Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! I've answered that question here and elsewhere many times. And no matter how fancily, flowery, lofty, eruditely, skillfully, or articulately someone explains why they don't believe in evolution, it all comes down to the same thing:
They would rather believe a single ancient holy book with anonymous authors than an entire university filled with texts, treatises, doctoral theses, peer reviewed journal articles, and the mountains of evidence that goes with it.
What's more is how, more times than not, this decision isn't made on the basis of science. It's usually made on the basis of "nuh uh!"
Some will try to bamboozle atheists -- and even liberal and progressive Christians -- by spouting off some seemingly reasonable questions that a) they think are unanswerable and b) they think will make them look at least passingly knowledgeable about evolution so that they won't be accused of simply denying science to maintain their faith.
Except 9 out of 10 times the very questions they ask prove unequivocally that they really AREN'T passingly knowledgeable about evolution and, in fact, know little if anything about it. Especially if they are the kinds of brain dead questions often found on creationist blogs and websites. It's as if they are completely unaware that their questions have, in fact, been answered. But, you know how it goes ... even when answered, it doesn't matter because they've already made up their minds to refuse and dismiss those answers and the accompanying evidence, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The sad thing is that many Christians aren't that smart. They are called "sheep" for good reason, and have need of a "Shepherd." So they are easy prey for shysters who promote a Godless creation.
Those non-smart Christians you're talking about? They never claimed that creation was "godless."
They just don't believe in this literal account of creation -- that everything was magically whisked into existence fully formed including two humans made from a pile of dirt and a rib. And certainly not in a literal 6 day time frame. MOST of these Christians simply say that evolution could very well be true, and if it is, that only means God kick-started the process. At the end of the chain, God is still there.
These Christians are very smart -- because they know an etiology when they see one.
e·ti·ol·o·gy /ētēˈäləjē/
the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation.
Etiologies -- or storybook explanations -- are usually reserved for children too young to understand the REAL explanation. Obviously, the writers of the Bible didn't have a clue about DNA, molecular biology, mutations, environmental stresses, and such. Instead, they created a little etiology -- the Genesis creation story -- that gives explanations for everything from where humans came from to why snakes slither. Why pregnancy hurts, why we have to farm for our food, how the animals got their names, why there is suffering in the world, etc. etc.
They didn't know the REAL answers to these questions so they invented a little story to explain it all. But to think that story DOES contain the real answers, well ... that's like being an adult and still thinking thunder is caused by angels bowling in heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Many Christians just have not been educated beyond grade 12. And so many were brainwashed and force fed with the current slop of evolution.
I hope you're just practicing a comedy routine you're writing for the next open mic night at your local coffee shop ... and not actually believing that what you just wrote is at all accurate.
Fact is that education is one of the largest determinants for how religious you're likely to be. And there is an inverse correlation. In other words, the more educated you are, the LESS likely you are to take the Bible as literal, historical truth and actually believe in the story of Adam and Eve.
Ray Comfort, for instance, the infamous Banana Apologist, never went to college and, in fact, only completed 11 grades. In New Zealand, you have to get C's in at least four subjects including math and English to advance to the 12th year. Guess good ol' comfort was too busy marveling at the perfection of the banana to bother with is grades that year.
Or how about another infamous creationist, Kent Hovind. This idiot got his "Religious Education" degree from an unaccredited college called Midwestern Baptist College and his "Christian Education" degree from yet another unaccredited college, Patriot University. Not only is this college unaccredited, Hovind got his so-called "diploma" through the mail, for crying out loud, because Patriot University is roughly the size of a mobile home. I'm sure the only "professor" working there has degrees in Envelope Preparation and Stamp Licking since the place is obviously just a mail-order diploma mill.
And yet Hovind, before the social leech and parasite was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, went around calling himself "doctor." What a liar ... the kind of guy who thinks he can use America's infrastructure for free while letting everyone else foot the bill. Kent Hovind is one of the worst Christians on the face of the planet and I'd just assume spit in his face than give him the time of day.
His son, Eric Hovind, well ... he managed to get a "degree" in "Biblical Foundations" at Jackson Hole University -- which only takes one year to obtain. In fact, the "college" is actually a campsite and, naturally, the place is unaccredited.
Which means these two jokers have absolutely NO relevant education in science of ANY kind, much less in any science relevant to evolution. Eric even went to a K-12 school that did not teach evolution at all and instead taught young earth creationism. Yet, despite both having absolutely no business educating even so much as a couple of fleas, a brick, and a bar of lead about evolution, they actively try to convert the dumb, the gullible, the desperate, and the comatose into believing their pseudoscience propaganda.
