Friendly Question(s) to TEs

[vossler]

One thing that has always befuddled me is why TEs apparently don't witness to or correct the average evolutionists on the Crevo board very much. I understand the arguments that your scientific positions are similar and therefore you pit yourselves against the YECer who is apparently ignorant of such matters; but given that the scientific evidence truly is unimportant when compared to their salvation; why not witness from an evolutionary viewpoint?

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. There are countless examples of things that happen in nature that cannot be explained via evolution alone. Case in point, today on my way to work I heard of a fungus that attaches itself to a beetle and commandiers it to climb a tree where the fungus releases itself to fall on other beetles. Clearly this cannot be considered soley an evolutionary process yet I don't recall ever hearing a TE use such an argument to witness to a non-believer. Why?

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

Please prove me and my belief wrong!

 

[Mallon]

One thing that has always befuddled me is why TEs apparently don't witness to or correct the average evolutionists on the Crevo board very much.

1) Because creationists keep us too busy trying to refute their claims that fossils represent extinct pet dragons from wizards' castles. (I'm not joking, either. See the CvE forum.)
2) Because, by definition, we cannot use science to attest to God. People are brought to faith through the testimony of the Gospels; not through the testimony of science.

Case in point, today on my way to work I heard of a fungus that attaches itself to a beetle and commandiers it to climb a tree where the fungus releases itself to fall on other beetles. Clearly this cannot be considered soley an evolutionary process yet I don't recall ever hearing a TE use such an argument to witness to a non-believer. Why?

Because such processes can and have been explained by evolution countless times, whether you're aware of it or not. Saying something can't be explained by evolution is just a God-of-the-Gaps argument, because when evolutionary theory finally does explain the example you've just given, by your own theology God is ruled out of the process. I'm not confortable with that.
Incidentally, have you checked the literature as to whether or not your example has been explained in an evolutionary context? I'll bet you haven't...

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

At times, I agree. But the issue being debated is evolution; not God. If you were debating the colour of the sky, would you side with the Christian who claims it's brown, or with the agnostic who claims it's blue?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

One thing that has always befuddled me is why TEs apparently don't witness to or correct the average evolutionists on the Crevo board very much. I understand the arguments that your scientific positions are similar and therefore you pit yourselves against the YECer who is apparently ignorant of such matters; but given that the scientific evidence truly is unimportant when compared to their salvation; why not witness from an evolutionary viewpoint?

I have rarely ever seen an atheist use the argument that Evolution=no God. When that argument pops up it is quickly stomped down by both TE’s and most atheists on the board. (Most of the time that a Evolution=no God argument pops up, it turns out to be a creationist from another, more radical board, lying in their sign up and claiming to be an atheist rather than a real atheist.)

Witnessing is not only talking about ones religion, which is done quite often by the TE’s despite your arguments to the contrary, but letting others see you living a Christian life. Just in supporting science and other searches for truth, TE’s expose the lie that one must be a creationist, dislike science, or give up an honest search for what is true and what is not (even when it comes to long held traditions or interpretations of the Bible) to be a Christian. I feel that seeing someone living a Christian life is far more powerful of a witness tool than any quotes from theologians or even quoting the Bible at someone.

Sadly many atheists on this board have only been exposed to creationist views of Christianity, teaching and showing them that there are different views is a long and hard first step, the Crevo board often being the site of that first step. Often the further work with these people is either done on the GA and other forums or in private.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. There are countless examples of things that happen in nature that cannot be explained via evolution alone. Case in point, today on my way to work I heard of a fungus that attaches itself to a beetle and commandiers it to climb a tree where the fungus releases itself to fall on other beetles. Clearly this cannot be considered soley an evolutionary process yet I don't recall ever hearing a TE use such an argument to witness to a non-believer. Why?

Just because you cannot imagine an evolutionary pathway does not mean there isn’t one. TE’s are not IDists, why would we use a false ID teaching to promote an idea we do not even accept?

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

Please prove me and my belief wrong!

I take no pleasure in correcting the ignorance of another, in fact it is a shame that these false ideas are allowed to spread in and infect the Church so deeply that I have to correct it so often.

