Creationists vs. Evolutionists: An American Story

[Moonwood the Hare]

Found a link to this from Victor Reppert's blog. thought you guys might be interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/creationists-vs-evolutionists-an-american-story/258384/

[Dr Mundo]

Found a link to this from Victor Reppert's blog. thought you guys might be interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/creationists-vs-evolutionists-an-american-story/258384/

I don't necessarily think people have to accept the theory of evolution or the world will end. It doesn't matter to some people where we came from, and that's fine. It does upset me when these people who are very ignorant of not just the theory of evolution (which is the theory that is supported by more disciplines in science than any other out there) but science in general, get in the way of education. Not enough people understand enough about science to make an informed decision. Though the concepts are not hard to grasp and just about anyone should be able to see that Evolution is the best description for the diversity of life, the fact is a great many people just don't care enough to find out. An other thing that bothers me is these people who do know a little bit about science and how it works, who help perpetuate the ignorance towards evolution, like all the people at the discovery institute.
Not accepting evolution points two things, Ignorance, or deception. The evidence is far to solid, and not too incredibly difficult to understand.

[mitchellmckain]

Found a link to this from Victor Reppert's blog. thought you guys might be interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/creationists-vs-evolutionists-an-american-story/258384/

Yes the article demonstrates a point that I have trying to get across to atheists for some time. If they keep pushing this bullshit argument that evolution and science means that Christianity is wrong and/or God does not exist the only result will be that evolution and science loses credibility with these people. The argument is not only just plain wrong but it doesn't accomplish anything good whatsoever.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes the article demonstrates a point that I have trying to get across to atheists for some time. If they keep pushing this bullshit argument that evolution and science means that Christianity is wrong and/or God does not exist the only result will be that evolution and science loses credibility. The argument is not only just plain wrong but it doesn't accomplish anything good whatsoever.

Evolution does pretty much put the kibosh on Christianity's literal claim that we are born sinful. The story of "man's fall" did not happen; it's not how humanity was brought into being, and without sin, we have no need for a savior.

We're not born sinful, we're born human. And in order to overcome elements of humanness that we know are troubling, like our innate inclination towards aggression, we have to understand where that aggressiveness comes from. Averring that such tendencies come from something "spiritual" is masking its true source. Christianity as a solution to this problem is indeed, wrong and one has to perform feats of philosophical legerdemain in order to fit the round peg of Christianity into the square hole of reality.

For some people, the solution is to ignore it altogether. They believe Christianity on one side, but recognize evolution on the other and they categorize one away from the other. This is the liberal Christianity we see in many of the posters here who seem to consider Christianity to be somewhere between true and metaphorical.

Then there are those who adopt a literal interpretation, and support the Genesis worldview over the facts (fundies, who everyone like to pretend are an ineffectual minority but while they may be a minority, they certainly are not "ineffectual").

As to "Disproving god", it's agreed by almost everyone that evolution doesn't disprove god or say anything about god one way or the other (only ill-informed theists make this claim). No one of note in the atheist camp says it does -- not Dawkins, not PZ Meyers, not Dennett, not Hitchens, not Harris, etc. But "not disproving god" is completely different from saying "Slays Christianity". Evolution slays Christianity because we evolved, we weren't created perfect from a perfect being and then fell into sin therefore we need a savior.

No, we do not. We need to do the work ourselves and continue to evolve.

[Keep The Reason]

There was this update to the article, not sure if anyone caught it:

[Update, 6/12, 10:30 a.m.: Some commenters have convinced me that, in saying that people like Dawkins and Myers "violated the nonaggression pact," I made the violation sound more unilateral than it was. I don't doubt that some creationists had already amped up their assault on the curriculum (and sometimes succeeded not just in a formal sense but more subtly). Still, my main points are (1) even if this is what provoked Dawkins, Myers, et. al., their gratuitously insulting reaction (IMHO) was still counter-productive, fueling the anti-evolutionism fires; (2) their reaction may well have abetted anti-scientism in areas unrelated to evolution, such as climate change.]

I think it's both productive and counter-productive. The bottom line in my opinion is that both methods work. Revolutions are often started by pointing out the ridiculousness of the position on the "other side"; certainly religions have adopted this methodology by pointing out how "ridiculous" it is to believe in Hindus gods, or Allah, or in the papacy or (etc. etc.). What theists seem to be saying in this argument is that non-believers who don't "take the high road" are not effective, but I take issue with what they call "the high-road" in the first place.