Oh right ... which is to say, here's two more prominent creationists and evolution-haters that, even together, have about one-tenth the education I have, and I'm just one person.
Then there's Norman Geisler who I included to make another point. Sure, this guy is educated. He even has a Ph.D. except .... umm .... it's in philosophy. His undergrad and post grad degrees were, of course in theology and religious studies. So what's the problem? Well, hmm, I just don't see any credentials that warrant this guy telling anyone whether evolution is true or not. You'd have to use the 'appeal to authority' fallacy in order to even justify his being in the game at all.
My point with this guy is to show you that even people crazy enough to deny the massive amounts of scientific evidence despite being well educated are that crazy because they either a) attended some silly little fundamentalist university that teaches from the get-go that evolution is all wrong or b) they have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with science; most of them have degrees in some field involving religion. In some cases, both a AND b apply.
How about William Lane Craig? Yeah, same deal. Although he majored in communications in college, the college was Wheaton. Yeah, it's a Christian college. The rest of his education? The standard stuff. Philosophy and the Philosophy of Religion.
Thus, when a person's education all takes place within the cloistered walls of religious colleges where evolution is frowned upon as a legitimate scientific paradigm and when their degrees all deal with religion and philosophy -- well -- when it comes to evolution, they may as well never have gotten their higher education degrees. Because their education has NOTHING to do with science AT ALL.
So, to take anything they say about science as coming from someone with authority is like stopping your garbage man and asking him for advice about neurosurgery. It's ridiculous. Yet people not only hang on their every word, they actually believe their pseudoscience ... which is just a euphemism for brainwashing.
Well, I'm not going to go through a long list of major apologists, but the only one I can think of off-hand that actually has a legitimate degree from a non-Christian college is Hugh Ross, but he only has a B.A. in physics which, eh, isn't all that relevant for evolution. But at least he went to a standard university and not Benighted University of Nowheresville. Plus, he's not a young earth creationist anyway so ... I guess this guy doesn't really count. Damn. And just when I thought I found an apologist who wasn't brainwashed almost from birth by religious institutions of lower learning.
So ... you were saying ... what again? Oh right, you were talking about how so many Christians haven't been educated past grade 12. LOL! Yeah, and apparently those that haven't been are science deniers. Gee, go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The more critically thinking Christian who is trained to think, easily sees the problems and holes in evolution which are large enough to float a battle ship through.
I'm just having a hard time taking this seriously. The reason is because everything you've said in this post is almost diametrically OPPOSITE of the truth. Even putting aside, for the moment, that the people from whom you've learned this anti-evolution garbage almost certainly know less about evolution than the average bumblebee, you're just using the age-old, wearisome, virtually threadbare God of the Gaps argument.
First of all, what holes? Do you even know what they are? And where did you get this information from? Did actual scientists with relevant credentials admit this? Because the scientific community isn't afraid to admit when they don't know something. I see it happen all the time. Or, did you obtain this information from some evolution-hating fundamentalist website owned and operated by some nut with half a degree in Bohemian Underwater Basket Weaving from unaccredited Science Denial University?
Secondly, if a critically thinking Christian actually critically thought about his or her own religion, there's an even chance that person wouldn't even be a Christian anymore. And even if they still are, it's almost guaranteed that they wouldn't be a science denier. Because there is simply no WAY to use well-honed critical thinking and logic skills and still walk away from it believing the story of Adam and Eve is an historical event that happened just the way the Bible says. To take the Bible literally, you almost HAVE to be either a) not using any critical thinking at ALL or b) using some weird facsimile of critical thinking that has its own rules well out of synch with reality.
Third, the God of the Gaps comes into play because of this line of thinking, which is all too common:
"If science can't demonstrate that evolution is absolutely, positively 100% true right now, this very minute, then the entire theory is wrong. All of it. Including all of the foundational* scientific disciplines that evolution was built upon. Even if it can be shown that 97% of evolution is true, that's not good enough, so until I see it proven with 100% accuracy, I'm going to believe in my god's magical superpowers that has been 0% proven."
I've never understood this crazy way of thinking. First, there's the obvious silliness of refusing to believe in something that has been proven well enough to satisfy 95% of the scientific community (which is extremely difficult to do, by the way) and instead choosing to believe in something with no evidence whatsoever. I mean, as I said before, do not bet on anything. You'll lose your shirt.