I wish that my witness did not have to be “Hey, Christians are not all ignorant!” and we could get a little deeper into the issues rather than constantly correcting people that sign on only to spout the latest lies about science.

 

[Silent Bob]

why not witness from an evolutionary viewpoint?

There really is no evolutionary viewpoint to witness from. Also that is not the purpose of the forum, there is GA where all the witnessing and philosophy is flying about.

Clearly this cannot be considered soley an evolutionary process yet I don't recall ever hearing a TE use such an argument to witness to a non-believer. Why?

Because this is a God of the Gaps argument much like ID.

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

Faith is a very personal issue witnessing and converting needs personal interaction something like that should never be attempted in an anonymous forum IMHO.

 

[stumpjumper]

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

Please prove me and my belief wrong!

As more of a reader than poster in the Crevo forum, I would say that it has a lot to do with effecacy of arguments and the type of debate being posed. A lot of the non-believers that really argue against Creationism are not the type of people that would be convinced or swayed by design or teleological arguments...

I personally think that a good argument can be made against atheistic evolution by using a sort of John Polkinghorne view of teleology but generally when I've started a thread like that it get's ignored anyway...

Polkinghorne is cool though: http://www.aril.org/polkinghorne.htm

 

[vossler]

1) Because creationists keep us too busy trying to refute their claims that fossils represent extinct pet dragons from wizards' castles. (I'm not joking, either. See the CvE forum.)

Why is it a TEs primary job to defend evolution by correcting a YEC as opposed to promoting Christianity? Please don't give me the answer that defending evolution is promoting Christianity.

2) Because, by definition, we cannot use science to attest to God.

What this is telling me is that you believe all of nature can be explained via science.

Because such processes can and have been explained by evolution countless times, whether you're aware of it or not. Saying something can't be explained by evolution is just a God-of-the-Gaps argument, because when evolutionary theory finally does explain the example you've just given, by your own theology God is ruled out of the process. I'm not confortable with that.

Incidentally, have you checked the literature as to whether or not your example has been explained in an evolutionary context? I'll bet you haven't...

No I can't say I've been to talkorigins to check this one out or the countless other similar examples. I suppose if one wanted to one could explain anything and truly believe it to be true. I have a teenager that truly believes what she says all the time.

At times, I agree. But the issue being debated is evolution; not God. If you were debating the colour of the sky, would you side with the Christian who claims it's brown, or with the agnostic who claims it's blue?

I understand that the issue being debated is evolution and not God, but since this is a Christian forum, I don't think bringing God into the equation is in some way inappropriate. I'm sure Jesus would approve.

 

[shernren]

Case in point, today on my way to work I heard of a fungus that attaches itself to a beetle and commandiers it to climb a tree where the fungus releases itself to fall on other beetles. Clearly this cannot be considered soley an evolutionary process yet I don't recall ever hearing a TE use such an argument to witness to a non-believer. Why?

I don't see how behaviour-altering parasitism is damaging to evolutionism. First note that many types of fungi already produce potent neuro-toxins. By mutation, different sub-species of the fungus would have produced a variety of neuro-toxins. One of those neuro-toxins could have caused beetles to climb trees (note that this doesn't require the beetle to adapt "towards" being commandeered, the neuro-toxin simply found a way to co-opt existing pathways), which would have given it a reproductive advantage by increasing the spread of its spores. Voila: Borg-o-fungus.

As it is, right now I'm just correcting a creationist. If you had used this to argue that God exists, however, and I had been an atheist, I would have done something far more: I would have shot down an argument for God's existence. And that is why TEs don't do these things: not because we don't want to argue that the Christian God is real and relevant, but because we don't want to use (frankly) second-rate arguments trying to prove His existence.

