Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?

[Cactus]

Natural selection on its own can not account for all the diversity we see. It is certainly far from an agreed consensus in the scientific community.

To my knowledge, we can count the number of biologists who reject evolution on one hand.

Sounds about right yes. Most biologists seem to be Evolutionary biologists, but lets not argue from popularity. If something was true because its popular then at certain stages of time Islam Or Christianity would be Unquestionably true.

Also even if its just a theory pint doesn't mean it isn't true. Also never seen a "transitional" form? Well if Evolution were to be true would not all forms be transitional? (although I was lazy reading this thread I don't know if its been mentioned yet.)

[Canuckster1127]

The continuation of the conversation demonstrates, I believe, that the presuppositions that underly each participants point of view is going to in the end, be circled back to.

Science, by definition and necessity, assumes that only that which is observable and measurable is "real". When extended back to beginnings then, the only conclusion or framework that can be considered is one which is entirely "natural."

Religion by definition, (at least in the realm of theism) assumes that there is more to reality than that which is observable and measurable. Even where Christians accept the discipline of science and its findings, (and the majority of Christians do and in fact, historically, science has progressed more under predominantly Christian societies than others) there remains a caveat as to the question of beginnings because God is understood to be above natural laws.

So, it's certainly a valid point that God could, if God so chose, limit the process of creation to natural methods understanding that God omnisciently and omnopotently would know the results of what was put in motion. By that definition, "chance" is illusary. Natural selection then while a predictable mechanism in itself would arguably simply be a tool wielded to intended effect by God who knew the intended outcome.

Theoretically that is a viable solution. Practically however, there is insufficient evidence to make that conclusion (or many other conclusions as well.)

For me, as someone with an evangelical heritage (but who describes himself now as post-evangelical) I have no difficulty with an old-earth nor do I have any difficulty with accepting the science of evolution. I can admit the possibility of natural explanations for things we currently do not understand. I am deliberate in avoiding "God of the Gap" type arguments, and prefer to operate from a foundation of what is know in terms of drawing conclusions. That said, I'm not afraid either of the admission that I don't know something, that something isn't known yet and even that there are some things that may never be known with relationship to God, unless God chooses to reveal it.

That said, I do think there is a temptation in Christian camps to accept the position of theistic evolution as something of a contrivance which effectively can then be something of a cop-out. Theistic evolution by definition is not purely scientific, but it elevates the natural as the default answer for everything by pushing the presence and influence of God to the highest level possible to where in practise there is no space or need for God. When I see that, I have concerns that what is at play is just a slightly more detailed version of deism to where the identity of that God is identified but the net impact is effectively the same as classical deism.

Would it bother me to find that God indeed used natural methods to accomplish everything? No. God can do as God pleases. What does bother me at times is that in conceding things to the point of accepting Theistic evolution when there is insufficient evidence to make that claim within the very framework that is assumed, is not a particularly intellectually honest position to take, in my opinion.

Small wonder if everything is accepted back to abiogenesis as natural then that science will focus only upon natural methods. That's all science can do. What I object to is when the limits of science are then projected out beyond science into the realm of metaphysics and world view. That is methodological naturalism and frankly, while it wears the facade of reason, it is every bit as much a faith based conclusion as what a religious position come to, but many of its adherants lack either the perspective (to be kind) or the intellectual honesty (not being kind) to accept that and by accepting to accede that other positions, even if viewed as less plausible, are still possible.

[Gman]

Sir if you take evolution and replace it word for word with science your statement is absolutely correct. Scientists are using science to explain the origins of life. Scientists are using science to explain how life moves through time (that is evolution). It sounds like you are angry at science, at college, at biology, at the text books used.

Oh, so now you are accusing me of being angry after I corrected your accusation? Pulling the "mad" card huh? Well first of all not ALL scientists are making that claim about science. Only certain ones are. You do not have a stronghold on science. No one really does for that mater.

As for evolution.. I'm not against it completely.. It's only when it dips into philosophy is when people will raise a flag. And believe me it does..

You are suggesting that God is only capable of doing hand off plays. He is not capable of throwing a pass. He is certainly not capable of throwing a "hail Mary" (that's rather funny) You sir are suggesting that God is limited. He is not all powerful. Since God is all powerful when He snapped his fingers and the big bang happened, he could of predicted with 100% accuracy whether or not you were going to be born, with what particles down to the electron would be used to form you. That is what all powerful means. God had to explain genesis the way he did, or he showed Moses the event in person by bringing him out of time, and that is how Moses understood what he saw. In either case it was no limitation of God on how to write genesis, it was our limitation at the time genesis was written to understand.

Nice smoke screen... No one is denying evolution here or that God can create any way he wants.. He can use evolution too. But can evolution or naturalism explain everything? Absolutely not.. That is what we are addressing here. Accuracy.. Its the failure of certain scientists acknowledging that fact and trying to get a stronghold using their philosophic/scientific views over the public.

The heat is on...

I have a Pascal's wager for you.
A) God flexed his will and knew that man would arise out of the energy he released. He is just that awesome powerful. By not appreciating His might you are insulting him.
B) God flexed his will and made man and life by a process independent of natural explanation, because he is just that limited. By believing in A you are giving him a compliment he might not exactly be worthy of, but who doesn't like compliments that are fudged just a little?

Pint

That doesn't other me in the least.. Trying putting that into a college Biology book sometime...

Good luck with that....

[DannyM]

It would of been a slam dunk if not for the double dribble, thrown elbow, extra player on the court and a rim that is 2 feet off the ground. If doing so makes you feel like a superstar, well good for you sir!

No sir, you have come on here talking the standard atheistic drivel and was corrected with consumate ease by Gman. Shall we take another look at the slam dunk? Let's call it an 'action replay' to continue with the analogy...

Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

Well that isn't true at all..

Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

As an example, under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

Source:

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple

Furthermore, it appears that pot shots are being taken in scientific college books against people of faith.. The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

Source:

The problem here is that certain scientific beliefs are ALSO faith based, so where do you draw the line?

You, sir, were corrected for your howler...Now be a man and admit your mistake, or stop whining...

[Pint]

So I posted a non standard definition of evolution that focuses on the limitations of the theory. This is what I said,

Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

I am told this by Gman,

Well that isn't true at all..

Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

As an example, under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

The first sentence of yours says exactly what I meant to get across,

"Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory."

I defined evolution, I did not define modern biology. You just added modern biology into a definition of evolution, I did not. It "clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory." So my definition of evolution is wrong because it is taught alongside a biochemistry abiogenesis theory ? Or because it is taught in biology? Or because evolution is in the same textbook with other areas of biology that you disagree with? So whats not true about my definition of evolution? That I made it with out including everything else that folks who follow modern biology also believe? Or that I did not include some of the philosophical conclusions some people make regarding it?

From the text book,

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible.

Now you can talk evolution. Before inheritance is possible is not evolution it is abiogenesis/biochemistry/biology/science in that order.

Your quote sit,

Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

Darwinian evolution, independent of if you believe the theory is accurate or not, is not a philosophy, it is science. That's why it is in science books. You should actually be thankful it is not a philosophy because should it be considered one then it becomes impossible to disprove because it can not be tested, which I assume you would not like.

Now I did loose my temper some by offering a Pascal's wager regarding God's methods, it was not fair to do so. But not for the reason you want to hear, it was not fair to propose it because I have yet to declare my stance on evolution, I failed due diligence before progressing to a Pascal's wager. I posed a definition of it, posing a definition of a steady state universe theory does not mean one believes in it, but one should be able to define it accurately before it can be talked about.

Now back to the previous quote, that is what made me temporarily loose my sense of argumentative fairness,

Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

What is "it"? What is Darwinian evolution holding together exactly? Since you added the word philosophical I can take out all science as the object of your dislike....Let's open the door to other possibilities....

Is it holding together Witchcraft? Not likely, people rarely blame witches nowadays. My understanding of Paganism says it does not consider evolution as glue, but I know a woman who follows the religion and she finds delight that the Blade and Chalice (that is the male and female half's of man and most "higher" life forms) drives life through the ages. Very pleasant woman, she helps children who have been brainwashed by force-able captivity or through deprivation of human contact. Double doctorate to back up the science she uses to do so. But I am getting off track...

Is it holding together satanism? It was popular in the up until the 1990's or so to think Satanism was everywhere, but kind of lost steam when people realized there isn't a hole bunch of them around. I have never met one and honestly don't know much about the beliefs so I can not guess.

Is it holding together Catholicism? The Pope said evolution can not be denied and that science did its job well by testing repeatedly and thoroughly, but saying evolution holds Catholicism together is absurd to the extreme.

Is it holding together Scientology? They believe we did not come from this planet, and that the galaxy is 100's of billions of years old, so they don't believe in evolution at all, they might disbelieve in glue as well.

Is it holding together Atheism? Ah....I think we found a winner. Common thread that I have read from members of this community is that Atheism can not exist with out evolution, that ignores the fact that there were Atheists before Darwin (who was a Christian). What I think is this....Your opinion is that people either believe as you do regarding evolution or they are Atheists. Well that's rubbish. Plain and simple. Complete trash that has no grounds in any rational person. Atheists are the new "Witches" and the new "Satanists" by this type of garbage thought. You insult everyone on this forum who has said "I am Christian and also, as a far second, also take evolution as good science."

No sir, you have come on here talking the standard atheistic drivel and was corrected with consumate ease by Gman. Shall we take another look at the slam dunk? Let's call it an 'action replay' to continue with the analogy...

Well I can also suggest you are an Atheist, here is my hypothesis.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Many people take this quote from Paul as to say that "God reveals himself in the natural order", evolution being one of the offspring of science is part of the natural order. Science came along and looked under the bed, then you followed science and looked under the bed and didn't see God. So evolution is somehow false no matter how much evidence science finds in each of the disciplines. That is not sciences shortcoming, its not looking for God anymore then it is looking for Zeus or the Scientology "Galactic Empire". It is a process that has no faith, that does not value one faith over another, it values all faiths equally by being so incredibly indifferent. You want science to not only find God, but to find the Judo-Christian God, but that's not enough, you want it to find the Judo-Christian God that plays by the world view of your particular branch of Judo-Christian belief, but that's not enough either, you want it to find the God that plays by the rules of your branch of church and your personal bias. Tough. You did not see God under the bed, not because He isn't there, but because your an Atheist.

You don't want to believe in evolution? That's fine, as a soldier in the United States Army I will die to defend the constitution which says you can belief as you wish, I would stand alone against a hoard and do my best to have that hoard be a little smaller before I die. That hoard is no more Atheists then it is Witches or Satanists or Tom Cruise. That hoard is more like your drivel, your exclusion of people whose faith is not like yours in all ways. As a person of faith I thank a bunch of Atheists rather often, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln they a few the brave men who gave this country a framework that allowed all faiths to live in peace. I thank them because despite them being Atheists, they were good men all, good men who worked hard for Christians and Jains and Jews and Puritans and also Atheists. I don't care if you believe in evolution or not, not at all, but I do care if you are not being intellectually honest on why you don't like it, you don't like it because whether it is true or not it does not fit in your world view and as such must be lies and deceit.

Pint

[Pint]

The continuation of the conversation demonstrates, I believe, that the presuppositions that underly each participants point of view is going to in the end, be circled back to.

Science, by definition and necessity, assumes that only that which is observable and measurable is "real". When extended back to beginnings then, the only conclusion or framework that can be considered is one which is entirely "natural."

Religion by definition, (at least in the realm of theism) assumes that there is more to reality than that which is observable and measurable. Even where Christians accept the discipline of science and its findings, (and the majority of Christians do and in fact, historically, science has progressed more under predominantly Christian societies than others) there remains a caveat as to the question of beginnings because God is understood to be above natural laws.

So, it's certainly a valid point that God could, if God so chose, limit the process of creation to natural methods understanding that God omnisciently and omnopotently would know the results of what was put in motion. By that definition, "chance" is illusary. Natural selection then while a predictable mechanism in itself would arguably simply be a tool wielded to intended effect by God who knew the intended outcome.

Theoretically that is a viable solution. Practically however, there is insufficient evidence to make that conclusion (or many other conclusions as well.)

For me, as someone with an evangelical heritage (but who describes himself now as post-evangelical) I have no difficulty with an old-earth nor do I have any difficulty with accepting the science of evolution. I can admit the possibility of natural explanations for things we currently do not understand. I am deliberate in avoiding "God of the Gap" type arguments, and prefer to operate from a foundation of what is know in terms of drawing conclusions. That said, I'm not afraid either of the admission that I don't know something, that something isn't known yet and even that there are some things that may never be known with relationship to God, unless God chooses to reveal it.

That said, I do think there is a temptation in Christian camps to accept the position of theistic evolution as something of a contrivance which effectively can then be something of a cop-out. Theistic evolution by definition is not purely scientific, but it elevates the natural as the default answer for everything by pushing the presence and influence of God to the highest level possible to where in practise there is no space or need for God. When I see that, I have concerns that what is at play is just a slightly more detailed version of deism to where the identity of that God is identified but the net impact is effectively the same as classical deism.

Would it bother me to find that God indeed used natural methods to accomplish everything? No. God can do as God pleases. What does bother me at times is that in conceding things to the point of accepting Theistic evolution when there is insufficient evidence to make that claim within the very framework that is assumed, is not a particularly intellectually honest position to take, in my opinion.

Small wonder if everything is accepted back to abiogenesis as natural then that science will focus only upon natural methods. That's all science can do. What I object to is when the limits of science are then projected out beyond science into the realm of metaphysics and world view. That is methodological naturalism and frankly, while it wears the facade of reason, it is every bit as much a faith based conclusion as what a religious position come to, but many of its adherants lack either the perspective (to be kind) or the intellectual honesty (not being kind) to accept that and by accepting to accede that other positions, even if viewed as less plausible, are still possible.

I loved your post. Very well written. I don't think I will be commenting on it at all other then to say thanks for typing it so I could enjoy reading it!!

Pint

[Gman]

Now, now.. Don't be angry..

I defined evolution, I did not define modern biology. You just added modern biology into a definition of evolution, I did not. It "clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory." So my definition of evolution is wrong because it is taught alongside a biochemistry abiogenesis theory ? Or because it is taught in biology? Or because evolution is in the same textbook with other areas of biology that you disagree with? So whats not true about my definition of evolution? That I made it with out including everything else that folks who follow modern biology also believe? Or that I did not include some of the philosophical conclusions some people make regarding it?

No.. You don't understand.. The word "evolution" is used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion. I was making the point that your "claim" does not stand if we use a very popular college book (in this case a book called "Biology: Concepts and Connections") as our bible on the subject. Yes, it is true that abiogeneis is NOT considered evolution. However, it is certainly taught along side of evolutionary theory.. Why? Obviously to complete the "evolutionary" package..

First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Molecules don't evolve, they react. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. The book, however, is clearly using the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote it's view for, in this case, macroevolution. See below..

"In this chapter we consider macroevolution, the major changes (such as the evolution of flight in three different vertebrate lineages) recorded in the history of life over vast tracts of time. We will trace this history and consider some of the major
mechanisms of macroevolution. And we will explore how scientists organize the amazing diversity of life by attempting to discover the evolutionary relationships among living and extinct groups, tracing backwards to the first living organisms on Earth.
To approach these wide-ranging topics, we begin with the most basic of questions: How did life arise on planet?" - Biology: Concepts and Connections pg 293.

Biology: Concepts and Connections

Now you can talk evolution. Before inheritance is possible is not evolution it is abiogenesis/biochemistry/biology/science in that order.

Yes, however you are not addressing how the "philosophy of evolution" holds it all together. That the interactions of matter on the resulting planets particularly on earth was responsible for life arising without any purpose behind it. That life became for complex on it's own steam, and that life generated consciousness and intelligence by itself.. In other words the philosophy of naturalism or materialism..

Darwinian evolution, independent of if you believe the theory is accurate or not, is not a philosophy, it is science. That's why it is in science books. You should actually be thankful it is not a philosophy because should it be considered one then it becomes impossible to disprove because it can not be tested, which I assume you would not like.

I disagree.. Certain aspects of Darwinian evolution, particularity macroevolution are MOST CERTAINLY philosophical in nature. Not scientific.. It has never been witnessed nor is physically testable, it is assumed.. If you have seen it in action then please reveal your source..

What is "it"? What is Darwinian evolution holding together exactly? Since you added the word philosophical I can take out all science as the object of your dislike....Let's open the door to other possibilities....

My claim is that one can't "truly" separate philosophical views from scientific views.. At some point they WILL collide.. Especially around the topic of origins.. Issues raised by ID will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. Darwin as well on various occasions posed theological and philosophical questions on evolution (or to a creator) in his book, “The Origin of Species.” As an example he wrote,

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes.”

Statements like this should probably belong in philosophy classes.

And if you think Darwin didn't address origins you are wrong there too.. Darwin recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator." You will find such statements from the last chapter called "Conclusion" from the “Origin of Species.”

And from his notes:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Charles Darwin letter to Joseph Hooker (1871).

Is it holding together Witchcraft? Not likely, people rarely blame witches nowadays. My understanding of Paganism says it does not consider evolution as glue, but I know a woman who follows the religion and she finds delight that the Blade and Chalice (that is the male and female half's of man and most "higher" life forms) drives life through the ages. Very pleasant woman, she helps children who have been brainwashed by force-able captivity or through deprivation of human contact. Double doctorate to back up the science she uses to do so. But I am getting off track...

Is it holding together satanism? It was popular in the up until the 1990's or so to think Satanism was everywhere, but kind of lost steam when people realized there isn't a hole bunch of them around. I have never met one and honestly don't know much about the beliefs so I can not guess.

Is it holding together Catholicism? The Pope said evolution can not be denied and that science did its job well by testing repeatedly and thoroughly, but saying evolution holds Catholicism together is absurd to the extreme.

Is it holding together Scientology? They believe we did not come from this planet, and that the galaxy is 100's of billions of years old, so they don't believe in evolution at all, they might disbelieve in glue as well.

Did I say it was witchcraft, satanism, and the lot? No.. Please don't lump me in with the other YEC creationists.. Believe it or not, I WANT Darwinian evolution taught in our schools.. However, I want it taught accurately, what it can do and what it can't do.. And without all that philosophical jargin..

Is it holding together Atheism? Ah....I think we found a winner. Common thread that I have read from members of this community is that Atheism can not exist with out evolution, that ignores the fact that there were Atheists before Darwin (who was a Christian). What I think is this....Your opinion is that people either believe as you do regarding evolution or they are Atheists. Well that's rubbish. Plain and simple. Complete trash that has no grounds in any rational person. Atheists are the new "Witches" and the new "Satanists" by this type of garbage thought. You insult everyone on this forum who has said "I am Christian and also, as a far second, also take evolution as good science."

Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two. There are two opposing worldviews, two opposing explanations, two opposing interpretations of reality. Simply put, one says that God created everything we know and see, plants and animals, humans, etc., after their own kind. The other view states in the beginning there was nothing but particles, and then somehow the particles and the impersonal laws of physics came into existence, the particles somehow became complex living stuff, and the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution. So these are the two truth claims.. Science is about knowing reality.

No sir, you have come on here talking the standard atheistic drivel and was corrected with consumate ease by Gman. Shall we take another look at the slam dunk? Let's call it an 'action replay' to continue with the analogy...

Well I can also suggest you are an Atheist, here is my hypothesis.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Many people take this quote from Paul as to say that "God reveals himself in the natural order", evolution being one of the offspring of science is part of the natural order. Science came along and looked under the bed, then you followed science and looked under the bed and didn't see God. So evolution is somehow false no matter how much evidence science finds in each of the disciplines. That is not sciences shortcoming, its not looking for God anymore then it is looking for Zeus or the Scientology "Galactic Empire". It is a process that has no faith, that does not value one faith over another, it values all faiths equally by being so incredibly indifferent. You want science to not only find God, but to find the Judo-Christian God, but that's not enough, you want it to find the Judo-Christian God that plays by the world view of your particular branch of Judo-Christian belief, but that's not enough either, you want it to find the God that plays by the rules of your branch of church and your personal bias. Tough. You did not see God under the bed, not because He isn't there, but because your an Atheist.

You are claiming that you are an atheist? I never thought that before about you.. But is appears that possibly you are.. At least your profile claims it.. //discussions.godandscience.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6362

You don't want to believe in evolution? That's fine, as a soldier in the United States Army I will die to defend the constitution which says you can belief as you wish, I would stand alone against a hoard and do my best to have that hoard be a little smaller before I die. That hoard is no more Atheists then it is Witches or Satanists or Tom Cruise. That hoard is more like your drivel, your exclusion of people whose faith is not like yours in all ways. As a person of faith I thank a bunch of Atheists rather often, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln they a few the brave men who gave this country a framework that allowed all faiths to live in peace. I thank them because despite them being Atheists, they were good men all, good men who worked hard for Christians and Jains and Jews and Puritans and also Atheists. I don't care if you believe in evolution or not, not at all, but I do care if you are not being intellectually honest on why you don't like it, you don't like it because whether it is true or not it does not fit in your world view and as such must be lies and deceit.

Pint

Again, you are getting emotionally out of control... Please get a grip of yourself.. I'm not making the claim that evolution is atheism.. But you seem to be..

In the words of Kurieuo... "I would say an atheist's philosophical naturalism is more easily smuggled into Darwinain evolution clouding true scientific inquiry with atheistic personal opinion and bias. So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions."

That about explains it...

[Gman]

Actually.. I think those claims by you are worthy of ban.. It seems that you would rather make accusations than talk science.. Sorry..

[DannyM]

Actually.. I think those claims by you are worthy of ban.. It seems that you would rather make accusations than talk science.. Sorry..

Wow, that guy was seriously on a mission! Well dealt with Gman.