But secondly, there's this absurd implied premise that Mankind has reached the pinnacle of our knowledge right now. Nothing new will ever be discovered; no new data will be unearthed. This thought process of yours, as well as many Bible-worshiping creationists, says that evolution has to be 100% complete or else it may as well be 0% complete (ergo, completely wrong). Which is to say that if evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction RIGHT NOW, not a minute from now, but NOW, then it will never be finished and it will be forever wrong.
Evolution right now is like a really large and complex jigsaw puzzle with a handful of pieces still not in place. This puzzle might, I dunno, depict a picture of a cute, fluffy kitten (the kind God had no qualms about killing, by the way). Even with the pieces missing, it's still quite obvious that the puzzle depicts a cute fluffy kitten. You don't need to put the last piece into place before slapping your forehead and exclaiming, "Oh, it was a kitten! Damn, and all this time I thought it was a picture of Mary Poppins doing a Russian dance in the Cydonia region of Mars! How did I not SEE that?"
Yet creationists like you will deny it's a kitten until the last piece is put into place -- even if the piece is part of the background or even a corner piece -- before you'll admit that it's a kitten. Until then, no matter how ridiculous, you'll insist that it's a picture of Mary Poppins doing a Russian dance in the Cydonia region of Mars.
There is still a lot to learn and discover about evolution -- but we're long past the point of wondering whether or not the entire theory is true. Now, it's all about tweaking it, perfecting it, and polishing it up. The "is it or isn't it true" question was answered quite a number of years ago.
*Foundational ... yep, another word registering as misspelled when it isn't. What would y'all do without me and my five dollar words with which to pad the forum dictionary?
(Incidentally, "y'all" is actually in the forum dictionary. )
I was looking at it from the point of view of Christians discussing scripture from a theological standpoint AMONGST THEMSELVES, not how interpretations can affect the wider community.
Ah okay, I didn't realize you meant between Christians ... though even then it pays to be wary. If it should ever happen, not to say it will, but IF it should happen that enough Christians agree on an interpretation that is detrimental for others, well ... ick.
The gay marriage issue is a textbook case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
If you've read any of my posts you are aware that I'm a strong defender of separation of church and state.
I know I've read some of your posts and I don't recall ever having any real disagreements with you. I usually zero in on the fundamentalists, not the "average" Christian or other believer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Also anti cheesy television and crappy movies. I wasn't really paying much attention to the media during the 80s, though, so thanks for the info. I was in my 20s for most of that decade, and frankly, it's all rather hazy.
LOL! Glad to hear it. Of course opinions on movies and television are highly subjective, but a lot of people my age commenting and writing about stuff from the 80's either hate TV and movies from that time period ... or they love it (except they love it BECAUSE of the cheese, so ... dunno what I can say about that!) Now, the music, on the other hand ... that's an entirely different story.
Oh yeah, and the haze of my 20's hasn't quite worn off yet.
I understand why my posts get chopped...I intentionally stir the pot. But yours?
Yeah ... in fact, I was banned for 7 days last month for flagrantly attacking someone in my blog; I had hoped, since blogs are a bit less "public" wasn't as restrictive as actual forum posts. What ticks me off is that I'm sure the guy I attacked reported me because that blog post had been there for at least a couple of months before a mod noticed it. What creeps me out is that the only way the guy could have reported me is if he was wandering around my profile page again ... and that, like I said, creeps me out.
But the guy just showed up on my profile page and attacked me for no reason. Hell, he wasn't even someone I knew or anyone who even participates on this particular forum. I go full bore on people who just attack me for no damn reason whatsoever. I can understand if I get a few cuts from fundamentalists, but this guy? Screw 'em. And I was rather annoyed since I have no idea of his attack on me was ever punished. I did alert a mod to have him delete the attack from my profile page, but whether action was taken or not against the poster, I dunno.
Took me about a year to find where the line was because I'm not used to a well-moderated forum. I don't mind having to color inside the lines, so to speak, as long as the lines don't move in the process.
I just told Eusebius that something he wrote was the tallest, widest, most massive pile of dog excrement ever ... or words to that effect. Then I posted a picture of a dog squatting to take a dump. Hehe! I even went out of my way to find a picture that did NOT actually show dog poo. And still ...
