Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

unabashed Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:10 pm

I was on another forum where a very interesting point was brought up. I've been in the atheist/freethinker/humanist community for about 4 years now and I've never heard anyone else bring this up.

Some Christians, many even, have no problem with evolution. Maybe they haven't really considered the problem it presents for their doctrine.
You see, if evolution, the aspect of it that says we and apes came from a common ancestor, is true, then the Adam and Eve story is just a story -- allegory or whatever -- just not truth. If that story is made up, then original sin is bullocks too. And without original sin, Jesus dying for our sins is bull too.

Thoughts?

**Momma Heathen** Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:29 pm

unabashed wrote:I was on another forum where a very interesting point was brought up. I've been in the atheist/freethinker/humanist community for about 4 years now and I've never heard anyone else bring this up.

Some Christians, many even, have no problem with evolution. Maybe they haven't really considered the problem it presents for their doctrine.
You see, if evolution, the aspect of it that says we and apes came from a common ancestor, is true, then the Adam and Eve story is just a story -- allegory or whatever -- just not truth. If that story is made up, then original sin is bullocks too. And without original sin, Jesus dying for our sins is bull too.

Thoughts?

Going with that line of thought, then yes. It would all have to be bull. If a x-tian believes that evolution is true, then logical reasoning (ie. Adam and Eve is bunk, as is the rest of the story that follows) would have to follow. There are, however, those x-tians that I have spoken to who believe that evolution is the work of the creator. Sure, things evolved, but the creator put the first thing there. Again, to follow that line of thought, Adam and Eve wouldn't have existed as they had in the bible. So!

Yeah. I just don't understand the entire creationist thing. It's too pick-and-choose for me.

snafu Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:46 pm

John Shelby Spong covers these points very well in his "Jesus for The Non-Religious".
A liberal theologian whose sincerity for truth seeking is evident. Bible is no holy book, but the result of many iterations etc... is his view.
One of my favourite authors on the theistic side.

snafu

jgrow2 Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:08 pm

Indeed, it seems to depend on how you approach the Bible. Jesus For The Non-Religious is a wonderful book, not just for the interpretation that Spong brings but also for what his interpretation represents, especially coming from someone in the Episcopalian hierarchy.

For Christians to believe in Evolution though, to really believe, means that they must realize we are not created in god's image. That presents a tremendous problem because it means that we truly are nothing special, in their viewpoint, without that supernatural kind-eyed grand-dad watching over us. Just us.

I don't think they can face the day without that.

Even the interpretation that it was all initiated by the "Creator" implies the old Grand-Dad as well, mainly because of the misinterpretation of higher and lower forms of life as some kind of hierarchy upwards. There is no way to reconcile the two viewpoints without the cherry-picking and cognitive dissonance Christianity does so well.

Neon Genesis Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:08 pm

I can see why this would be an issue for Christians who believe in the literal reading of the bible and original sin. The thing with this criticism of theistic evolution though is that original sin is actually not found anywhere in the scriptures and was made up by the Catholic church. Being a Christian doctrine, original sin has no bearing on whether or not Genesis can be interpreted symbolically as a Jewish doctrine. What I mean is that this criticism of theistic evolution is trying to read a later Christian into a Jewish book. Also, not all Christians believe in the original sin doctrine. When I was a Christian, I believed in the inerrancy of the bible and that Genesis was a literal story, but I didn't believe in original sin. I believed that since we were created in God's image and God was perfect, then humans were originally perfect and children are innocent without sin. I believed children were innocent and didn't start to sin until they were old enough to make choices for themselves. Oddly, my church had still rejected theistic evolution even though their beliefs were perfectly compatible with it as their beliefs were not dependent on original sin. Do Jews believe in original sin and have this problem?

Stegocephalian Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:20 am

Regarding being created in "God's Image", it is not necessary for a Christian to reject that notion to accept evolution - the evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller is an example of a theist who believes that man was created in God's image, yet accepts a fully naturalistic view of evolution, unguided by anything supernatural.

Miller explains his views on God and his Christian beliefs in his book "Finding Darwin's God" - he essentially argues that man being god's image does not mean in any sense a similarity literal, physical appearance, and imagines that if time were wound back, and evolution on Earth be allowed to run it's course again, man would be extremely unlikely to evolve - but SOME creature possessing the intelligence and creativity worthy of qualifying as an "image of God" may have evolved. And if not on Earth, then surely on some other planet in the vastness of the Universe. Miller sees no reason to believe that it had to be humans to fill this role, or that it had to happen on Earth.