The article states:

But I do think that if somebody wants to convince a fundamentalist Christian that climate scientists aren't to be trusted, the Christian's prior association of scientists like Dawkins with evil makes that job easier.

As I have positioned in my approach, it's a total waste of time and effort to try to change the beliefs of the fundamentalists in any event. I don't think Dawkins or Meyers (or myself) give Shit #1 what Fundies think insomuch as they are inclined to have any urge to change their minds. Bringing up their numbnuttery certainly is important for exposure of numbnuttery sake, In short, my only interest in confrontation with fundies is to remove their hold on political power (and doing that via the political process). I don't care what they believe per se but I do care that they want their narrow and hobbled worldview used as the basis of social modeling and they presently have the political clout to get that stuff enshrined in our laws.

(And please, don't jump into some idea that this is about a war, reeducation camps or any of that bullshit. I'm not talking about "cleansing believers" -- I'm interested in growing and organizing non-believers whose political clout negates that of the theocrats' political clout).

[Moonwood the Hare]

Evolution does pretty much put the kibosh on Christianity's literal claim that we are born sinful. The story of "man's fall" did not happen; it's not how humanity was brought into being, and without sin, we have no need for a savior.

I think the most evolution can be said to have done is to make it necessary to question some aspects of the teaching of St. Augustine or possibly of some interpretations of Augustine. The federalist doctrine of the fall first advocated by Warfield in the late nineteenth century seems to me to meet this need adequately. Warfield is generally regarded as the founder of Fundamentalism and is not generally regarded as a liberal in any sense of the word.

We're not born sinful, we're born human.

Not sure why you think these are alternatives.

And in order to overcome elements of humanness that we know are troubling, like our innate inclination towards aggression, we have to understand where that aggressiveness comes from. Averring that such tendencies come from something "spiritual" is masking its true source. Christianity as a solution to this problem is indeed, wrong and one has to perform feats of philosophical legerdemain in order to fit the round peg of Christianity into the square hole of reality.

I can see the advantage of an evolutionary understanding of our aggression but I'm not really sure what you mean by spiritual. What you seem to be saying is that the theory of evolution is incompatible with some kind of disembodies neo-platonic idea of spirituality

For some people, the solution is to ignore it altogether. They believe Christianity on one side, but recognize evolution on the other and they categorize one away from the other. This is the liberal Christianity we see in many of the posters here who seem to consider Christianity to be somewhere between true and metaphorical.

Can't speak for anyone else but for me true and metaphorical are not alternatives - so I see Christianity as true and metaphorical.

Then there are those who adopt a literal interpretation, and support the Genesis worldview over the facts (fundies, who everyone like to pretend are an ineffectual minority but while they may be a minority, they certainly are not "ineffectual").

Most fundamentalists are not really literalists, in many ways they do not take the Bible very literally at all. Certainly they read it any a very odd, very modern way.

As to "Disproving god", it's agreed by almost everyone that evolution doesn't disprove god or say anything about god one way or the other (only ill-informed theists make this claim). No one of note in the atheist camp says it does -- not Dawkins, not PZ Meyers, not Dennett, not Hitchens, not Harris, etc. But "not disproving god" is completely different from saying "Slays Christianity". Evolution slays Christianity because we evolved, we weren't created perfect from a perfect being and then fell into sin therefore we need a savior.

No, we do not. We need to do the work ourselves and continue to evolve.

And of course Genesis does not say anything about people being created perfect and the need for a saviour does not derive from this supposed perfection. I think the problem hear KTR is that like many 'Fundamentalists' the only theological views you are really aware of are Fundamentalist ones and you slap the one size fits all label liberalism on anything that is not fairly extreme fundamentalism.

[Keep The Reason]

I think the most evolution can be said to have done is to make it necessary to question some aspects of the teaching of St. Augustine or possibly of some interpretations of Augustine.

I assume you mean vis a vis Christianity. Evolution has done a lot more for the advancement of the sciences than merely to give us opportunity to question some aspects of a 4th/ 5th century theologian.

Not sure why you think these are alternatives.

Because I reject "sin" as a necessary concept. It's certainly a theistic one, but that has no meaning for me until someone can show me what "Sin" really is. (And that means showing me god. Which I don't accept is a real entity.)

