution in the NatSci area. You asked why I did something. I answered. You don't like my answer. That's fine with me.

[seanD]

Hang on. I wasn't aware I was commenting on 'passionate' debates. I was just talking about commenting on threads about evolution in the NatSci area. You asked why I did something. I answered. You don't like my answer. That's fine with me.

Um.. I usually consider that when a person responds to a post, they're responding to the entire post, unless they express otherwise in their response; especially when "passionate," which was used to express the evolution apologists in here, was at the core of the discussion. I'm not a mind reader.