But what irked me is that I read probably more than half a dozen different posts just today alone comparing someone's opinion with a pile of skat. No one else got a post deleted. Was the dog picture THAT offensive? I mean, who hasn't seen a dog squatting before?
Anyway ... I'm not angry or anything, but I just feel like my post was deleted in an almost arbitrary way since I never attacked Eusebius himself, but what he said was, well ... blinkered to say the least.
I sometimes get the impression that mods might be on a higher alert status when reading my posts because I know for a fact that SOME people use the "report" button because it's easier than actually trying to write up a refutation for an argument. I've gotten probably 20 or 30 posts deleted since I joined.
Now ... isn't the curiosity just burning you up? I bet you're thinking, "Damn, now I want to know what she said!!!" LOL! Nah, just kidding.
Let's not spoil a good story with facts and logic now shall we?
Just an observation, creationists always answer the call to prove their claims by asking us to prove ours yet they continuously expect us to provide proof for our claims - which we do (probably because we can).
Let's not spoil a good story with facts and logic now shall we?
Just an observation, creationists always answer the call to prove their claims by asking us to prove ours yet they continuously expect us to provide proof for our claims - which we do (probably because we can).
I've warned pro-evolution posters for several years not to allow creationists to put them on the defensive. When they start badgering you for proof, don't give it to them. They're not going to accept it anyway even if you literally copied every word on evolution found in the Library of Congress to this forum. These people think that all they have to do to prove their creation myth is to disprove evolution. In other words, they see Adam and Eve as the default position and as such remains true until something else, like evolution, proves it false. Which is precisely why they'll never accept ANY evidence for evolution. They're so emotionally invested in this assertion now that they would still reject evidence for evolution even if it came directly out of God's own mouth.
Meaning that any post you write that actually tries to explain evolution is a colossal waste of time. Yet I cringe every time I see someone writing up long and detailed posts trying to answer the creationists' absurd and quite debunked questions because all I see is a pro-evolutionist getting caught in the creationists' trap.
If these jokers were truly interested in knowing the answers to their questions; if they were genuinely curious about evolution and were trying to find out how true it was, there are thousands of websites and even more books where they could get a real answer from. Hanging around on a non-scientific forum and demanding that anonymous posters with who-knows-what credentials explain evolution within the confines of a forum post only shows that they aren't really interested in evolution.
Instead, they think their questions are these "gotchya!" traps that will have every believer in evolution stammering and stuttering with shock and horror as they realize evolution was wrong all along. That's why they're here and that's why they won't go to legitimate sources to find the answers to their questions.
And their questions ARE "gotchya!" traps ... only not because it forces anyone to admit that evolution is wrong. No, they are traps because it pins the evolutionist to their keyboard for hours as they laboriously type out explanations and answers while the creationists respond simply with a "nuh uh!"
As the old saying goes: You sets 'em up and they knocks 'em down.
Which is why I don't respond to evolution posts with actual science anymore. I just wish more pro-evolutionists would stop trying so hard to prove to the fundamentalists that evolution is true. Instead, they need to start demanding proof for creationist assertion. And I don't mean proving God. I mean demanding that they show us how the science of evolution is wrong. Most of them can't even begin to do that unless they start furiously googling in another window to their favorite creationist website.
And never let them answer your question with another question because they're trying to trick you into answering ... which puts you right back into their trap.
Yeah ... in fact, I was banned for 7 days last month for flagrantly attacking someone in my blog; I had hoped, since blogs are a bit less "public" wasn't as restrictive as actual forum posts. What ticks me off is that I'm sure the guy I attacked reported me because that blog post had been there for at least a couple of months before a mod noticed it. What creeps me out is that the only way the guy could have reported me is if he was wandering around my profile page again ... and that, like I said, creeps me out.
But the guy just showed up on my profile page and attacked me for no reason. Hell, he wasn't even someone I knew or anyone who even participates on this particular forum. I go full bore on people who just attack me for no damn reason whatsoever. I can understand if I get a few cuts from fundamentalists, but this guy? Screw 'em. And I was rather annoyed since I have no idea of his attack on me was ever punished. I did alert a mod to have him delete the attack from my profile page, but whether action was taken or not against the poster, I dunno.
Took me about a year to find where the line was because I'm not used to a well-moderated forum. I don't mind having to color inside the lines, so to speak, as long as the lines don't move in the process.
I just told Eusebius that something he wrote was the tallest, widest, most massive pile of dog excrement ever ... or words to that effect. Then I posted a picture of a dog squatting to take a dump. Hehe! I even went out of my way to find a picture that did NOT actually show dog poo. And still ...