I've debated and discussed and corresponded with creationists of various kinds over the years, and have come to see that the main stumbling block for the acceptance of evolution is that they associate it with atheism, and the rejection of the ethical views they associate with their Christian beliefs. This message is pounded onto them from the pulpit, endlessly, and from the deplorable propaganda of the type the pseudo-documentary "Expelled" represents.

They see a dichotomy between either accepting evolution, or rejecting Christianity, God belief, the foundations of all ethics and morals, and this false dichotomy is the thing that makes them unable to even consider evidence against a literal reading of the Genesis.

This is why people like Kenneth Miller are crucially important in the fight against fundamentalism; that false dichotomy does have to be dispelled from the minds of believers - it has to be exposed as false - if creationism is ever to be driven to the position of irrelevant fringe extremist lunacy that it deserves.

Nicholas Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:42 am

I don't think creationism will ever fall to the wayside where it belongs. Why? The same reason Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck all have large fan bases: they are loud, they are inflammatory, and they prey on the ignorance and fear of their demographic. Creationism proponents do the same thing, and they do so with fervent belief. That's hard to combat. Cold, dry fact and logic, as well as more moderate and thoughtful Christian positions like that of Kenneth Miller, are drowned out by the shouting of the Jesus Mafia. They turn it into an emotional issue; the secular society is challenging they very heart of their beliefs, thus the very thing many of them hold dearest: faith in their god. So for many of them, it's not an abstract idea you're challenging; it's a very part of who they are.

Like Setgo said, if they accept Evolution, they see it as a concession to atheism and the secular society as a whole - which would be inexcusable in their eyes. Their addled brains could not possibly reconcile that they can be Christians and accept the fact of evolution at the same time, or that doing so won't tear apart the fabric of reality.

It's just Christianity being Christianity, clinging desperately to antiquated ideas in the light of progress and science.

jgrow2 Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:58 pm

Stegocephalian wrote:Regarding being created in "God's Image", it is not necessary for a Christian to reject that notion to accept evolution - the evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller is an example of a theist who believes that man was created in God's image, yet accepts a fully naturalistic view of evolution, unguided by anything supernatural.

Interesting. But how does that work then? If man is created in "god's image" and yet is the product of evolution, then is god a mostly hairless bipedal being with a curved back, an appendix and arched feet? Yahweh probably was, which explains why he was such a bastard. But this is not the god of Christianity. Certainly not the one drilled into my soft head when I was a young sweet boy.

What image of god is it we're made in? If it's the example I just used, that's a horribly primitive view of god. But then again, Yahweh was the local blood cult god in that area so maybe that is the case. but again, that bears no resemblance to the god of the gospels, or of Paul's letters--even taking out the crap that later misogynists copied into them. If it's something more esoteric, that's not what the extremists believe.

Stegocephalian Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:05 am

jgrow2 wrote:
Stegocephalian wrote:Regarding being created in "God's Image", it is not necessary for a Christian to reject that notion to accept evolution - the evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller is an example of a theist who believes that man was created in God's image, yet accepts a fully naturalistic view of evolution, unguided by anything supernatural.

Interesting. But how does that work then? If man is created in "god's image" and yet is the product of evolution, then is god a mostly hairless bipedal being with a curved back, an appendix and arched feet? Yahweh probably was, which explains why he was such a bastard. But this is not the god of Christianity. Certainly not the one drilled into my soft head when I was a young sweet boy.

What image of god is it we're made in? If it's the example I just used, that's a horribly primitive view of god. But then again, Yahweh was the local blood cult god in that area so maybe that is the case. but again, that bears no resemblance to the god of the gospels, or of Paul's letters--even taking out the crap that later misogynists copied into them. If it's something more esoteric, that's not what the extremists believe.

Miller rejects the view that saying that "man is made in the image of God" means that God has a literal physical appearance like that of man. He points out that in the Bible, God appears in many different forms, from a burning bush to just light, so the Bible can't have intended that "image of God" means literal physical appearance. So, Miller asks, what else could it mean? His answer is that it means intelligence, cognition - that being an image of God means being a cognitive being.