In the final chapter of Finding Darwin's God Kenneth Miller recalls an incident where his childhood priest proudly told the children that "only God could make a flower, even the best scientists of today don't know how it is done." Fast forward to 1997, where he was sitting in a hall listening exactly to the work of botanists who had learned how plants produced flowers (through a clever mix of genes and hormones) and he found himself laughing at what the priest said back then. At that point he was a TE, and so he was just chuckling at a private incident some time ago. But if he was a creationist or an atheist, he may very well have been laughing at a statement which could be at the foundation of how he viewed Christianity: Is Christianity the religion where God can't get anything right through science?

The message of the cross, translated into a life of good works through living faith, is the one true Christian witness. Any other argument for God can only be at best a supplement and is often at worst (despite fellow believers' good intentions) clever deception.

 

[vossler]

I have rarely ever seen an atheist use the argument that Evolution=no God. When that argument pops up it is quickly stomped down by both TE’s and most atheists on the board. (Most of the time that a Evolution=no God argument pops up, it turns out to be a creationist from another, more radical board, lying in their sign up and claiming to be an atheist rather than a real atheist.)

Do you believe that to an atheist evolution contributes nothing to the God debate?

Witnessing is not only talking about ones religion, which is done quite often by the TE’s despite your arguments to the contrary, but letting others see you living a Christian life. Just in supporting science and other searches for truth, TE’s expose the lie that one must be a creationist, dislike science, or give up an honest search for what is true and what is not (even when it comes to long held traditions or interpretations of the Bible) to be a Christian. I feel that seeing someone living a Christian life is far more powerful of a witness tool than any quotes from theologians or even quoting the Bible at someone.

No doubt the the best form of evangelism is not what we say but how we act. So given that as a foundation, how is belittling and/or condemning a YEC in anyway effective in evangelism?

Sadly many atheists on this board have only been exposed to creationist views of Christianity, teaching and showing them that there are different views is a long and hard first step, the Crevo board often being the site of that first step. Often the further work with these people is either done on the GA and other forums or in private.

If true, then why not show how God works through evolution instead of spending so much time refuting fellow believers?

Just because you cannot imagine an evolutionary pathway does not mean there isn’t one. TE’s are not IDists, why would we use a false ID teaching to promote an idea we do not even accept?

True, there are a lot of things I can't imagine, but then again I'm not relying upon my imagination either. Who said anything about asking you to use something you believe to be false, I'm just asking you to use what you believe to be true.

I take no pleasure in correcting the ignorance of another, in fact it is a shame that these false ideas are allowed to spread in and infect the Church so deeply that I have to correct it so often.

You may not take pleasure, but there are many who do.

I wish that my witness did not have to be “Hey, Christians are not all ignorant!” and we could get a little deeper into the issues rather than constantly correcting people that sign on only to spout the latest lies about science.

Where does the Bible tell us to do as you say?

 

[vossler]

There really is no evolutionary viewpoint to witness from. Also that is not the purpose of the forum, there is GA where all the witnessing and philosophy is flying about.

As a Christian evolutionist you have a belief system as to our origins, by that very nature it cannot be the same as another evolutionists. That sounds like a purpose to me.

Faith is a very personal issue witnessing and converting needs personal interaction something like that should never be attempted in an anonymous forum IMHO.

Interesting...

 

[vossler]

As more of a reader than poster in the Crevo forum, I would say that it has a lot to do with effecacy of arguments and the type of debate being posed. A lot of the non-believers that really argue against Creationism are not the type of people that would be convinced or swayed by design or teleological arguments...

That may be true, but then if so why even post there?

I personally think that a good argument can be made against atheistic evolution by using a sort of John Polkinghorne view of teleology but generally when I've started a thread like that it get's ignored anyway...

Polkinghorne is cool though: http://www.aril.org/polkinghorne.html

I'll have to give this a look, it should be interesting.

 

[vossler]

I don't see how behaviour-altering parasitism is damaging to evolutionism. First note that many types of fungi already produce potent neuro-toxins. By mutation, different sub-species of the fungus would have produced a variety of neuro-toxins. One of those neuro-toxins could have caused beetles to climb trees (note that this doesn't require the beetle to adapt "towards" being commandeered, the neuro-toxin simply found a way to co-opt existing pathways), which would have given it a reproductive advantage by increasing the spread of its spores. Voila: Borg-o-fungus.