But what irked me is that I read probably more than half a dozen different posts just today alone comparing someone's opinion with a pile of skat. No one else got a post deleted. Was the dog picture THAT offensive? I mean, who hasn't seen a dog squatting before?
Anyway ... I'm not angry or anything, but I just feel like my post was deleted in an almost arbitrary way since I never attacked Eusebius himself, but what he said was, well ... blinkered to say the least.
I sometimes get the impression that mods might be on a higher alert status when reading my posts because I know for a fact that SOME people use the "report" button because it's easier than actually trying to write up a refutation for an argument. I've gotten probably 20 or 30 posts deleted since I joined.
Now ... isn't the curiosity just burning you up? I bet you're thinking, "Damn, now I want to know what she said!!!" LOL! Nah, just kidding.
Take care.
I'm bummed the squatting doggy pic got cut...it cracked me up! It beat the hell out of those Smiley Emoticons!
I still can't connect with the mindset that compels someone to, as I refer to it, go cry to Mommy.
I mean, it's just strangers on the internet and you can simply scroll or click away from whatever you don't like.
I expect to get flamed...I'd be disappointed if I didn't, after going to the good time and trouble to stimulate it. I'm sure you have noted me outright admit that I'm cranking to instigate jacked-up responses. I even refer to "Initiated Amusement" & "My Geppetto Pavlov persona".
So, they are pretty cool...cuz they could have justified kicking me to the curb years ago. The Constable Crew here are more than acceptably tolerant...everything considered.
The report button may as well not even be there as far as I'm concerned...I'd never use it. Heck, if anything, I wanna complain that some posters offerings are too Vanilla. Isn't this supposed to be one of those subjects you don't discuss in polite company?
Oh I don't mind being challenged. I've been doing a bit of reading up and having fun doing so. Fascinating. The evolutionary progress of humans has developed quite a bit since I last read up on it. DNA studies have really advanced evolution theory.
Quote:
And their questions ARE "gotchya!" traps ... only not because it forces anyone to admit that evolution is wrong. No, they are traps because it pins the evolutionist to their keyboard for hours as they laboriously type out explanations and answers while the creationists respond simply with a "nuh uh!"
Ahhhhhhh...another thread arguing about evolution!
Good, good...I wouldn't want to see anyone waste their time discussing things of much less importance than whether life just poofed into existence 6000 years ago.
Make sure you get a couple more threads going on it.
Oh, and, don't forget your favorites...Duggar, Davis, and how the Religious need to learn to get over their aversion to men having butt-sex with each other.
Hurry, hurry...times awastin'!!
At least it has side-barred to music.
Yep..yet another one. And I agree as much a waste of your time as your potstirring posts are of ours.
Don't let us keep you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
What does that have to do with the theory of evolution being a theory Christians have a problem with?
And who says God is an invisible man in the sky watching your every move? Not the Bible.
God is everywhere. He is spirit. "In Him we are moving and living and are" and "He gives to all, life and breath and all." (Paul to the Athenians.)
(1) everything.
(2) metaphor.
Stop wasting everyone's time being crafty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Oh I don't mind being challenged. I've been doing a bit of reading up and having fun doing so. Fascinating. The evolutionary progress of humans has developed quite a bit since I last read up on it. DNA studies have really advanced evolution theory.
" And their questions ARE "gotchya!" traps ... only not because it forces anyone to admit that evolution is wrong. No, they are traps because it pins the evolutionist to their keyboard for hours as they laboriously type out explanations and answers while the creationists respond simply with a "nuh uh!" "
Yup. That's exactly what they do.
The real question on this thread is the whole problem not with evolution, but with the mindset of some Christians. I can see we are getting wise, not just to the fact that evolution theory is as established as any other scientific theory, nor even to the fact that the whole of the argument as so skilfully manipulated by our pal Eusebius is based on the premise that God (and Gioddunnit) is the fact and it needs to be disproved down to the last 0.0005% or they will reject it - and even if that last particle is is proven, because evolution (in the misused, very broad genesis -literalist sense) has to be wrong because of faith in genesis -literalism.
It is more that we have to get to understand how much personal ego is bound up in this. These people are not fighting for their God or religion or even their Holy Book. They are fighting to avoid admitting that they have got it all wrong, and their Faith in their own rightness is so rigid that they cannot even accept the slightest offer of accommodation. Such as Theistic evolution. Even, fascinatingly, rejecting the idea of adapting Genesis to science even though this had already been done with the 'cloud cover' explanation of the sun created after the light.