Given this, there's no difficulty in arguing that any result of evolutionary process anywhere in the universe, that happened to stumble on cognition would have qualified for "a soul" and the description of being made in the "image of God".

Neon Genesis Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:51 pm

Stegocephalian wrote:
Miller rejects the view that saying that "man is made in the image of God" means that God has a literal physical appearance like that of man. He points out that in the Bible, God appears in many different forms, from a burning bush to just light, so the Bible can't have intended that "image of God" means literal physical appearance. So, Miller asks, what else could it mean? His answer is that it means intelligence, cognition - that being an image of God means being a cognitive being.
.

When I was a fundamentalist, the phrase "in the image of God" didn't mean we literally looked like God but it was more like what type of role we as humans were supposed to have. Like God was a male dominating figure, so since men were created in the image of God, then men were expected to be dominating figures and women were to be submissive.

jgrow2 Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:51 am

Stegocephalian wrote:Miller rejects the view that saying that "man is made in the image of God" means that God has a literal physical appearance like that of man. He points out that in the Bible, God appears in many different forms, from a burning bush to just light, so the Bible can't have intended that "image of God" means literal physical appearance. So, Miller asks, what else could it mean? His answer is that it means intelligence, cognition - that being an image of God means being a cognitive being.

Given this, there's no difficulty in arguing that any result of evolutionary process anywhere in the universe, that happened to stumble on cognition would have qualified for "a soul" and the description of being made in the "image of God".

An interesting notion, but it still seems like splitting hairs on the part of someone trying too hard to reconcile deeply held beliefs with objective fact, you know? Following that line, why then all the drama about the tree of knowledge? Why the various dismissals of intellect all through the Bible? Why the need for faith if cogito ergo sum?

At the very least, I can see someone declaring NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and plugging their ears at further attempts to reason. Personally I had my cherry-picking period and ended up with only two books from the Bible being of even marginal use to me, the Gospel of Mark and Ecclesiastes. By and large, anything meaningful you might find in the Bible or the words attributed to Jesus and Paul are more fully thought out and relevant in Zen Buddhism, and even they took a dim view to clinging to scripture.

BrodeurHOF Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:17 pm

In my own personal experience, I have a co-worker who doesn't believe in evolution, because if evolution were true, then other things that she was taught might be able to be proven wrong. Therefore, evolution needs to be included in her belief structure. Then I asked her, "So because you cant understand something, that means god did it." She then said, "yes." It's not that many christians can't understand evolution, it's that they don't want to believe in evolution because it doesn't fit into their unenlightened view of the world.

jgrow2 Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:17 pm

BrodeurHOF wrote:In my own personal experience, I have a co-worker who doesn't believe in evolution, because if evolution were true, then other things that she was taught might be able to be proven wrong. Therefore, evolution needs to be included in her belief structure. Then I asked her, "So because you cant understand something, that means god did it." She then said, "yes." It's not that many christians can't understand evolution, it's that they don't want to believe in evolution because it doesn't fit into their unenlightened view of the world.

Sad, isn't it? It's the sort of reasoning you'd give to a child. "God did it." That's right kid, the great granddaddy in the sky did it somehow. "But how?" "Go to your room! Don't question the Lord!"

Objectivitees Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:58 pm

I was on another forum where a very interesting point was brought up. I've been in the atheist/freethinker/humanist community for about 4 years now and I've never heard anyone else bring this up.

Some Christians, many even, have no problem with evolution. Maybe they haven't really considered the problem it presents for their doctrine.
You see, if evolution, the aspect of it that says we and apes came from a common ancestor, is true, then the Adam and Eve story is just a story -- allegory or whatever -- just not truth. If that story is made up, then original sin is bullocks too. And without original sin, Jesus dying for our sins is bull too.

Thoughts?

(Emphasis added)

Hello all,

I'm new to your forum here, and this topic caught my eye. Seems no one who claims to be a Christian has posted yet. I guess I'll test the waters. Though up front, I want you all to understand I am not your typical Christian. I don't even like the label. Why? Because it allows those who stand outside the pale of 'orthodoxy' so to speak, to automatically place me in their pigeonhole. It's difficult to speak to people when they are too busy telling you what you think from their point of view on your point of view.