I can see the advantage of an evolutionary understanding of our aggression but I'm not really sure what you mean by spiritual. What you seem to be saying is that the theory of evolution is incompatible with some kind of disembodies neo-platonic idea of spirituality

Until you demonstrate to me the existence of the spiritual, I see no reason to consider it. We have been over this before of course.

Can't speak for anyone else but for me true and metaphorical are not alternatives - so I see Christianity as true and metaphorical.

Honestly, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Something that is true and metaphor is not literally true; so what is meant by "true"?

Most fundamentalists are not really literalist, in many ways they do not take the Bible very literally at all. Certainly they read it any a very odd, very modern way.

I'll bet they same the same to theists who don't read it that way. Who decides what's "right"? What's the criteria for deciding?

And of course Genesis does not say anything about people being created perfect and the need for a saviour does not derive from this supposed perfection. I think the problem hear KTR is that like many 'Fundamentalists' the only theological views you are really aware of are Fundamentalist ones and you slap the one size fits all label liberalism on anything that is not fairly extreme fundamentalism.

No, I'm aware of the liberal/various versions of the belief system but for me someone who defines Christianity in such a way that it negates or ignores sin, ignores or negates the need for salvation, ignores of negates heaven and hell -- I'm just not particularly concerned with their impact. They may be nice people with all sorts of progressive ideas. My concern is with the theocrats. Whatever your interpretations of Christianity are, as long as they don't drive towards theocracy, I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.

[Moonwood the Hare]

My concern is with the theocrats. Whatever your interpretations of Christianity are, as long as they don't drive towards theocracy, I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.

Anyone on this site advocating theocracy? If not not sure why Keep the Reason is bothering to argue with us instead of spending his time on a Reconstructionist site.

[humanguy]

We're not born sinful, we're born human.

Not sure why you think these are alternatives.

They aren't alternatives. One is a myth and the other isn't.

That is unless you can prove to me that there's such a thing as sin.

[Keep The Reason]

Anyone on this site advocating theocracy? If not not sure why Keep the Reason is bothering to argue with us instead of spending his time on a Reconstructionist site.

I like some of you.

What makes you think I'm not on other sites?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Anyone on this site advocating theocracy? If not not sure why Keep the Reason is bothering to argue with us instead of spending his time on a Reconstructionist site.

I like some of you.

What makes you think I'm not on other sites?

Well at any rate I've never advocated theocracy and I've never seen anyone here advocate that. Of course the reconstructionists would say they don't advocate theocracy either but they come a lot closer to it than anyone here. I certainly don't seem myself as a theological liberal. I see myself as a theological conservative. Politically I'm a liberal small l.
The thing with metaphorical language - I can't see why you don't get it. Do you see what I did? Was I telling the truth about what I think?

[Keep The Reason]

Well at any rate I've never advocated theocracy and I've never seen anyone here advocate that. Of course the reconstructionists would say they don't advocate theocracy either but they come a lot closer to it than anyone here. I certainly don't seem myself as a theological liberal. I see myself as a theological conservative. Politically I'm a liberal small l.

That being the case my involvement here has dropped off considerably. I suppose I could just leave altogther.

The thing with metaphorical language - I can't see why you don't get it. Do you see what I did? Was I telling the truth about what I think?

I don't know if you were telling the truth. Maybe you are, maybe you're not. In order to get at it I would need some sort of evidence to support your metaphorical statements.

But it sounds like word games to me.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Almost all language is metaphorical to some extent this does not mean we spend our time lying or making meaningless statements. Certainly all the language the Bible uses to talk about God is metaphorical or at least I can't think of a single exception to that. Sometimes theology uses very abstract technical language which has been developed for a specific purpose but even then that is often used alongside metaphor. So the idea that Christians used to take their beliefs very literally and then sometime in the 19th Century some of them stopped doing that and started using the language metaphorically is a myth. So if say you were to ask me do you think the virgin birth really happened or is it just a metaphor I would feel comfortable saying both. The Church Fathers say both - they believe it literally and see its metaphorical significance. As a bare event it would have no significance at all. Someone was born without a father, surprising but so what. The inability of say Richard Dawkins to understand such subtelties is demonstrated by his hilarious nonsence about the fatherless man. He takes a story about a man who had God as his father, a powerful myth, and interprets it as a story about a man who had no father.