So you say, yet I have seen many, many exhibits of nature that are unexplainable. Yet, let's say you can explain them all, how do you or can you put God into the middle of it? Whatever way you do, use that then to promote Him instead of man's discoveries.

As it is, right now I'm just correcting a creationist. If you had used this to argue that God exists, however, and I had been an atheist, I would have done something far more: I would have shot down an argument for God's existence. And that is why TEs don't do these things: not because we don't want to argue that the Christian God is real and relevant, but because we don't want to use (frankly) second-rate arguments trying to prove His existence.

Look, I don't claim to be a scientist nor will I defend creation from a scientific point of view. I'm not qualified or led to do so. If you have all the answers to how God did what He did, then share them primarily with those who don't believe, not those who already do and aren't that interested.

In the final chapter of Finding Darwin's God Kenneth Miller recalls an incident where his childhood priest proudly told the children that "only God could make a flower, even the best scientists of today don't know how it is done." Fast forward to 1997, where he was sitting in a hall listening exactly to the work of botanists who had learned how plants produced flowers (through a clever mix of genes and hormones) and he found himself laughing at what the priest said back then. At that point he was a TE, and so he was just chuckling at a private incident some time ago. But if he was a creationist or an atheist, he may very well have been laughing at a statement which could be at the foundation of how he viewed Christianity: Is Christianity the religion where God can't get anything right through science?

I happen to believe only God could make a flower, but that isn't the point, what I believe in this situation isn't important. The main thing is I believe that God exists and that He sent his Son...whereas others don't believe that life saving truth and so whatever we do should be primarily focused on that, not belittling and/or condemning a fellow believer in front of non-believers.

The message of the cross, translated into a life of good works through living faith, is the one true Christian witness. Any other argument for God can only be at best a supplement and is often at worst (despite fellow believers' good intentions) clever deception.

Sounds great...now promote that!!!

 

[Mallon]

Why is it a TEs primary job to defend evolution by correcting a YEC as opposed to promoting Christianity? Please don't give me the answer that defending evolution is promoting Christianity.

Why do you view defending the theory of evolution as equivalent to promoting atheism? If I defended germ theory without making reference to God, would you be slagging me (us) for that, too? I do my best to promote Christianity to the people around me every chance I get. Unfortunately, debating the intricacies of evolution does not lead me down that avenue (nor does changing a tire). The theory of evolution says nothing for or against the idea of a Creator, so it cannot be used to argue either side.

What this is telling me is that you believe all of nature can be explained via science.

Why don't you think that? Do you feel God is incapable of creating a self-contained, self-sustaining universe? Newton seemed to think that he could explain celestial orbits scientifically, all the while praising God for his orderly handiwork. Do you believe Newton was a heretic for believing so? At what point should we throw up our hands and give up trying to answer questions scientifically? Cancer seems hard to cure... should we give up on that?

No I can't say I've been to talkorigins to check this one out or the countless other similar examples.

I didn't tell you to go to talkorigins. Root around in the scientific literature; in the academic journals where such studies are first published. Learn to digest the findings yourself rather than having the internet do it for you.

I understand that the issue being debated is evolution and not God, but since this is a Christian forum, I don't think bringing God into the equation is in some way inappropriate. I'm sure Jesus would approve.

I'm sure Jesus would disapprove. After all, He is the one who said that "blessed is he who does not see and yet believes." Jesus also said that only a fool looks for a sign. Faith is what it takes to get into heaven; not amassed evidence. I pray that you know this already.

 

[shernren]

the scientific evidence truly is unimportant when compared to their salvation

more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

correcting a YEC as opposed to promoting Christianity

show how God works through evolution instead of spending so much time refuting fellow believers
promote Him instead of man's discoveries.

focused on that, not belittling and/or condemning a fellow believer in front of non-believers

These were important dichotomies in my mind, too, when I was a YECist. Scientists are busy pushing God out of the picture, talking about science distracts us from God, etc. etc.

But are these real dichotomies? Or false ones?

There isn't really much that can be done over the Internet in terms of witnessing. The Bible is quite clear that only those who see the Son can see the Father, and that our job is to portray the Son in people's lives. Our job as a witness is to bring people to see God through Jesus.

The Internet itself gets in the way of that, it is next to impossible to share lives when all we have to communicate with are words and pictures instead of living with another person, sharing, caring, doing good works, living out faith as James prescribes. Compared to that witness, mere words - creationist, evolutionist, whateverist - pale.

But an important question is, what do our words show about us? And I think part of the reason why other TEs feel burdened to correct YECs in front of atheists at C&E is because these words show that they are interested in truth instead of blindly promoting what they believe. That we are not content to believe what we believe based on ideas which are wrong. To criticize that, is like saying that moderate Muslims who protest against Islamic militance are doing their religion harm.

Changed lives reveal God. Little else can.

 

[vossler]

Why do you view defending the theory of evolution as equivalent to promoting atheism? If I defended germ theory without making reference to God, would you be slagging me (us) for that, too? I do my best to promote Christianity to the people around me every chance I get. Unfortunately, debating the intricacies of evolution does not lead me down that avenue (nor does changing a tire). The theory of evolution says nothing for or against the idea of a Creator, so it cannot be used to argue either side.

I see it that way because much of society sees it that way.

Why don't you think that? Do you feel God is incapable of creating a self-contained, self-sustaining universe? Newton seemed to think that he could explain celestial orbits scientifically, all the while praising God for his orderly handiwork. Do you believe Newton was a heretic for believing so? At what point should we throw up our hands and give up trying to answer questions scientifically? Cancer seems hard to cure... should we give up on that?

If all of nature can be explained via science then God's supernatural power was never on display. Is that what you believe?

I didn't tell you to go to talkorigins. Root around in the scientific literature; in the academic journals where such studies are first published. Learn to digest the findings yourself rather than having the internet do it for you.

No you didn't tell me to go to talkorigins, but 90% of the time that's where TEs refer me. To be perfectly honest, as a non-scientist I won't be visiting secular academic journals that can scientifically refute God's Word. There are plenty of Christian scientists who I respect and do give me what I need to digest in order to make an informed observation.

I'm sure Jesus would disapprove. After all, He is the one who said that "blessed is he who does not see and yet believes." Jesus also said that only a fool looks for a sign. Faith is what it takes to get into heaven; not amassed evidence. I pray that you know this already.

I guess we'll just disagree here, I don't think Jesus has a problem being brought into the equation, especially a discussion in a Christian forum where non-believers lurk.

This view of yours is actually quite troubling.

 

[vossler]

These were important dichotomies in my mind, too, when I was a YECist. Scientists are busy pushing God out of the picture, talking about science distracts us from God, etc. etc.

Without a doubt I see this except for the last part of "talking about science distracts us from God." Science itself is good and in no way should distract us from God. The problem is good vs. bad science.

There isn't really much that can be done over the Internet in terms of witnessing. The Bible is quite clear that only those who see the Son can see the Father, and that our job is to portray the Son in people's lives. Our job as a witness is to bring people to see God through Jesus.

Don't you think non-believers can see how we, as believers, treat one another? In my mind, that's a wonderful way to witness. I believe, here on the internet, we can portray Jesus by treating each other with kindness and respect, certainly not by belittling and/or condemning each other.

The Internet itself gets in the way of that, it is next to impossible to share lives when all we have to communicate with are words and pictures instead of living with another person, sharing, caring, doing good works, living out faith as James prescribes. Compared to that witness, mere words - creationist, evolutionist, whateverist - pale.

It's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. True, we're not able to do many of the things that one can do in a normal relationship, but that doesn't mean we don't try or use other rules of engagement. The bottom line still is that we're called to love one another and belittling and/or condemning others isn't love.

But an important question is, what do our words show about us? And I think part of the reason why other TEs feel burdened to correct YECs in front of atheists at C&E is because these words show that they are interested in truth instead of blindly promoting what they believe. That we are not content to believe what we believe based on ideas which are wrong. To criticize that, is like saying that moderate Muslims who protest against Islamic militance are doing their religion harm.