So, that said... I'd be happy to comment on why Christians have a problem with Evolution. I'd be honored to 'represent', if you will have me. I'd like this to be a discussion, where both sides learn about the other, rather than a debate about who's right. (though I may accidentally cross that line myself from time to time as passion takes over)

Off the top... I think the OP had a pretty fair assessment of the situation,
Evolution and Creation stand diametrically opposed. There can be no 'Theistic Evolution'. (I assume the OP means 'creation' where he says 'the Adam and Eve story', as it is the creation story of Christianity)

This presents as much a challenge to the Evolutionist as it does the Creationist, as the question becomes not "Is Creation wrong", or "Is Evolution wrong" but rather, is one more reasonable than the other? This I believe is the proper way to phrase the discussion, as it makes use of the excluded middle, therefore, since the OP acknowledges that (implicitly) one position's 'reasonableness' is evidence of the others' 'unreasonableness', I'll now take your questions. (Please try to understand I may not be able to directly answer everyone, I have a family to raise, and time is short, as my employer is verifiably 'unreasonable' with his demands on my time. Wink wink.)

jgrow2 Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:45 pm

Hello Objectivitees--

I guess I'll start. But where I don't know. I agree there can be no such thing as "theistic evolution," but I agree mainly because all explanations of the fact of evolution are from a naturalistic standpoint, and do not require a supernatural element.

However, I do not agree with your wording of the issue. The heart of the matter is not whether one is more reasonable than the other. The issue is not a matter of opinion, really, it's a question of evidence. And evolution by natural selection (Darwin's theory) has a mountain of evidence behind it. All of it points to a natural origin, not a supernatural one.

Objectivitees Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:55 am

jgrow2 wrote:Hello Objectivitees--

I guess I'll start. But where I don't know. I agree there can be no such thing as "theistic evolution," but I agree mainly because all explanations of the fact of evolution are from a naturalistic standpoint, and do not require a supernatural element.

However, I do not agree with your wording of the issue. The heart of the matter is not whether one is more reasonable than the other. The issue is not a matter of opinion, really, it's a question of evidence. And evolution by natural selection (Darwin's theory) has a mountain of evidence behind it. All of it points to a natural origin, not a supernatural one.

Hello jgrow2,
When you say "the issue", which issue do you mean? The OP clearly set it up right. Creation stands opposed to Evolution. Therefore only one worldview can possibly be 'true'. You are right to assert that all explanations of Evolution are from a 'naturalistic' standpoint. Creation is from a 'supernatural' standpoint. Therefore neither side will grant the premises of the other, the only way to proceed without wasting much time effort and exasperation talking past each other is to determine which worldview is more reasonable. We have to do this by means common to both sides. Since I'm not here to discuss your interpretation of the evidence, and you aren't here to discuss my interpretation, I propose the only way to do this is to follow logic. Since a presumption of the validity of logic is necessary to even believe we have the ability to communicate, and you have shown (as have I) a willingness to engage, we therefore both assume logic in common. Since both sides presume the validity of logic as a means to determine truth, we can then use logic to determine which worldview (Creation or Evolution) is the most reasonable, by determining which is most consistent with it's own presuppositions. In fact, creations' presuppositions, are the precise reason that creationists have a problem with Evolution, (and won't grant it's premises) it's not necessarily the "evidence"... which brings us back to the point of this thread. I hope to be able to explain to you what the presuppositions are, why we have them, how they are justified, and at the same time compare them with Evolutions' presuppositions, and compare them both, to the precepts of the laws of logic.

Aside from all that, I did not see a question in your post, did you have one?

Stegocephalian Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:30 am

Objectivitees - first, welcome to the forum!

While it is true that it is important for belief systems - or any less comprehensive claims for that matter - to be logically consistent, logical consistency alone tells nothing of whether that system, or claim, is true or not.

The collection of statements:

1. All rocks are made of cheese
2. The moon is made of rock
3. Therefore the moon is made of cheese

Represents a completely logically sound position - but it it's premises are not valid; it does not correspond to the state of reality.

Examining the logic of a claim alone can only tell you whether the claim is logically sound, but it cannot help you determine whether it is true of the real world (unless you find a logical contradiction, in which case you can dismiss it as self-contradictory).

This is why in any discussion of evolution, or indeed, any claim of the state of the world, or the phenomena in it, empirical evidence must be brought to bear to settle the matter.