Let me take another example. We are told that when Jesus died blood and water came from his side. This may have described what literally happened although the exact medical cause will remain unknown but for John who records it it seems to have a deeper significance. St Augustine develops this by seeing the water and blood as symbols of baptism and communion which may be what John had in mind but also sees a parallel with the Church the bride of Christ founded on the sacraments being taken from the side of Christ as Eve was taken from the side of Adam. Again a powerful myth. Then in the age of science someone decided to do some experiments on animals to see if he could find what happened and found that the blood of dying animals divedes in that way when they are under extreme stress and that it is evidence of death. Very prosaic and perhaps even true. Someone else then noted that this would mean quite literally that Christ died of a broken heart. It's as if having demythologised the story people had to remythologse it to make it work.

[Keep The Reason]

Almost all language is metaphorical to some extent this does not mean we spend our time lying or making meaningless statements. Certainly all the language the Bible uses to talk about God is metaphorical or at least I can't think of a single exception to that. Sometimes theology uses very abstract technical language which has been developed for a specific purpose but even then that is often used alongside metaphor. So the idea that Christians used to take their beliefs very literally and then sometime in the 19th Century some of them stopped doing that and started using the language metaphorically is a myth. So if say you were to ask me do you think the virgin birth really happened or is it just a metaphor I would feel comfortable saying both. The Church Fathers say both - they believe it literally and see its metaphorical significance. As a bare event it would have no significance at all. Someone was born without a father, surprising but so what. The inability of say Richard Dawkins to understand such subtelties is demonstrated by his hilarious nonsence about the fatherless man. He takes a story about a man who had God as his father, a powerful myth, and interprets it as a story about a man who had no father.

Let me take another example. We are told that when Jesus died blood and water came from his side. This may have described what literally happened although the exact medical cause will remain unknown but for John who records it it seems to have a deeper significance. St Augustine develops this by seeing the water and blood as symbols of baptism and communion which may be what John had in mind but also sees a parallel with the Church the bride of Christ founded on the sacraments being taken from the side of Christ as Eve was taken from the side of Adam. Again a powerful myth. Then in the age of science someone decided to do some experiments on animals to see if he could find what happened and found that the blood of dying animals divedes in that way when they are under extreme stress and that it is evidence of death. Very prosaic and perhaps even true. Someone else then noted that this would mean quite literally that Christ died of a broken heart. It's as if having demythologised the story people had to remythologse it to make it work.

Well, all I can say is-- if you're a theist, this is how your gods want it. Unclear, scrambled, and a miasma of contradicting interpretations. As far as I'm concerned, you also left out the powerful myth of any actual ressurrection. We don't die and get reborn, that's mythology-- there is nothing after death but nothingness for the person who has died, so why pretend that the ressurrection is real? It's a metaphor, a mythology, a lesson on how to do better as people (all of which I can work with), but it didn't actually happen, anymore than did the story of Creation in Genesis. People like Aaron and Christian Heretic and Rian believing in a literal ressurrection are just foolish for doing so. Do you believe in a literal ressurrection?

But why should anyone take yours over anyone elses' interpretation? You sound no more "right" than does anyone else. You don't have to take my interpretation either. Hell, all interpretations look equally right and wrong at the same time. Who knows which interpretation is most accurate. I prefer demonstrable science, thank you.

And you don't get the Dawkin's position in that he is replaying what theists say to him, but it's not an issue. Even if it were his psoition, his interpretation would be no more right or wrong than anyone elses' in any event.

[PlunderBunny]

Yes the article demonstrates a point that I have trying to get across to atheists for some time. If they keep pushing this bullshit argument that evolution and science means that Christianity is wrong and/or God does not exist the only result will be that evoltion and science loses credibility. The argument is not only just plain wrong but it doesn't accomplish anything good whatsoever.

It's not really a faulty argument, because science and evolution do directly contradict and disprove most peoples perceived versions of Christianity.

Assuming that the poll linked is accurate, the majority - 46% - of people believe that humans were created in present form. Science and evolution directly contradict that claim, and do so for pretty much any other literal claim from Christianity that people still hold to.

Science doesn't disprove the existence of a God - and I've never met or heard of someone who contends this, but it certainly disproves many iterations, ideas, and actions of said God. I don't think this is a 'bullshit argument' at all, and the good it can achieve is to make people more educated and perhaps adopt a stance or iteration of religion that is a little less ridiculous.

If the majority of Christians took the Bible non-literally and didn't believe things directly contradicted by science and evolution I would completely agree that it was a fools argument. But they don't so it's not.