Evolutionary Christianity

This seems like a good idea, regardless of which side you represent, the only way to educate and try to win people to either side is to have all sides present their ideas and let each individual decide, what the evidence will them to. Each side evolution or creation, or God or no god, each side is believing and putting their faith in something. Which there has yet to be concrete proof of. That is why it is called faith. You either need to have faith that God does exist and that God decided to create this planet and the universe for a purpose. Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth. Either way faith is needed. Now each side will artfully show evidence that they claim supports their sides.

jamesrogers said: [SNIP] You either need to have faith that God does exist and that God decided to create this planet and the universe for a purpose. Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth.

jamesrogers said: Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth.

jamesrogers said: Each side evolution or creation, or God or no god, each side is believing and putting their faith in something. Which there has yet to be concrete proof of.

jamesrogers said: This seems like a good idea, regardless of which side you represent, the only way to educate and try to win people to either side is to have all sides present their ideas and let each individual decide, what the evidence will them to. Each side evolution or creation, or God or no god, each side is believing and putting their faith in something. Which there has yet to be concrete proof of. That is why it is called faith. You either need to have faith that God does exist and that God decided to create this planet and the universe for a purpose. Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth. Either way faith is needed. Now each side will artfully show evidence that they claim supports their sides.

This seems like a good idea, regardless of which side you represent, the only way to educate and try to win people to either side is to have all sides present their ideas and let each individual decide, what the evidence will them to.

Before anyone gets his or her knickers in a twist, let me state that I am not endorsing this teleconference, just announcing it.

Fl said:

Before anyone gets his or her knickers in a twist, let me state that I am not endorsing this teleconference, just announcing it.

Hmmm. That it was considered necessary to include such a disclaimer, provides an interesting hint of the huge, chasm-like incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. That chasm is astonishingly deep and multifaceted, and Christians must take it seriously. Meanwhile, thanks to Matt Young for the heads-up about this latest Zimmerman scheme. FL

Well, there is the problem posed by cretins like Floyd, contrasted with potentially educable people.

I don't recall that jamesrogers habitually denies easily confirmed facts, or lies about easily falsified non-facts. In that regard, he is not to be taken as the equal of FL.

Fl said:

Before anyone gets his or her knickers in a twist, let me state that I am not endorsing this teleconference, just announcing it.

Hmmm. That it was considered necessary to include such a disclaimer, provides an interesting hint of the huge, chasm-like incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. That chasm is astonishingly deep and multifaceted, and Christians must take it seriously. Meanwhile, thanks to Matt Young for the heads-up about this latest Zimmerman scheme. FL

Hey, there is something else I need to mention, because I visit this site quite a bit.

I will be absent from PT from tomorrow to about Feb. 1, with the probable exception of Christmas Day. I hope to have the opportunity to do some extra study and such, regarding the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity.

I don't know yet, but I might even sign up for Zimmerman's tele-gig, just to see what the professional TE's have got cooking (if anything).

FL

I hope to have the opportunity to do some extra study and such, regarding the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity.

I've been following the decline of US xianity for a while. Seeing as how I was a lifetime moderate xian who ended up leaving the religion myself.

IMO, the moderates really made a mistake in not opposing the War on Science. I was one of the few that did and looked around and didn't see anyone else. I was a moderate xian. I am also a scientist. Oddly enough, the only people fighting against the forces of ignorance and bigotry were....the atheists.

Huh? What? Who? I'd barely even heard of them and had no idea there were more than a few dozen here and there. That was the beginning of the end.

If one looks at which sects are declining the most, it is the mainline Protestants and the Catholics. Numbers are hard to come by because the churches tend to be secretive about such things but there is a lot of evidence for that.

My impression is that people go both ways. Some moderates join fundie churches and some end up some variety of No Religions.

The moderate xians are looking squarely at their future disappearance about now. I know my natal sect isn't doing so well because some of my family still belong. The numbers aren't too bad but when you go into a church, the people are mostly old and there are very few young people and fewer children.

And to be fair.
1. What could they have done? The days when sects fire up their tanks and launch fighter planes to settle disputes are over with for now.

2. Some moderates like Zimmerman, Collins, and Spong have spoken up. They've got the death threats to prove it.

It probably is too little too late, but we will just have to see. I've always been nationalistic and optimistic about the USA but lately, it is starting to look pretty hopeless.