Would you not agree with this?

Also, I do need to point out that there are plenty of Christians (indeed, most Christians would fall into this category) who would take exception with the claim that evolution is incompatible with their religious faith - they merely interpret the whole notion of original sin, and the whole purpose of the genesis story differently from what the creationists do. I don't think it fair to dismiss their position out of hand, without someone representing that camp being present in the discussion; that's why I suggest that we keep to the topic of evolution in the thread, and leave theology for another time.

Also, as you welcomed questions, I'd like to ask you your specific position on the history of the Earth - I know you don't like lables (neither do I), but what brand of Creationist would most closely match your position? Mainly I'm looking to understand what you believe as to things like the age of the Earth and the Universe, so that we don't end up debating you on a position you don't actually hold.

jgrow2 Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:10 am

Objectivitees wrote:Aside from all that, I did not see a question in your post, did you have one?

I do, and Stegocephalian has asked one of them. Another is, on what scientific, rational basis do you hold this creationist belief?

In general, I look forward to reading your comments and answers to these and other questions posed.

Objectivitees Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:17 pm

Another is, on what scientific, rational basis do you hold this creationist belief?

Logic.

I'll have to respond to the other question posed by the other guy when I have more time.

jgrow2 Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:36 pm

Objectivitees wrote:Logic.

I'll have to respond to the other question posed by the other guy when I have more time.

Interesting. So please show this logic when you have the chance. A pithy one-word answer will not sway and will not suffice.

Objectivitees Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:31 pm

jgrow2 wrote:
Objectivitees wrote:Logic.

I'll have to respond to the other question posed by the other guy when I have more time.

Interesting. So please show this logic when you have the chance. A pithy one-word answer will not sway and will not suffice.

I'm getting there...please be patient and understand, though pithy, it was not meant to persuade... it was meant to explain and answer your query concisely and accurately. After all, I did mention that my employer makes unreasonable demands on my time somewhere on this board...Wink wink.

jgrow2 Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:35 pm

Objectivitees wrote:I'm getting there...please be patient and understand, though pithy, it was not meant to persuade... it was meant to explain and answer your query concisely and accurately. After all, I did mention that my employer makes unreasonable demands on my time somewhere on this board...Wink wink.

I dig. And I look forward to reading more.

Objectivitees Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:46 pm

Objectivitees - first, welcome to the forum!

Thank you.

While it is true that it is important for belief systems - or any less comprehensive claims for that matter - to be logically consistent, logical consistency alone tells nothing of whether that system, or claim, is true or not.

I agree. I would however, add that “belief systems” need to be rational and reasonable as well. Only logic will enable us to make this determination.

The collection of statements:

1. All rocks are made of cheese
2. The moon is made of rock
3. Therefore the moon is made of cheese

Represents a completely logically sound position - but it it's premises are not valid; it does not correspond to the state of reality.

So then, logic does tell us something about reality, namely, in your example, it corresponds with the truth that the moon is not made of cheese. Your Modus tollens is a perfect (and valid)example of such kinds of logic, but just because this particular example doesn’t support it’s conclusion, does not mean it does not tell us anything about reality.

Examining the logic of a claim alone can only tell you whether the claim is logically sound, but it cannot help you determine whether it is true of the real world

But it can help you determine some things that are true about reality, as I established above.

(unless you find a logical contradiction, in which case you can dismiss it as self-contradictory).

Which directly contradicts the first half of your paragraph, above.

This is why in any discussion of evolution, or indeed, any claim of the state of the world, or the phenomena in it, empirical evidence must be brought to bear to settle the matter. Would you not agree with this?

No, I would not. Here’s the reason. A discussion on the empirical evidence alone already presupposes my position is wrong; therefore I would be foolish to accept those terms. How would it be possible to make a reasonable defense of my position if I concede at the outset it is wrong?
You see, the problems lie not with “the evidence”. They lie in our interpretation of the evidence. Since we have different and diametrically opposed interpretations (Evolution vs. Creation) we will quite naturally interpret the evidence differently. Each of us would be correct in our interpretations, within the parameters of our own belief systems. So, to avoid a fruitless argument where we talk “past” each other, without understanding each other, what we really have to discuss is the nature of our “belief systems.” We have to determine which system best accounts for the evidence, not who has the “correct” interpretation. The only way to do that is through the use of our reason and logic. Empirical evidence will have a part to play, but not a deciding one.