We already knew that the god these people believe in is their own imagination. We know because this god has exactly the same likes, dislikes, wishes and intentions of its believer - even when the believer changes their mind. That (rather like DNA in evolution) would be proof enough even without deconversion stories that show the God these people commune with is simply their own mind. Their own Ego.
This is essential to understand in relation to defending Faith in Genesis against Evilooshun. The reason Some Christians have a problem with it is nothing to do with evolution or even with Christianity. We know that other Christians are able to accommodate evolution, no problem.
It really is a self - regarding egotistical case of total investment in self credibility based on a particular belief. Thereby hangs a whole understanding of the obvious evasion, trickery, misrepresentation and wilful ignorance displayed every time by the creationists. They must know this is cheating but it doesn't matter; because they are right because they are and facts make no difference. It explains the terror of the One shot win. They cannot admit anything proposed by the Enemy even if it is something they are actually already doing. It isn't the facts, it is rejection of whatever the enemy says that matters here.
That is also why they ascribe the same mindset to us - faith in Darwinism - which is claimed as a religion (2). The constant search for one thing they pray will get us to admit must be true - like 'God must have coded DNA' - and that would bring all evilooshun crashing down. Of course it wouldn't but they think it would because they fear that admitting ANYTHING evolooshunists argue would shatter their whole faith -based worldview.
Of course it wouldn't because in fact Creationism is adapting all the time but THEY are doing it without admitting being wrong. (1) Just as the Churches adapt to social pressure while all the time pretending that their Dogma is unchanging.
It is a very common 'I don't care what you say' view and in fact the 'I am happy to be wrong - I have learned something' mindset is rather uncommon. But it is the one that evolutionists have. And it would take too much longer to go into the whole 'always getting it wrong' argument and why it is false.
But this post - I suggest with all deference and a hope for any spare reps going - is the real reason (and the facts and evidence is not) why some Christians have a problem with what should not be a problem at all.
(1) I have to add the whole unnecessary dishonest approach in AIG to its list of arguments they think Creationists should not use. Not ebcause they admit evvilooshunists are right, not even because they think they are wrong but..(I realized...just as the church reluctantly has to adapt to social pressure) because it would damage their credibility to use arguments that could be made to look crap -even though they believe them, still.
(2) with the resultant duck -hunt (thanks Arach..that is going to become a Word ) for similarities that 'prove' the point - Origin of species is the Holy book, Dawkins is the Pope of Darwinism. Any meetings or conferences are a Darwinist atheistic religious synod.. .
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2015 at 08:28 AM..
LOL! I've answered that question here and elsewhere many times. And no matter how fancily, flowery, lofty, eruditely, skillfully, or articulately someone explains why they don't believe in evolution, it all comes down to the same thing:
They would rather believe a single ancient holy book with anonymous authors than an entire university filled with texts, treatises, doctoral theses, peer reviewed journal articles, and the mountains of evidence that goes with it.
What's more is how, more times than not, this decision isn't made on the basis of science. It's usually made on the basis of "nuh uh!"
Some will try to bamboozle atheists -- and even liberal and progressive Christians -- by spouting off some seemingly reasonable questions that a) they think are unanswerable and b) they think will make them look at least passingly knowledgeable about evolution so that they won't be accused of simply denying science to maintain their faith.
Except 9 out of 10 times the very questions they ask prove unequivocally that they really AREN'T passingly knowledgeable about evolution and, in fact, know little if anything about it. Especially if they are the kinds of brain dead questions often found on creationist blogs and websites. It's as if they are completely unaware that their questions have, in fact, been answered. But, you know how it goes ... even when answered, it doesn't matter because they've already made up their minds to refuse and dismiss those answers and the accompanying evidence, anyway.
Those non-smart Christians you're talking about? They never claimed that creation was "godless."
They just don't believe in this literal account of creation -- that everything was magically whisked into existence fully formed including two humans made from a pile of dirt and a rib. And certainly not in a literal 6 day time frame. MOST of these Christians simply say that evolution could very well be true, and if it is, that only means God kick-started the process. At the end of the chain, God is still there.
These Christians are very smart -- because they know an etiology when they see one.
e·ti·ol·o·gy /ētēˈäləjē/
the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation.
Etiologies -- or storybook explanations -- are usually reserved for children too young to understand the REAL explanation. Obviously, the writers of the Bible didn't have a clue about DNA, molecular biology, mutations, environmental stresses, and such. Instead, they created a little etiology -- the Genesis creation story -- that gives explanations for everything from where humans came from to why snakes slither. Why pregnancy hurts, why we have to farm for our food, how the animals got their names, why there is suffering in the world, etc. etc.
They didn't know the REAL answers to these questions so they invented a little story to explain it all. But to think that story DOES contain the real answers, well ... that's like being an adult and still thinking thunder is caused by angels bowling in heaven.
I hope you're just practicing a comedy routine you're writing for the next open mic night at your local coffee shop ... and not actually believing that what you just wrote is at all accurate.
Fact is that education is one of the largest determinants for how religious you're likely to be. And there is an inverse correlation. In other words, the more educated you are, the LESS likely you are to take the Bible as literal, historical truth and actually believe in the story of Adam and Eve.
Ray Comfort, for instance, the infamous Banana Apologist, never went to college and, in fact, only completed 11 grades. In New Zealand, you have to get C's in at least four subjects including math and English to advance to the 12th year. Guess good ol' comfort was too busy marveling at the perfection of the banana to bother with is grades that year.
Or how about another infamous creationist, Kent Hovind. This idiot got his "Religious Education" degree from an unaccredited college called Midwestern Baptist College and his "Christian Education" degree from yet another unaccredited college, Patriot University. Not only is this college unaccredited, Hovind got his so-called "diploma" through the mail, for crying out loud, because Patriot University is roughly the size of a mobile home. I'm sure the only "professor" working there has degrees in Envelope Preparation and Stamp Licking since the place is obviously just a mail-order diploma mill.
And yet Hovind, before the social leech and parasite was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, went around calling himself "doctor." What a liar ... the kind of guy who thinks he can use America's infrastructure for free while letting everyone else foot the bill. Kent Hovind is one of the worst Christians on the face of the planet and I'd just assume spit in his face than give him the time of day.
His son, Eric Hovind, well ... he managed to get a "degree" in "Biblical Foundations" at Jackson Hole University -- which only takes one year to obtain. In fact, the "college" is actually a campsite and, naturally, the place is unaccredited.
Which means these two jokers have absolutely NO relevant education in science of ANY kind, much less in any science relevant to evolution. Eric even went to a K-12 school that did not teach evolution at all and instead taught young earth creationism. Yet, despite both having absolutely no business educating even so much as a couple of fleas, a brick, and a bar of lead about evolution, they actively try to convert the dumb, the gullible, the desperate, and the comatose into believing their pseudoscience propaganda.
Oh right ... which is to say, here's two more prominent creationists and evolution-haters that, even together, have about one-tenth the education I have, and I'm just one person.
Then there's Norman Geisler who I included to make another point. Sure, this guy is educated. He even has a Ph.D. except .... umm .... it's in philosophy. His undergrad and post grad degrees were, of course in theology and religious studies. So what's the problem? Well, hmm, I just don't see any credentials that warrant this guy telling anyone whether evolution is true or not. You'd have to use the 'appeal to authority' fallacy in order to even justify his being in the game at all.
My point with this guy is to show you that even people crazy enough to deny the massive amounts of scientific evidence despite being well educated are that crazy because they either a) attended some silly little fundamentalist university that teaches from the get-go that evolution is all wrong or b) they have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with science; most of them have degrees in some field involving religion. In some cases, both a AND b apply.
How about William Lane Craig? Yeah, same deal. Although he majored in communications in college, the college was Wheaton. Yeah, it's a Christian college. The rest of his education? The standard stuff. Philosophy and the Philosophy of Religion.
Thus, when a person's education all takes place within the cloistered walls of religious colleges where evolution is frowned upon as a legitimate scientific paradigm and when their degrees all deal with religion and philosophy -- well -- when it comes to evolution, they may as well never have gotten their higher education degrees. Because their education has NOTHING to do with science AT ALL.
So, to take anything they say about science as coming from someone with authority is like stopping your garbage man and asking him for advice about neurosurgery. It's ridiculous. Yet people not only hang on their every word, they actually believe their pseudoscience ... which is just a euphemism for brainwashing.
Well, I'm not going to go through a long list of major apologists, but the only one I can think of off-hand that actually has a legitimate degree from a non-Christian college is Hugh Ross, but he only has a B.A. in physics which, eh, isn't all that relevant for evolution. But at least he went to a standard university and not Benighted University of Nowheresville. Plus, he's not a young earth creationist anyway so ... I guess this guy doesn't really count. Damn. And just when I thought I found an apologist who wasn't brainwashed almost from birth by religious institutions of lower learning.
So ... you were saying ... what again? Oh right, you were talking about how so many Christians haven't been educated past grade 12. LOL! Yeah, and apparently those that haven't been are science deniers. Gee, go figure.
I'm just having a hard time taking this seriously. The reason is because everything you've said in this post is almost diametrically OPPOSITE of the truth. Even putting aside, for the moment, that the people from whom you've learned this anti-evolution garbage almost certainly know less about evolution than the average bumblebee, you're just using the age-old, wearisome, virtually threadbare God of the Gaps argument.
First of all, what holes? Do you even know what they are? And where did you get this information from? Did actual scientists with relevant credentials admit this? Because the scientific community isn't afraid to admit when they don't know something. I see it happen all the time. Or, did you obtain this information from some evolution-hating fundamentalist website owned and operated by some nut with half a degree in Bohemian Underwater Basket Weaving from unaccredited Science Denial University?
Secondly, if a critically thinking Christian actually critically thought about his or her own religion, there's an even chance that person wouldn't even be a Christian anymore. And even if they still are, it's almost guaranteed that they wouldn't be a science denier. Because there is simply no WAY to use well-honed critical thinking and logic skills and still walk away from it believing the story of Adam and Eve is an historical event that happened just the way the Bible says. To take the Bible literally, you almost HAVE to be either a) not using any critical thinking at ALL or b) using some weird facsimile of critical thinking that has its own rules well out of synch with reality.
Third, the God of the Gaps comes into play because of this line of thinking, which is all too common:
"If science can't demonstrate that evolution is absolutely, positively 100% true right now, this very minute, then the entire theory is wrong. All of it. Including all of the foundational* scientific disciplines that evolution was built upon. Even if it can be shown that 97% of evolution is true, that's not good enough, so until I see it proven with 100% accuracy, I'm going to believe in my god's magical superpowers that has been 0% proven."
I've never understood this crazy way of thinking. First, there's the obvious silliness of refusing to believe in something that has been proven well enough to satisfy 95% of the scientific community (which is extremely difficult to do, by the way) and instead choosing to believe in something with no evidence whatsoever. I mean, as I said before, do not bet on anything. You'll lose your shirt.
But secondly, there's this absurd implied premise that Mankind has reached the pinnacle of our knowledge right now. Nothing new will ever be discovered; no new data will be unearthed. This thought process of yours, as well as many Bible-worshiping creationists, says that evolution has to be 100% complete or else it may as well be 0% complete (ergo, completely wrong). Which is to say that if evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction RIGHT NOW, not a minute from now, but NOW, then it will never be finished and it will be forever wrong.
Evolution right now is like a really large and complex jigsaw puzzle with a handful of pieces still not in place. This puzzle might, I dunno, depict a picture of a cute, fluffy kitten (the kind God had no qualms about killing, by the way). Even with the pieces missing, it's still quite obvious that the puzzle depicts a cute fluffy kitten. You don't need to put the last piece into place before slapping your forehead and exclaiming, "Oh, it was a kitten! Damn, and all this time I thought it was a picture of Mary Poppins doing a Russian dance in the Cydonia region of Mars! How did I not SEE that?"
Yet creationists like you will deny it's a kitten until the last piece is put into place -- even if the piece is part of the background or even a corner piece -- before you'll admit that it's a kitten. Until then, no matter how ridiculous, you'll insist that it's a picture of Mary Poppins doing a Russian dance in the Cydonia region of Mars.
There is still a lot to learn and discover about evolution -- but we're long past the point of wondering whether or not the entire theory is true. Now, it's all about tweaking it, perfecting it, and polishing it up. The "is it or isn't it true" question was answered quite a number of years ago.
*Foundational ... yep, another word registering as misspelled when it isn't. What would y'all do without me and my five dollar words with which to pad the forum dictionary?
(Incidentally, "y'all" is actually in the forum dictionary. )
Could you give us the Reader's Digest condensed version of the above? Maybe just in 50 words or less. I'm very busy and don't have a lot of time right now. Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Yep..yet another one. And I agree as much a waste of your time as your potstirring posts are of ours.