RBH said:

jamesrogers said: [SNIP] You either need to have faith that God does exist and that God decided to create this planet and the universe for a purpose. Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth.

False dichotomy.

Gary Hurd said: Well, there is the problem posed by cretins like Floyd, contrasted with potentially educable people. I don't recall that jamesrogers habitually denies easily confirmed facts, or lies about easily falsified non-facts. In that regard, he is not to be taken as the equal of FL.

Very false dichotomy.

— Michael Roberts

jamesrogers the driveby troll lying: Each side evolution or creation, or God or no god, each side is believing and putting their faith in something.

Fl said: Hmmm. That it was considered necessary to include such a disclaimer, provides an interesting hint of the huge, chasm-like incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. That chasm is astonishingly deep and multifaceted, and Christians must take it seriously. Meanwhile, thanks to Matt Young for the heads-up about this latest Zimmerman scheme. FL

jamesrogers said: Each side evolution or creation, or God or no god, each side is believing and putting their faith in something.

Or you believe that it was all random chance and just by accident things aligned to spark life here on earth.

Fl said: Hmmm. That it was considered necessary to include such a disclaimer, provides an interesting hint of the huge, chasm-like incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.

FL said: Hey, there is something else I need to mention, because I visit this site quite a bit. I will be absent from PT from tomorrow to about Feb. 1, with the probable exception of Christmas Day. I hope to have the opportunity to do some extra study and such, regarding the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity. I don't know yet, but I might even sign up for Zimmerman's tele-gig, just to see what the professional TE's have got cooking (if anything). FL

Raven,
I continually hear the comment that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion, but you will have to agree that a theory is the rejection -- or at least disagreement -- with a belief. Creation is a religious belief that God created the universe from nothing. There is no doubt that creation continues to evolve, but also certainly had a Causer. Those who subscribe to the belief that the universe evolved from matter are believing in a theory that cannot be absolutely proven beyond any doubt. Is that not the same accusation hurled at creationists? If then, creationist are religious because of their faith in Christ, aren't evolutionist religious because their faith is in science?

You can be a devout Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, etc. and still recognize biological evolution as sound, quite valid, mainstream science. I don't "believe" in evolution. Instead, I accept it, based on the overwhelming data that supports it, in much the same fashion I support the evidence for the Periodic Table of the Elements in Chemistry or gravity in Physics.

Those who subscribe to the belief that the universe evolved from matter are believing in a theory that cannot be absolutely proven beyond any doubt. Is that not the same accusation hurled at creationists

FL said: Hey, there is something else I need to mention, because I visit this site quite a bit. I will be absent from PT from tomorrow to about Feb. 1, with the probable exception of Christmas Day. I hope to have the opportunity to do some extra study and such, regarding the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity. I don't know yet, but I might even sign up for Zimmerman's tele-gig, just to see what the professional TE's have got cooking (if anything). FL

lamar another liar: Raven, I continually hear the comment that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion, but you will have to agree that a theory is the rejection – or at least disagreement – with a belief.

lamar lying some more: If then, creationist are religious because of their faith in Christ, aren’t evolutionist religious because their faith is in science?

You can be a devout Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, etc. and still recognize biological evolution as sound, quite valid, mainstream science. I don’t “believe” in evolution. Instead, I accept it, based on the overwhelming data that supports it, in much the same fashion I support the evidence for the Periodic Table of the Elements in Chemistry or gravity in Physics.

I never understand the satisfaction these drive-by posters apparently get. They never support their claims, or even discuss them. I wonder if they even bother to show up and read the responses they get. Maybe they're too busy driving by too many other unenlightened rationalists who need a demonstration of why rationality works?

To this nice Evangelical Christian Canadian yec'er I welcome this effort. It is a need of the evolution huggers because they are taking, and expecting more, lumps. They are losing as more attention is brought upon the merits of these ideas that oppose God or Genesis.
Publicity is the friend of truth. so creationisms gain from the discussions and that there needs to be discussion. In our time North Americans are entrenching ideas about origins from creationists models or they are dripping away from the old ideas of evolutionism and company pushed in small obscure circles.
Let the games commence and let the better idea win.
Then onto public schools of coarse. Its illogical to ban to kids what the adults talk about.

Of coarse this crap should be ignored.

Robert Byers said: To this nice Evangelical Christian Canadian yec'er I welcome this effort. It is a need of the evolution huggers because they are taking, and expecting more, lumps. They are losing as more attention is brought upon the merits of these ideas that oppose God or Genesis. Publicity is the friend of truth. so creationisms gain from the discussions and that there needs to be discussion. In our time North Americans are entrenching ideas about origins from creationists models or they are dripping away from the old ideas of evolutionism and company pushed in small obscure circles. Let the games commence and let the better idea win. Then onto public schools of coarse. Its illogical to ban to kids what the adults talk about.

DS said: Of coarse this crap should be ignored.

Robert Byers said: To this nice Evangelical Christian Canadian yec'er I welcome this effort. It is a need of the evolution huggers because they are taking, and expecting more, lumps. They are losing as more attention is brought upon the merits of these ideas that oppose God or Genesis. Publicity is the friend of truth. so creationisms gain from the discussions and that there needs to be discussion. In our time North Americans are entrenching ideas about origins from creationists models or they are dripping away from the old ideas of evolutionism and company pushed in small obscure circles. Let the games commence and let the better idea win. Then onto public schools of coarse. Its illogical to ban to kids what the adults talk about.

Then onto public schools of coarse.

Creation is a religious belief that God created the universe from nothing.

There is no doubt that creation continues to evolve, but also certainly had a Causer.

Those who subscribe to the belief that the universe evolved from matter are believing in a theory that cannot be absolutely proven beyond any doubt.

Is that not the same accusation hurled at creationists?

If then, creationist are religious because of their faith in Christ,

aren’t evolutionist religious because their faith is in science?

harold -

Sorry RBH closed his thread early, if only because the ones who have really gone over the top have been the zealous Affirmative Atheists. Over at NCSE's Facebook web entry, one biologist sparred with me, claiming that NCSE was promoting propaganda until I told him that if it is propaganda it doesn't quite match the standard set by German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl in her film of the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany, "Triumph of the Will". I don't apologize at all for making the references that I did, especially when Coyne and Myers have gone on an "accomodationist" "witch hunt" for nearly three years.

Lamar said: If then, creationist are religious because of their faith in Christ, aren't evolutionist religious because their faith is in science?

John Kwok -

I was a bit sorry it closed, too, because I was going to point out something I thought was one of the fundamental errors running through the thread...

I'm quite willing to concede that the NCSE can be perceived as subtly promoting religions that don't deny science - over religions that do deny science. That's fine with me. As a neutral, non-religious observer, I prefer religions that don't deny science, and I'm quite happy to have my humble donations spent that way.

I must note, though, that this favoritism is subtle, and probably unintentional. It's a side effect of describing the reality that some religions don't deny evolution.

What I very much do NOT think the NCSE is doing, is promoting religion over non-religion. I'm not religious, and I most certainly do not feel that the NCSE is trying to make me religious.

I'll also have to renew my membership in Americans United for Separation of Church and State one of these days. The director of that organization is actually a Christian minister.

The only real way to protect freedom of conscience is to protect it for everyone.

Lamar said: Raven, I continually hear the comment that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion, but you will have to agree that a theory is the rejection -- or at least disagreement -- with a belief.

Creation is a religious belief that God created the universe from nothing.

There is no doubt that creation continues to evolve, but also certainly had a Causer.

Those who subscribe to the belief that the universe evolved from matter are believing in a theory that cannot be absolutely proven beyond any doubt. Is that not the same accusation hurled at creationists?

If then, creationist are religious because of their faith in Christ, aren't evolutionist religious because their faith is in science?

harold said: John Kwok - I was a bit sorry it closed, too, because I was going to point out something I thought was one of the fundamental errors running through the thread... I'm quite willing to concede that the NCSE can be perceived as subtly promoting religions that don't deny science - over religions that do deny science. That's fine with me. As a neutral, non-religious observer, I prefer religions that don't deny science, and I'm quite happy to have my humble donations spent that way. I must note, though, that this favoritism is subtle, and probably unintentional. It's a side effect of describing the reality that some religions don't deny evolution. What I very much do NOT think the NCSE is doing, is promoting religion over non-religion. I'm not religious, and I most certainly do not feel that the NCSE is trying to make me religious. I'll also have to renew my membership in Americans United for Separation of Church and State one of these days. The director of that organization is actually a Christian minister. The only real way to protect freedom of conscience is to protect it for everyone.

I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.

That would of course depend on who you ask. However, what you stated is a popular way of looking at it.

And that of course (a Causer) is where a LOT of the disagreement is between evolutionists and creationists.

“evolved from matter” seems too simplistic to me and it may or may not accurately describe what individual evolutionists believe.

That depends on how “religious” is defined. In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”.

However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science.

I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.

Unfortunately our friends, the “Affirmative Atheists”, tend to think that the only freedom of conscience worth preserving is theirs and theirs alone.

It is, oddly enough, a philosophical worldview that is shared by religious fanatics, especially those who are also creationists. I wouldn’t at all be surprised that this very perception is among the reasons why eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson has dubbed Atheism a “stealth religion”.

harold said: John Kwok -

Unfortunately our friends, the “Affirmative Atheists”, tend to think that the only freedom of conscience worth preserving is theirs and theirs alone.

Fortunately, though, atheists are NOT associated with political efforts to undermine individual rights or inappropriately influence public policy. Nor am I aware of any violent crimes committed in the name of atheism.

According to Wikipedia, Berlinski is an "agnostic", but that is a good point. Just not being religious is no guarantee of being rational.

Fuller and Berlinski are examples of old fashioned obnoxious crackpots.

harold said: Kris - You seem to take an interest in the discussion here, but you also seem to lack some background information about science and creationism. Everyone makes mistakes and has things to learn. I have made plenty of mis-statements here and in other places. When someone points it out, I learn. I'm going to give you a chance to do that right now. Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.

There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.

That would of course depend on who you ask. However, what you stated is a popular way of looking at it.

Many religious people, for example, the Pope, believe that God created the universe, but do not reject the theory of evolution. Creationism is a word that was invented by creationists. It is used to clarify that they reject the theory of evolution (and many other important scientific discoveries). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

And that of course (a Causer) is where a LOT of the disagreement is between evolutionists and creationists.

Absolutely not. That would be the source of disagreement between atheism and most religions. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there was a "Causer". It is true that it explains the diversity and relatedness of cellular and post-cellular life without reference to magic, but that is all it does. Please don't use the term "evolutionist". The theory of evolution is a neutral scientific theory that explains the diversity and relatedness of life on earth. I am getting the feeling that you may have some confusion about exactly what the theory of biological evolution is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_evolution. By the way, I often refer to good Wikipedia articles. The fundamental aspect of a good one is that it includes citations of original sources, so that the material it contains can be verified, and so that the reader can move on to a deeper understanding if they choose to.

“evolved from matter” seems too simplistic to me and it may or may not accurately describe what individual evolutionists believe.

It is not "simplistic" it is wrong. It is not related to mainstream scientific thought about the history of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

That depends on how “religious” is defined. In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”.

It is obvious that science is not a religion.

However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science.

Well, I don't have any faith in "science", or individual scientists, whatsoever. I noticed in my youth that I do instinctively hold certain assumptions. I assume the physical world exists, I assume my senses detect aspects of it, I assume other human beings exist, I assume that their senses detect aspects of the same physical world, and I assume that the axioms of logic, although having no physical existence themselves, should be used in evaluating physical reality. Therefore I prefer the scientific method for evaluating physical reality.

I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.

Scientific claims should always be viewed critically, with skepticism. No-one should "swallow whatever science cooks up". To do so would be, in fact, unscientific. Sometimes scientific ideas initially get too much credit, because they are advanced by a prestigious source or seem especially exciting. But this is a mistake. Having said that, please specifically explain which scientific observations, hypotheses, experimental results, or theories you dispute, and why.

harold said: I'm quite willing to concede that the NCSE can be perceived as subtly promoting religions that don't deny science - over religions that do deny science....What I very much do NOT think the NCSE is doing, is promoting religion over non-religion.

That's fine with me.

I must note, though, that this favoritism is subtle,

The director of that organization is actually a Christian minister. The only real way to protect freedom of conscience is to protect it for everyone.

John Kwok said: I was missing - or maybe ignoring - the possibility that it is really okay for NCSE to have subtle endorsements of those faiths which are not hostile to science.

I am perfectly comfortable with that

...and if that's an unexpected positive consequence not directly tied to its charter, then it's fine.

Unfortunately our friends, the "Affirmative Atheists", tend to think that the only freedom of conscience worth preserving is theirs and theirs alone.

Matt Young said: Before anyone gets his or her knickers in a twist, let me state that I am not endorsing this teleconference, just announcing it.

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

That’s like saying when a hair dying company talks about how hideous grey hair is and how sexy colored hair is, it is only promoting colored hair over grey hair, without promoting hair over baldness.

Will these random segues into legal rights in the midst of discussing private conduct ever cease?

Of course, it is your legal right to make them, and I strongly oppose any law or amendment banning them

merely because they are self righteous and worthless, (excepting of course the rare cases they are used sarcastically).

Argh said:

John Kwok said: I was missing - or maybe ignoring - the possibility that it is really okay for NCSE to have subtle endorsements of those faiths which are not hostile to science.

As I was saying. The whole time. Coyne's superior analysis regarding the NCSE's activities became the center of the discussion, one in which those supporting the NCSE were fighting a losing argument against reality without getting the opportunity to best present their support of the current policy.

John Kwok said:

Argh said:

John Kwok said: I was missing - or maybe ignoring - the possibility that it is really okay for NCSE to have subtle endorsements of those faiths which are not hostile to science.

As I was saying. The whole time. Coyne's superior analysis regarding the NCSE's activities became the center of the discussion, one in which those supporting the NCSE were fighting a losing argument against reality without getting the opportunity to best present their support of the current policy.

It's only in your eye that what Coyne has written is "superior analysis". That isn't a view supported by a majority, unless of course you count as a majority, "Affirmative Atheists". No, what Coyne has been writing with regards to NCSE's "accomodationism" is disingenuous, risible nonsense of the kind I expect to see from delusional Dishonesty Institute frauds like Dembski, Luskin and Myers, not from someone who is one of our foremost authorities on the very nature of speciation. May I suggest that you, Coyne and Myers ought to put your money where your mouth is. If you feel so strongly about this, then fund NCSE at a sufficiently appropriate financial level that would allow it to do your bidding. Certainly someone like George Soros or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates might be willing to help out. Until then, may I suggest that you just put up and shut up? I am not saying this just to shut you up, but instead, rather than repeating the same time worn litany each and every time, then doing something constructive like contacting Soros or Buffet and ask them to donate money to NCSE so NCSE can be more receptive to the ample whims and desires of you and your fellow "Affirmative Atheists". Of course when that does happen I would recommend the following name change: NCSEA, the National Center for Science Education and Atheism.

John Kwok said: If you feel so strongly about this, then fund NCSE at a sufficiently appropriate financial level that would allow it to do your bidding.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: If you feel so strongly about this, then fund NCSE at a sufficiently appropriate financial level that would allow it to do your bidding.

So the NCSE sets its policies according to the wishes of the largest donors? Well, that explains a lot. The Christians must be the big donors now, explaining the current pro-Christian policy.

tomh -

Just out of curiosity, what would the NCSE have to do to NOT have "pro-Christian policy", in your mind?

John Kwok said: I didn't want people to think that you are right.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: I didn't want people to think that you are right.

How fortunate PT readers are to have you to explain the Truth to them. What a shame you're banned on so many other sites, depriving those poor souls of your wisdom.

Should NCSE kowtow to you and your fellow "Affirmative Atheists" if it received sufficient funding to represent atheist viewpoints?

harold said: Just out of curiosity, what would the NCSE have to do to NOT have "pro-Christian policy", in your mind?

tomh -

No, I asked YOU.

Let me offer some alternatives, and you tell me which they should or should not do to avoid being "pro-Christian".

1) Refuse to describe the fact that some Christian and Jewish denominations don't deny evolution? Yes or no?

2) Allow description of the fact that some denominations don't deny evolution, but require that every such statement be accompanies by a "disclaimer" statement that the vast majority of educated atheists also don't deny evolution? Yes or no?

3) Expand their agenda to include active promotion of atheism?

Or is there some other highly specific, definable action that you would wish the NCSE to take to avoid being "pro-Christian"?

harold said: No, I asked YOU.

tomh said:

harold said: Just out of curiosity, what would the NCSE have to do to NOT have "pro-Christian policy", in your mind?

Jerry Coyne covered it quite well in NCSE becomes BioLogos.

tomh said:

harold said: No, I asked YOU.

Bully for you. I answered you - you would prefer if repeated everything Coyne said? Go read his article. If they really want to be recognized as being neutral on religion, they could start by not promoting events whose core values include ridiculous statements like, "Studying evolution is like following cosmic breadcrumbs home to God," or, "Evolutionary Christianity points to those who value evidence as divine communication."

tomh said: If they really want to be recognized as being neutral on religion, they could start by not promoting events whose core values include ridiculous statements like, "Studying evolution is like following cosmic breadcrumbs home to God," or, "Evolutionary Christianity points to those who value evidence as divine communication."

harold said: Kris - I said -

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

I found out. If you want to explain precisely what science you don't "buy" or "dig" or whatever it was, that would be interesting.

Kris said:

harold said: Kris - I said -

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

I found out. If you want to explain precisely what science you don't "buy" or "dig" or whatever it was, that would be interesting.

That's pretty funny Harold, especially since you and some others have been nothing but defensive ever since my original "food for thought" post. Now, who has the fragile ego??

Stanton said:

Kris said:

harold said: Kris - I said -

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

I found out. If you want to explain precisely what science you don't "buy" or "dig" or whatever it was, that would be interesting.

That's pretty funny Harold, especially since you and some others have been nothing but defensive ever since my original "food for thought" post. Now, who has the fragile ego??

Do not conflate "getting tired of repeatedly asking you to clarify your statements" with "defensiveness"

harold said:

"There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs."

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

no, he need not. It's an absolutely accurate statement.

I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions.

Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement.

We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported.

likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc.

your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play "gotchya" games.

Ridiculous according to whom? You?

just how many people would it take to convince you it is?

add me, for one.

Ichthyic said: Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements? no, he need not. It's an absolutely accurate statement. I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions. Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement. We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported. likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc. your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play "gotchya" games.

one, this quite obviously IS a game to you, and has been since you first started posting here.

two, you don't get to control who responds to your posts.

three, it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what I was responding to, based on what I posted.

man, the nutters here are getting too damn thick.

Kris said: harold said: "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

Well I suppose it is physically possible that some misguided scientist somewhere might actually do an experiment just in order to demonstrate that some know-nothing religious nut job was once again completely wrong about the science. I mean, it's just as likely that a single shark could survive the magic flood for more than a day.

Of course, no matter what the intent, any real scientist would only address the scientific issues and leave the devastating consequences for religion to those more qualified to evaluate fairy tales. Why would a scientist care what some religious nut case believed? If they didn't try to interfere with real science, they would most like be completely ignored.

Kris said: harold said: "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said:

harold said: Kris - I said -

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

I found out. If you want to explain precisely what science you don't "buy" or "dig" or whatever it was, that would be interesting.

That's pretty funny Harold, especially since you and some others have been nothing but defensive ever since my original "food for thought" post. Now, who has the fragile ego??

Do not conflate "getting tired of repeatedly asking you to clarify your statements" with "defensiveness"

Oh please. Nice misrepresentation of reality.

That’s pretty funny Harold, especially since you and some others have been nothing but defensive ever since my original “food for thought” post. Now, who has the fragile ego??

John Kwok said: (to Kris) Are you sure you're a scientist and not yet another delusional creo stopping by here:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: (to Kris) Are you sure you're a scientist and not yet another delusional creo stopping by here:

There's actually not enough evidence to tell at this point. Since there's also not enough information to tell if Kris is a man or a woman, please take all the male pronouns that follow as meaning "he or she". Kris has asserted that he is a scientist but won't tell us what his field is. His writing does not suggest to me that he is in fact a scientist. He does not appear to be inclined to give us the explanation needed to understand his position. On the other hand, Kris has not, to my recollection, actually advocated any traditional creationist positions (for example, YEC or OEC) and his writing suggests that he thinks the Noah narrative is not historical. He has made a limited endorsement of evolutionary theory, but I don't recall anything from him with enough depth to distingush him from some ID proponents. (If so, he would be in a minority of ID proponents since he has rejected the God of the Abrahamic religions.) Another option is that he is simply a concern troll out to disrupt the discussion. His behavior is certainly consistent with that, but we've seen more than one concern troll here eventually reveal an explicit creationist message in contradiction to earlier posts. Kris, of course, has the power to resolve these questions simply by articulating his position clearly. I don't see any signs that the people responding to him understand his position completely. I know I don't, despite the multiple requests for clarification ... a lot of very bright people here have asked for the same clarifications I'd like to see.

Kris said: "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

Flint said:

That’s pretty funny Harold, especially since you and some others have been nothing but defensive ever since my original “food for thought” post. Now, who has the fragile ego??

This style of "discussion" is always frustrating. There are, I have found, people with whom you cannot disagree on the merits. If you disagree, it's because YOU have a character flaw - you are "in denial" or you are "being defensive" or you are "arguing just to hear yourself" or you "haven't bothered to make the effort to inform yourself" or you "haven't thought it through" or you are "making stuff up" or you have a "fragile ego" or you are having an allergic reaction to something or your momma raised you wrong or whatever. Even neutral requests for clarification provoke this response. But I see it a lot. There's MY view, and there is unreasonable. And thus, the only meaningful focus can be on whatever character flaw is causing you to be unreasonable. Let's talk about what's wrong with you as a person, because that's ALL that's worth talking about.

SWT said:

Kris said: harold said: "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

You are welcome to provide a counterexample. I'm sure you have a specific scientific theory in mind that you can demonstrate was intended to be a rejection of a religious belief.

phantomreader42 said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: (to Kris) Are you sure you're a scientist and not yet another delusional creo stopping by here:

There's actually not enough evidence to tell at this point. Since there's also not enough information to tell if Kris is a man or a woman, please take all the male pronouns that follow as meaning "he or she". Kris has asserted that he is a scientist but won't tell us what his field is. His writing does not suggest to me that he is in fact a scientist. He does not appear to be inclined to give us the explanation needed to understand his position. On the other hand, Kris has not, to my recollection, actually advocated any traditional creationist positions (for example, YEC or OEC) and his writing suggests that he thinks the Noah narrative is not historical. He has made a limited endorsement of evolutionary theory, but I don't recall anything from him with enough depth to distingush him from some ID proponents. (If so, he would be in a minority of ID proponents since he has rejected the God of the Abrahamic religions.) Another option is that he is simply a concern troll out to disrupt the discussion. His behavior is certainly consistent with that, but we've seen more than one concern troll here eventually reveal an explicit creationist message in contradiction to earlier posts. Kris, of course, has the power to resolve these questions simply by articulating his position clearly. I don't see any signs that the people responding to him understand his position completely. I know I don't, despite the multiple requests for clarification ... a lot of very bright people here have asked for the same clarifications I'd like to see.

Kris has claimed to be a man, but his honesty is doubtful.

So here's the concern troll schtick in a nut shell:

1) Nitpick some statement and ask an ambiguous question implying that it's totally wrong without ever specifying why.

2) When asked to clarify your position, tell people that it's obvious what you meant, they just have to reread your original crap more closely.

3) When people point out that they still have no idea what you are talking about, blame them for their lack of comprehension.

4) When they begin to realize that you are doing nothing but deliberately taunting for no apparent reason, ridicule them for the personal attacks that are sure to come, since you have failed to provide any substantive issues to discuss.

5) If no one buys your crap, make up some more crap that is obviously just a smoke screen and try to get people to argue with you.

Now the thing about Darwin was that everyone with half as brain knows that he didn't develop the theory of evolution in order to prove religion wrong. He was a christian when he developed the theory. He delayed publishing his ideas because he was afraid that he would offend religious beliefs. He probably died still believing in god, having not even lost his own faith. This has got to be the worst argument ever. Now where have I heard this argument before?

And even if a scientific theory is deliberately developed in order to disprove some outrageous religious claims that are obviously contrary to reality, so what? Is there really anything wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with supporting reason over superstition? Is there really anything wrong with learning how the real world works, regardless of fairy tales and myths? Only a religious zealot would have any problem with the science, no matter why it was developed.

If anyone thinks that I am wrong about the concern troll, just ask yourself, why does he always come down on the side of creationists if he supposedly supports evolution? Why are his positions, examples and tactics decidedly creationist? Why is he so insulted by being identified as a male, when he is the one who made the claim in the first place? Oh well, at least he finally clarified his views. I'm sure it is only a coincidence that he used an old creationist argument.

Kris said: Now, read the following excerpt from Darwin's On the Origin of Species (first edition), and then see if you can reasonably say that Darwin ignored religious beliefs, and/or that he had no intention of rejecting religious beliefs when he wrote this.