Hey there isn't anything wrong with correction, I need it as much or more than anyone, I haven't said or implied that we shouldn't correct one another. What I'm saying is we shouldn't be belittling and/or condemning them. No one is asking that you to be content in falsehoods or anything else not based in God's Word.

Changed lives reveal God. Little else can.

That's just it, when our witness isn't any different that of the world's, how can we claim to have a changed life? How is God revealed in that?

 

[shernren]

I see it that way because much of society sees it that way.

Just because society sees evolution as godless doesn't mean it is. And it doesn't mean our only response is to fight evolution to the death. Atheism predated evolutionism, and were evolutionism to be crushed atheism would still survive (barring the Second Coming, of course). Instead of trying to hit evolutionism in order to get at atheism, why not challenge atheism directly by wresting evolutionism out of its hands and giving evolutionism a proper Christian understanding?

If all of nature can be explained via science then God's supernatural power was never on display. Is that what you believe?

Is that really what you believe?

Look at WWII. When the Allies won the war it wasn't because twelve leagues of angels descended onto Tokyo or the sun stopped in the sky while America rushed battle-cruisers into the Pacific. Every battle, every strategy, every technology, culminating in the nuclear bomb, can be explained in terms of human actions and natural sciences. Does that mean it is wrong to "thank God" that it wasn't Hitler and Mussolini who won the war? Of course not.

When Christians view history they have no problem believing that God works through human actions which atheists explain as not involving God at all. If an atheist says that God was not needed to win WWII, I would readily say that God worked through humans even if they didn't acknowledge it, instead of coming up with some miracle like claiming "Einstein could never have come up with m-c-squared on his own, it must have been divine revelation!" So why is it that when atheists say that science cannot involve God at all that Christians are surrendering and retreating into the dark areas where science hasn't yet shined its light? Someone who says that science cannot involve God has already surrendered 90% (or more) of the world to the atheists no matter how well he or she can defend the remaining few scraps in the deep past.

No you didn't tell me to go to talkorigins, but 90% of the time that's where TEs refer me. To be perfectly honest, as a non-scientist I won't be visiting secular academic journals that can scientifically refute God's Word. There are plenty of Christian scientists who I respect and do give me what I need to digest in order to make an informed observation.

What if it was a Christian scientist who wrote something that "can scientifically refute God's Word"? Say, Agassiz and Cuvier, dedicated Christian scientists who contributed greatly to an understanding of the earth being extremely old? Would you still feel hostile?

The problem is good vs. bad science.

Science is only bad if it fails to describe the natural world accurately; science is good if it describes the natural world accurately. How else can science be good or bad? Science isn't moral and can't sin. Science can be used for bad purposes, but that only shows that humans are bad, not science itself. The only way to evaluate science is to see whether what it says about the real world is accurate or not. If you have reason to believe that evolution is bad science, you will have to show me how it fails to describe the real world accurately.

Don't you think non-believers can see how we, as believers, treat one another? In my mind, that's a wonderful way to witness. I believe, here on the internet, we can portray Jesus by treating each other with kindness and respect, certainly not by belittling and/or condemning each other.

It's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. True, we're not able to do many of the things that one can do in a normal relationship, but that doesn't mean we don't try or use other rules of engagement. The bottom line still is that we're called to love one another and belittling and/or condemning others isn't love.

Hey there isn't anything wrong with correction, I need it as much or more than anyone, I haven't said or implied that we shouldn't correct one another. What I'm saying is we shouldn't be belittling and/or condemning them. No one is asking that you to be content in falsehoods or anything else not based in God's Word.

If it is just about conduct and politeness then I agree fully that we should be kind to each other. However, that does not take away what we feel as a moral obligation to correct people who seem to be wrong about certain scientific facts.

Referring to your OP:

It would appear, to me, that TEs have and take more pleasure correcting and/or belittling a fellow believer as opposed to witnessing to a person they already have something great in common with.

I agree that belittling a fellow believer does nothing for the faith. But I think correcting is perfectly called for in a situation where a believer has (normally unknowingly) spoken error. Don't you think so?

 

[Mallon]

I see it that way because much of society sees it that way.

And I'm sure you will be the first to admit that societal majority opinion does not dictate truth.

If all of nature can be explained via science then God's supernatural power was never on display. Is that what you believe?

I believe God is capable of working through all means, be it naturally or supernaturally. I do not corner God into those areas of science we do not yet fully understand. Maybe the first life form came about via a miracle, or maybe it came about because God designed the basic building blocks of life to be self-organizing. Either way, I'm not going to be so naive as to think there can be no natural explanation to such questions, because science has shown time and again that there can. Whatever the answer may be, my faith is not threatened.

No you didn't tell me to go to talkorigins, but 90% of the time that's where TEs refer me.

Probably because it's a great site with lots of good scientific information. What I'm telling you is not to take talkorigins' word for it. Read the original research and prove it to yourself.

To be perfectly honest, as a non-scientist I won't be visiting secular academic journals that can scientifically refute God's Word. There are plenty of Christian scientists who I respect and do give me what I need to digest in order to make an informed observation.

So, what you are saying here is that you would rather take the obviously biased opinion of creationists as it pertains to the TofE, rather than hearing it from the horse's mouth yourself. I'm sorry to hear that. Keep in mind, however, that Christians are just as likely to sin than anyone else. We're all on the same level.

I guess we'll just disagree here, I don't think Jesus has a problem being brought into the equation, especially a discussion in a Christian forum where non-believers lurk.

I would be willing to bet that you can't fit Jesus into the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And I doubt Jesus would care. The "Christian" version of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus isn't what's going to bring people to faith.

This view of yours is actually quite troubling.

My faith isn't the one being threatened by everyday science.

 

[vossler]

Just because society sees evolution as godless doesn't mean it is. And it doesn't mean our only response is to fight evolution to the death. Atheism predated evolutionism, and were evolutionism to be crushed atheism would still survive (barring the Second Coming, of course). Instead of trying to hit evolutionism in order to get at atheism, why not challenge atheism directly by wresting evolutionism out of its hands and giving evolutionism a proper Christian understanding?

I didn’t say anything about fighting evolution to the death. My point was if you believe that God used evolution then you should be showing people how He did in whatever way that TEs believe He did in order to distinguish or magnify God within the process. Instead most TEs spend far too much time either showing the scientific basis for evolution or worse belittling and/or condemning YECs.

When Christians view history they have no problem believing that God works through human actions which atheists explain as not involving God at all. If an atheist says that God was not needed to win WWII, I would readily say that God worked through humans even if they didn't acknowledge it, instead of coming up with some miracle like claiming "Einstein could never have come up with m-c-squared on his own, it must have been divine revelation!" So why is it that when atheists say that science cannot involve God at all that Christians are surrendering and retreating into the dark areas where science hasn't yet shined its light? Someone who says that science cannot involve God has already surrendered 90% (or more) of the world to the atheists no matter how well he or she can defend the remaining few scraps in the deep past.

I’m really not sure what point it is you’re trying to make here.

Science is only bad if it fails to describe the natural world accurately; science is good if it describes the natural world accurately. How else can science be good or bad? Science isn't moral and can't sin. Science can be used for bad purposes, but that only shows that humans are bad, not science itself. The only way to evaluate science is to see whether what it says about the real world is accurate or not. If you have reason to believe that evolution is bad science, you will have to show me how it fails to describe the real world accurately.

I have no problem with what you’ve said here.

Don't you think non-believers can see how we, as believers, treat one another? In my mind, that's a wonderful way to witness. I believe, here on the internet, we can portray Jesus by treating each other with kindness and respect, certainly not by belittling and/or condemning each other.

It's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. True, we're not able to do many of the things that one can do in a normal relationship, but that doesn't mean we don't try or use other rules of engagement. The bottom line still is that we're called to love one another and belittling and/or condemning others isn't love.

Hey there isn't anything wrong with correction, I need it as much or more than anyone, I haven't said or implied that we shouldn't correct one another. What I'm saying is we shouldn't be belittling and/or condemning them. No one is asking that you to be content in falsehoods or anything else not based in God's Word.

If it is just about conduct and politeness then I agree fully that we should be kind to each other. However, that does not take away what we feel as a moral obligation to correct people who seem to be wrong about certain scientific facts.

Like I said, no one is asking you to be content in anything you perceive to be false. The two main points are Christ and fellowship, both should be promoted yet many times neither is.

I agree that belittling a fellow believer does nothing for the faith. But I think correcting is perfectly called for in a situation where a believer has (normally unknowingly) spoken error. Don't you think so?

I think my previous post, which is quoted above, addressed this very question.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Do you believe that to an atheist evolution contributes nothing to the God debate?

If not for YECist making it an issue, no it would not be.

Is the Earth being round an issue? Flat-Earthers make it one. Is a Sol-centric solar system an issue? Geocentricism makes it one. Is gravity an issue? Some on this board have made it one.

No doubt the the best form of evangelism is not what we say but how we act. So given that as a foundation, how is belittling and/or condemning a YEC in anyway effective in evangelism?

If they spout lies in the name of their beliefs, then they need to be corrected, not just for evangelism, but for truths sake.

If true, then why not show how God works through evolution instead of spending so much time refuting fellow believers?

Because I have no idea how God does work through evolution, just as I have no idea how God works through electricity. How would you show how God works through your cars engine?

Just because we can figure out how something works does not automatically give us insight on how God is using it.

True, there are a lot of things I can't imagine, but then again I'm not relying upon my imagination either. Who said anything about asking you to use something you believe to be false, I'm just asking you to use what you believe to be true.

Then your example is not good for what you are asking. The example you gave is an argument for a tinkering, back yard mechanic, kind of view of God. It is more of the YEC/ID view of God then mine or any other TE that I have talked to.

I know that in other threads you have had the basic ideas of TE explained to you by TEs here. Why do you ignore what these people have told you and try to make it out that we believe something else?

You may not take pleasure, but there are many who do.

Are there many? Could you point out some that enjoy belittling YEC’s rather than those who are just trying to correct them?

Where does the Bible tell us to do as you say?

You honestly do not see where the Bible encourages us to be honest and strive to deal with the world in an honest way?

I cannot help you if you feel that being dishonest is good in Gods eyes.

 

[vossler]

And I'm sure you will be the first to admit that societal majority opinion does not dictate truth.

I hope I wasn't trying to imply that truth comes from majority opinion. I was simply stating since the majority see evolution equated with atheism it would be in the best interests of those Christians who believe in evolution, whenever possible, to distinguish or separate the two.

I believe God is capable of working through all means, be it naturally or supernaturally. I do not corner God into those areas of science we do not yet fully understand. Maybe the first life form came about via a miracle, or maybe it came about because God designed the basic building blocks of life to be self-organizing. Either way, I'm not going to be so naive as to think there can be no natural explanation to such questions, because science has shown time and again that there can. Whatever the answer may be, my faith is not threatened.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you there isn't a need for a supernatural event in order to explain life as we know it?

So, what you are saying here is that you would rather take the obviously biased opinion of creationists as it pertains to the TofE, rather than hearing it from the horse's mouth yourself. I'm sorry to hear that. Keep in mind, however, that Christians are just as likely to sin than anyone else. We're all on the same level.

I'm sorry but to me the horse's mouth is God Himself, not a scientist or anyone else.

I'm also surprised to hear you say that Christians are just as likely to sin as anyone else. No wonder the world doesn't see any difference between us and them. I'm certainly not on the same level as the world, I've been saved by the King and am now a child of the most high. There is no way you could ever convince me that I'm on the same level as a non-believer. Unfortunately this does explain some of the differences between us.

I would be willing to bet that you can't fit Jesus into the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And I doubt Jesus would care. The "Christian" version of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus isn't what's going to bring people to faith.

Given that I don't even know what the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" is, I'd have to agree.

My faith isn't the one being threatened by everyday science.

Neither is mine.