We all have a set of assumed (presupposed) beliefs through which we interpret this ‘evidence’. (You called them ‘belief systems’, I call them ‘worldviews’) The question is, which set of presuppositions/belief systems/ worldviews is the most reasonable? Which set of presuppositions best accounts for the position concluded? (Evolutions’ presuppositions, or Creations’ presuppositions?) If the thrust of your post here was to suggest logic insufficient to the cause, I have to wonder why you use it in the attempt to prove your point?

Also, I do need to point out that there are plenty of Christians (indeed, most Christians would fall into this category) who would take exception with the claim that evolution is incompatible with their religious faith - they merely interpret the whole notion of original sin, and the whole purpose of the genesis story differently from what the creationists do. I don't think it fair to dismiss their position out of hand, without someone representing that camp being present in the discussion; that's why I suggest that we keep to the topic of evolution in the thread, and leave theology for another time.

This is a fallacy of irrelevance; the OP already dismissed the possibility of theistic evolution, properly dividing the discussion into opposed propositions by use of the third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle. So your argument is with it (the OP) on this point, not me.

Also, as you welcomed questions, I'd like to ask you your specific position on the history of the Earth - I know you don't like lables (neither do I), but what brand of Creationist would most closely match your position? Mainly I'm looking to understand what you believe as to things like the age of the Earth and the Universe, so that we don't end up debating you on a position you don't actually hold.

Ok, I’ll try, but I don’t think you’ll like my answer. I’m kind of ‘agnostic’ with respect to the history of the earth, and age of the universe. I don’t think it is the 6k yrs old that some “creationists” claim, nor do I think it is billions of yrs. Old either. As far as I am concerned, the jury is out on that one, so I don’t discuss dating theories with respect to their relevance on a specific proposition being discussed, (such as “Is evolution true?”) but rather I ask: “do the presuppositions of the person using this line of reason comport themselves with conclusions logically drawn from their expressed worldview?” So these kinds of arguments (strict evidential) don’t apply here, (because we need to discuss ‘which worldview is more rational’, not ‘does the evidence support my conclusion over theirs.’) In any case, I don’t believe my personal view on earth’s age/history is relevant to which set of presuppositions are more reasonable.

Logic should be quite sufficient to the cause of determining what is logical. It’s (logic) assumed because it has to be.

jgrow2 Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:10 pm

Objectivitees--

An interesting response to Stegocephalian's initial questions. However, what Stego points out and what you respond with both point up the problem with such arguments from logic alone.

I agree, a good argument should be logically consistent. Too often though, these debates turn into mere word games, and can even devolve further into emotional arguments. They do nothing but while away a few hours and warm up a room with hot air, whether from actual voices or from overburdened CPUs. You get a nice look into the way a particular person perceives reality, but that's all. You *prove* nothing but that you're good with wordplay, which is nice on the pulpit for the parishoners perhaps, but meaningless to science.

Objectivitees Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:13 am

jgrow2 wrote:Objectivitees--

An interesting response to Stegocephalian's initial questions. However, what Stego points out and what you respond with both point up the problem with such arguments from logic alone.

I didn't catch the 'problem' to which you refer. Could you specify for poor little overworked and slow me, please?

I agree, a good argument should be logically consistent. Too often though, these debates turn into mere word games, and can even devolve further into emotional arguments. They do nothing but while away a few hours and warm up a room with hot air, whether from actual voices or from overburdened CPUs. You get a nice look into the way a particular person perceives reality, but that's all.

Ayup. By setting up the propositions the way I am attempting, I am hoping to avoid just that scenario, which we both agree it seems, is fruitless.

You *prove* nothing but that you're good with wordplay, which is nice on the pulpit for the parishoners perhaps, but meaningless to science.

I agree. Proof is not what we are after. However, I don't agree that logic applied correctly to a worldview, should be, or is meaningless to science. Without logic, we are not capable of science. Therefore since logic is assumed (by both sides of this debate) it seems logical that the side whose worldview is better able to justify the assumption that logic is valid, is the more reasonable worldview through which to interpret the empirical evidence. So now that we have come this far, I guess my claim is simple.

Creations' presuppositions (assumptions)are better justified (by logic) than Evolutions'.

Sponsored content

Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution