Could use some help with evolution argument...

[dianalee4jc]

Gluadys... we don't seem to be communicating. One of the things you said was absolutely false (and now you're saying it's false even from a creationist's point of view) is that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. But this is the very position that people who support the ID movement take! I did not make this up, and I do not listen to "fools." What you are proposing here is that MY character take on YOUR ideas, rather than following the ideas of those who are of the ID movement.

Look, YOU MAY BE RIGHT!!! Evolution might be true (I don't happen to believe it is, but that's beside the point). But even so, the character DOES NOT believe it, and I want to make sure his argument is accurate according to OTHERS who do not believe evolution is true.

So unfortunately, your comments are not helping me in the least. Indeed, what you said was false, you provided nothing that would help me to fix the problem... except taking on the arguments of an evolutionist.

Gluadys, I can't make this any clearer. It does not serve my purpose to rewrite the argument from a position 180 degrees opposite what I have planned (and then I suppose the Creationists would be all over me for that!) If you cannot see the my intentions in this writing, then it might be better if you let it go. I didn't post this to get into a evolution/ID argument. Thanks, anyway.

Merry Christmas,
Diana

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys... we don't seem to be communicating. One of the things you said was absolutely false (and now you're saying it's false even from a creationist's point of view) is that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. But this is the very position that people who support the ID movement take! I did not make this up, and I do not listen to "fools."

I know that is the position they take. But it is still factually false.

What you are proposing here is that MY character take on YOUR ideas, rather than following the ideas of those who are of the ID movement.

No, I have not offered a single idea of mine to add to your scenario. All I have done is highlight some statements in it that are factually false.

I agree that including them would make the father a typical presenter of the creationist/ID position, so for that reason, it might be good to include them. But it is the inclusion of such statements that also make a creationist/ID spokesperson look foolish to anyone who knows (or later learns) the facts.

So it's your call, depending on how you want the father to be perceived--as a sincere and knowledgeable creationist, or as a more typical but ill-informed creationist.

But even so, the character DOES NOT believe it, and I want to make sure his argument is accurate according to OTHERS who do not believe evolution is true.

The argument as it stands is an accurate portrayal of typical creationist arguments. But it is not an accurate description of fact.

That is the best I can do.

Personally, I don't think it is helpful to young people, even if one wishes to promote creationism, to do so using arguments that are not factual, because sooner or later, they are likely to find out that what they learned is not accurate. And that is not going to leave a good impression of creationism.

The creationists for whom I have most respect, even though I don't agree with them, take their position solely on the basis of their belief in the literal inerrancy of scripture. They don't try to argue the science. They sometimes even agree that the observed evidence points to evolution. But they remain creationists because the bible, as they understand it, contradicts evolution.

So maybe you should consider having the father make an appeal to faith in a literally inerrant bible instead of making false statements about scientific evidence.

On the other hand, if your principle intention is to portray a creationist argument supposedly based on science, your original scenario is fine. As long as you are aware of where the pitfalls in that argument are.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Gluadys... we don't seem to be communicating. One of the things you said was absolutely false (and now you're saying it's false even from a creationist's point of view) is that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. But this is the very position that people who support the ID movement take! I did not make this up, and I do not listen to "fools." What you are proposing here is that MY character take on YOUR ideas, rather than following the ideas of those who are of the ID movement.

And the ID movement is mistaken on this fact, and many others... one of many reasons it was so recently thrown out of court.

Look, YOU MAY BE RIGHT!!! Evolution might be true (I don't happen to believe it is, but that's beside the point). But even so, the character DOES NOT believe it, and I want to make sure his argument is accurate according to OTHERS who do not believe evolution is true.

If evolution is true... and mountains of evidence say it is... then those who believe it isn't are mistaken. Isn't there a better way to lead people to the faith, back to the faith, or to strengthen those of us already in the faith, than proming a mistake?

But back to the point: Your character does indeed sound like a "typical" Creationist... and the arguments used by your character are those heard by evolutionists many times over...and refuted. We're just trying to let you know that anyone who has studied the issue for any length of time is going to get turned off very quickly... and your story will probably end up having the opposite effect than what you intended.

Just ask St. Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

 

[dianalee4jc]

Sigh. I give up. None of you seem to understand what it is I am trying to do.

This book is NOT about evolution versus creation. And in the father's discourse I am not trying to teach anything. I am just trying to present an accurate portrayal of Creationist ideas. Period.

Someone please close this thread. Thanks.

Diana

 

[artybloke]

are many well-respected scholars (incluiding non-Christians)

Name some. And don't expect us not to laugh if you put in Dr Dino.

 

[shernren]

Okay, let me get this right. You're not trying to represent what scientists and theistic evolutionists believe. You're just trying to represent the average creation science belief, right? Whether it is good or not.

Well, I'll do my little bit to help, for all I'm worth (I don't personally agree in creationism). But I suggest that you either take it to the Creationist forum, where you'll be free of pests like us or take it direct to some Creationist sites e.g. AiG (www.answersingenesis.org) to get their input - I'm sure they'd be glad to help.

“What’s the big deal anyway, Dad?” he asked. “Why can’t the school teach evolution? What if God just used evolution to create everything? Can’t the Bible and evolution both be true?”

His father paused before answering. “Those are good questions, Son. Let’s take a look at them. You have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution. Your textbook actually presents evidence that has been discredited. Macro evolution involved the change between entire orders, like from fish to amphibians, or from dinosaurs to birds… or apes to man. It turns out, though, that the fossil evidence just doesn't support that theory at all. You would expect to see transitional species, like lizards with wing-like appendages rather than forelegs, and there aren’t many - and the few they find don't fit in with their tidy models, like Archeopteryx.”

Notes:
1. More accurate to describe fish -> amphibian / dinos -> birds as orders instead of species.
2. Fish -> amphibian is an example that causes trouble for many creation science proponents to believe evolution. It's even worse imagining a fish living on land than a dino flying.
3. There are transitional fossils, creationists will admit. The better-known argument from that angle is that Archeopteryx comes in the fossil record after true birds - so that an evolutionist model that goes dino -> Archy -> bird fails because the time order doesn't match. (Which of course ignores the other transitional fossils.)

Randy was a little sorry he’d asked. Across from him, Martin was rapt.

“Your textbook has pictures of different stages of development for man. What the book doesn’t tell you is that those artists’ renditions are based on only fragmentary evidence. In one case, nothing more than a single tooth. But those fossils could be different extinct ape species, or something else altogether. The tooth they found turned out to be the tooth of a pig!

I think you should use the example of Piltdown Man here - I personally think that it would resonate more with the readers, since there was not only scholarly mistake but deliberate fraud that would help to "smear" evolutionism, which you also do later in the passage.

Conversely, when you look at the DNA structure of individual species, and observe that it is stable from one generation to the next—“

“Each one after its kind,” Martin put in.

“Right. You look at that, and you find clear evidence against macro evolution. The mathematical odds against so many beneficial mutations to the DNA structure, that would cause a lizard to become a bird, are virtually impossible. And remember that the scientists of Darwin’s time couldn’t study DNA. Not a clue. We didn’t even discover DNA until the 1950s. So although Darwin’s theory might have been a good theory explaining origins hundreds of years ago, it isn’t now. Do you understand so far?”

“I guess…”

Martin was nodding and chewing.

Minor stylistic changes that help to bring out the point.

“Now, survival of the fittest, and micro evolution, those things do happen. In fact, you can't really call it micro-evolution ... variation would be a better word. Variation is why you have wolves and fox terriers, but both of them are canines, and they can interbreed. But you can’t interbreed lizards and birds - there's so much difference between them that there's no way to call it variation within the same kind. There's no way the DNA can match. Natural selection accounts for the extinction of some species and the rise of others. But there is no evidence to support the evolution from one created kind to another.”

Learn to use the word "species" carefully. Most creation scientists will feel that a kind is not a species but something at the family level which encompasses many species. (Can wolves actually interbreed with fox terriers? ) You said originally in the second last sentence that natural selection accounts for the rise of some species, but then in the last sentence that in fact there is no documented speciation. This inter-contradicts. The more robust argument is that while new species are formed these species are all containable within the same basic kind.

(And how completely different can DNA be? It's all the same four bases after all.)

He paused to eat, then continued.

“Obviously, it’s a lot more complicated than that. I’ve got some books you boys should look at. It might not be a huge issue for you now, but it could be when you get into college.”

Randy had no intentions of letting this be an “issue” for him, in high school or in college. If they insisted upon teaching it, fine. He’d learn enough to get a grade and then move on with his life. So much of what he learned was like that anyway. His life would not be impacted if he forgot how to diagram a sentence, or the date of the French-American war, or how to solve complex algebraic equations. But…

Good bit of perspective.

“Mom said people do bad things, like walk away from their faith, because of evolution,” he said.

“That’s true. Because atheists say that all life on earth began with single cells popping out of the primordial soup. It makes life on earth the result of time, plus matter, plus chance. To them that means, no God.”

I hope I've earned enough goodwill to say this but what you originally wrote here was dead wrong.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The reason abiogenesis is linked to evolution is only because atheists have to believe in them both. Personally I lean towards saying that God originally and supernaturally created life, but then used evolution to create biodiversity from that first life.
2. A naturalistic explanation is not necessarily an atheistic explanation. Evolution does not make an atheist an atheist: he takes it as an encouragement only because it can fit into his beliefs. Jesus' death on the cross wasn't a miracle - anybody hung on a cross for long enough dies - but that didn't mean God didn't do it. Western dualistic/deistic thinking has the strange idea that history and science run along their own courses like a stream flowing downhill, with nothing to do with God at all, and then when God sees something wrong He pokes the stream from above to fix things ... when the proper view is that God is under history instead of above it, inspiring every event whether scientifically explainable or not.

“But couldn’t God have started the change? Why couldn’t it be time plus matter plus God?”

“Because, again, the fossil evidence does not support that idea. However, if there was evidence for evolution, it would be as you said… because life cannot come from non-life, and matter does not create itself. These are scientific principles, Randy. The problem is some people automatically see them as arguments for God, and they invoke separation of church and state.”

The underlined part seems very unclear to me, and even from an atheistic viewpoint. The argument seems to be:

The fossil evidence is against theistic evolution.
Even if the fossil evidence is for theistic evolution
Life cannot come from non-life and matter from nothing.

Does that make sense?

I think that the "separation" part is a rather fair view for a creationist to take, when the typical creationist argument would be "Evolution is so weak that if they taught that it is only a theory, people would see right through it and reject it!" Good that he doesn't bring forth some censorship conspiracy. But you could put in that to some scientists, it seems like bad science to bend what they believe is science just because some religious people (sarcastic) think otherwise. (Can't seem to word it properly.)

“Why does evolution cause people to do bad things?”

“It doesn’t, directly. It’s just a theory of origins. But bad people use it to prompt other philosophies that remove God. Without God, there is no absolute judgment. Without judgment, maybe we can do whatever we want to do. So values are redefined. It could be argued that Darwin’s theories, along with Nietzsche's atheistic writing, contributed to a kind of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, upholding the ubermeinch, or superman, the forced evolution of a perfect race, that undergirded Hitler’s ideas and caused the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

“Wow,” Martin said.

I want to emphasise again that evolution isn't some evil maniacal philosophy in and of itself. It's taken up by bad people to inspire bad things. It can also be taken up by good people to inspire praise and adoration for God's wisdom and God's created beauty.

Randy thought it made sense, but he couldn’t understand why the textbooks would still have evolution in them if there was evidence against it. And, his father’s justification for the yellow stickers did nothing to solve the problem that he was facing; being called “Preacher Boy.”

“So… what can I do about being teased?”

“Just keep being yourself,” his mother said. “Keep up all those Christian values like love and joy and peace, sticker or not. Your friends liked you before, they will come back. Those who don’t… that’s their loss.”

Right, Randy thought. That makes it all better.

Liked this, just thought I'd add in one big contribution: that lifestyle really is the best witness.

Okay, I'm done. I hope I've helped. Now ... can I ask a favour? I hope that later on in your book a kindly, good Christian biology teacher will come along and refute all that creation science stuff. I'm sure everyone here will be more than happy to help with that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sigh. I give up. None of you seem to understand what it is I am trying to do.

This book is NOT about evolution versus creation. And in the father's discourse I am not trying to teach anything. I am just trying to present an accurate portrayal of Creationist ideas. Period.

Someone please close this thread. Thanks.

Diana

Ok, ok... for the record, your depiction of a Creationst seems pretty much on the money... factual errors and all.

Now, more important question: What is it you hope to accomplish with that depiction?

 

[dianalee4jc]

Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into answering, and for grasping on to what I am trying to do even though it does not agree with what you believe. I really do appreciate it!

A few comments:

or take it direct to some Creationist sites e.g. AiG (www.answersingenesis.org) to get their input - I'm sure they'd be glad to help.

I did not do that because I thought I could get the information I needed quicker by posting on a Christian discussion board, especially since this scene comprises such a small part of what is going on in the book.

Thank you for taking so much time to go line-by-line through the dialogue and giving me a very thorough and fair critique! I will take your suggestions into consideration.

I think you should use the example of Piltdown Man here - I personally think that it would resonate more with the readers, since there was not only scholarly mistake but deliberate fraud that would help to "smear" evolutionism, which you also do later in the passage.

I'm not really out to "smear" evolution either. Really the point I'm trying to make is not to infer some evolutionist conspiracy, but to show how the information that gets into the textbooks is often out of date or inaccurate. I remember from my own biology text seeing a discussion of long-necked giraffes and short-necked giraffes to demonstrate survival of the fittest... and that particular model was unscientific before the publication of the textbook.

For the purposes of understanding here... Randy's father does not have any objections to the teaching of evolution as theory.

(Can wolves actually interbreed with fox terriers? )

Not suggesting that it would be a good idea! But yes, biologically speaking, you can cross a dog with a wolf. I think some states have laws against it.

His life would not be impacted if he forgot how to diagram a sentence, or the date of the French-American war, or how to solve complex algebraic equations. But…

Good bit of perspective.

Thank you. Of course, Randy is missing the point of why students are taught to diagram sentences, etc., but this is a common teenaged perspective. I think I held it way into my adult years... until I became a magazine editor and wished that I remembered some of that stuff.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The reason abiogenesis is linked to evolution is only because atheists have to believe in them both.

This is exactly the point. I just didn't think it was necessary to differentiate between atheists, agnostics, or theistic evolutionists, nor do I want to pick on any of these and label them "bad." I think it is enough to say "some people."

The underlined part seems very unclear to me, and even from an atheistic viewpoint. The argument seems to be:

The fossil evidence is against theistic evolution.
Even if the fossil evidence is for theistic evolution
Life cannot come from non-life and matter from nothing.

Richard (Randy's father) is first making a refutation (no evidence for evolution), then giving a nod to Randy's thinking. What he is saying is that if there IS evidence, then God made it happen that way, because life cannot create itself.

"Evolution is so weak that if they taught that it is only a theory, people would see right through it and reject it!"

I have never heard a Creationist say this. Not saying that it hasn't happened, but it hasn't come up on the websites I've looked at or the discussion I've read and heard. So I have to assume it's not common.

I want to emphasise again that evolution isn't some evil maniacal philosophy in and of itself.

But I made that point. Richard said that evolution is a theory of origins and does not directly cause people to do bad things. You have to remember that this is a family dinnertime conversation, and so the dialogue has to be clipped. Not every single point or nuance will be made. Richard said, "It doesn't, directly. It's just a theory of origins." This makes the point, I feel.

“Just keep being yourself,” his mother said. “Keep up all those Christian values like love and joy and peace, sticker or not. Your friends liked you before, they will come back. Those who don’t… that’s their loss.”

Actually, this doesn't work for the character or the situation (although his mother would have no problems with lifestyle being a witness!). I'm touching upon a different problem here... that parents are often clueless about how to help or advise their children who are being teased. This, along with "just ignore them," is typical of what a parent might say -- of what my mother said to me! The problem is that it often doesn't work, and Randy has a sense of that.

Okay, I'm done. I hope I've helped. Now ... can I ask a favour? I hope that later on in your book a kindly, good Christian biology teacher will come along and refute all that creation science stuff. I'm sure everyone here will be more than happy to help with that.

If it fits the story, I'll certainly do that. Maybe not in this book (because evolution is not the issue), but one later in the series.

To hopefully make things a little clearer about what I'm trying to portray... Randy's father is a Creationist. He is a rational person, and well-liked and respected. A week before this scene takes place, he and another minister addressed the local school board about putting stickers in the biology textbooks. They were voted down. The day of this scene, however, an article about the meeting was published in the local weekly (small town) paper, along with a rather unflattering picture of him.

Meanwhile, Randy has been teased at school, and now on the ball field (which he viewed as a kind of sanctuary), stemming from an incident when he tried to share his faith with another student (he did not choose the best way to do it, and offended the person... she turned around and told her friends, which started the teasing). Even some of Randy's friends have turned against him, and he is hurting. He believes this thing in the paper is going to make matters worse for him, and so he's a little angry at his father. He walks away from his faith not because of evolution or creationism, but because he needs to feel acceptance from his peers.

This book is in no way intended to teach creationism or theistic evolution, or to even refute evolution. The debate just indirectly feeds into the problems that Randy is facing.

Thanks again for your help!

Merry Christmas!

Diana

 

[dianalee4jc]

Artybloke...
I don't know who "Dr. Dino" is.

Try these to start:
http://www.reasons.org
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.str.org

 

[dianalee4jc]

Lady Kate... I explained my purpose at the end of my post to Shenren.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Lady Kate... I explained my purpose at the end of my post to Shenren.

So I see... certainly the Creationism/evolution debate is a background issue in the story, although not the main one. So as I said, Randy's father's views are standard fare for Creationism, factual errors and all. As a depiction of a Creationist character, the father is more or less on the mark.

As for your story, however, it should be noted that because his information is mistaken, the school board's decision is justified. While the press may be coming down hard on him, he was still technically in the wrong. If the father persists, well.... how would the media treat someone who insisted that the Earth was flat?

The reader should feel sympathy for Randy, of course... he certainly didn't do anything to bring this on himself. Actually, if you go back and read the passage from Augustine that I quoted, it's a good parallel for your story... perhaps Randy's father can learn something later on.

 

[john crawford]

You lost me with the Darwin and Hitler connection.

http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm

 

[Battie]

Arguments aside, I was struck by how pleasantly written the text was. It's quite readable, especially for your target audience.

Good luck with your writing.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Battie... Thank you!

 

[shernren]

Okay diana I think I get the feel of what the dad is trying to do ... so, it's okay for Randy to learn evolution in school, as long as he's learning it as "just a theory" and gets the real facts of the situation at home. Is that so? (Well my real concern is that this will just perpetuate that silly "just a theory" idea, which really does injustice to science as a whole. It's the same sort of reasoning that UFO-people take when you tell them that it would take an insane amount of time for aliens to cross the stars - "Gee, that whole speed-of-light thing? It's just a theory.") In that case I think the whole discussion sort of clicks. I just trust that you'll make it clear, in your own way, that evolution doesn't actually cause any of that bad stuff like genocide. It's bad people who take a theory and use it to justify atrocity.

As for the hominid thing, well I think you should take an actual bio textbook and see what models you can "doubt". I don't think Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man are in the books anymore, if they were ever in the books to start with. Maybe you could pull something on Lucy - I've heard people say that contrary to being an A.afarensis (IIRC) she's actually a modern human male with some weird disorder.

As for the "ID needs to be censored because evolution needs to be protected" thing, you'd be surprised how many people actually believe that, consciously or not. I've heard Carl Baugh promote that view on his show. I don't think I've heard it from AiG, but it sounds like something Kent Hovind wouldn't mind saying.

 

[dianalee4jc]

I'm not going to argue this anymore. And to be honest, I'm feeling pretty disappointed with the way my Christian brothers and sisters have attacked me over this, and how there seems to be so much animosity between the two sides of this issue. I got caught in a crossfire I didn't even expect, nor was it my intent to start any debate at all. All any of you had to do was say, "yep, that's what Creationists say!" and I would have gone away very happy. Instead you've made me feel discouraged, like I can't win for losing! I have to present ALL sides of an issue in a work of fiction -- that does not even deal directly with the subject! -- or I risk making someone angry.

Come on now, you must know that if I presented an argument for Theistic Evolution, I would get attacked by Creationists! If this book is published, it will be published in Christian bookstores. Many Christian book publishers offer books that uphold Creationism.

I am a fiction writer. I presented a CHARACTER'S point of view. It is also a point of view that is held by many Christians who are NOT idiots (thank you very much). This is a story about a teenager who walks away from his faith... NOT about the evolution debate. I am hardly giving enough information for any teenager to come to a conclusion about the evolution debate (if my goal were to do that, I would do intensive research on the issue myself, and the entire book would be focused on that issue, since I'm sure there is more than enough to write about). I only wanted to make sure the viewpoint I presented was an accurate depiction of what Creationists say. As a fiction writer, it behooves me to stick with the viewpoint of the characters, and not editorialize, criticize, or take extra steps to CORRECT that character's thinking, unless the point of the story is to correct the character's thinking. As such, there will certainly come a time while I'm writing this series that I will have to present a point of view that I don't agree with myself. That's what a good fiction writer does.

But I think, personally and frankly, that you people have taken this way too seriously.

So... thank you for your input, but I think I've had quite enough.

Cheers,
Diana

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm not going to argue this anymore. And to be honest, I'm feeling pretty disappointed with the way my Christian brothers and sisters have attacked me over this, and how there seems to be so much animosity between the two sides of this issue. I got caught in a crossfire I didn't even expect, nor was it my intent to start any debate at all. All any of you had to do was say, "yep, that's what Creationists say!" and I would have gone away very happy.

Which I did, once it became clear that you were writing fiction, and not using the debate as a witnessing tool.

However, it's naive and irresponsible to hide behind the "It's only fiction!" line. Clearly, your story has another goal... a noble one, to be sure... to use an example of one fictional character's crisis of faith as a parable of sorts for others who may experience similar events in their own lives...

What causes this crisis, and how it is eventually resolved (I'm assuming it is... favorably), are critical issues. If Randy's father is to play any active role in Randy's reconciliation with the faith, it's important that it does not happen through false or misleading facts.

Instead you've made me feel discouraged, like I can't win for losing! I have to present ALL sides of an issue in a work of fiction -- that does not even deal directly with the subject! -- or I risk making someone angry.

Whether you like it or not, you've made the C/E debate into a background issue of your story... so it's important to get the facts straight... even the indirect ones. You'd be surprised how many people can't tell fact from fiction.

Would the movie Titanic had made any sense if the ship didn't sink at the end?

Come on now, you must know that if I presented an argument for Theistic Evolution, I would get attacked by Creationists! If this book is published, it will be published in Christian bookstores. Many Christian book publishers offer books that uphold Creationism.

All Christians are as vulnerable to error or exploitation as anyone else. Shall you sacrifice the facts to avoid offending anyone?

I am a fiction writer. I presented a CHARACTER'S point of view. It is also a point of view that is held by many Christians who are NOT idiots (thank you very much). This is a story about a teenager who walks away from his faith... NOT about the evolution debate. I am hardly giving enough information for any teenager to come to a conclusion about the evolution debate (if my goal were to do that, I would do intensive research on the issue myself, and the entire book would be focused on that issue, since I'm sure there is more than enough to write about). I only wanted to make sure the viewpoint I presented was an accurate depiction of what Creationists say. As a fiction writer, it behooves me to stick with the viewpoint of the characters, and not editorialize, criticize, or take extra steps to CORRECT that character's thinking, unless the point of the story is to correct the character's thinking. As such, there will certainly come a time while I'm writing this series that I will have to present a point of view that I don't agree with myself. That's what a good fiction writer does.

All right... but if you're going where I think you're going with this book, then at the end, Randy is going to reconcile his faith... and in so doing, reconcile with his father.

If that happens without the father learning any accurate information about evolution, what's that going to tell people about the connection between Creationism and the Christian Faith?

But I think, personally and frankly, that you people have taken this way too seriously.

Because we've seen this happen too many times...look at Dover.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Lady Kate... with all due respect... drop it.

I cannot possibly please everyone with what I write. I'm only writing to be true to the character.

Let me ask you a question. What if I were writing a story about Dover? Should I NOT represent the views of the school board members? Should I paint them as just ignoramuses and not people who, whatever their faults, are ACCEPTED BY CHRIST?

And what if I were someone like Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LeHaye... should I NOT write from a pre-trib rapture position just because there are other Christians who don't hold the same view?

Listen... if you don't like what I'm writing, don't read the book. I'm presenting a character's point of view... not YOURS.

PLEASE drop it!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Lady Kate... with all due respect... drop it.

I cannot possibly please everyone with what I write. I'm only writing to be true to the character.

And so you have... very true to the Creatinoist POV... I was just looking ahead, trying to see where you're going with this story. I was just concerned with the message people are going to walk away with... My apologies.

Let me ask you a question. What if I were writing a story about Dover? Should I NOT represent the views of the school board members? Should I paint them as just ignoramuses and not people who, whatever their faults, are ACCEPTED BY CHRIST?

Did I say that? I don't recall using the word ignoramus anywhere... and I certainly never said or implied that Creationism is in any way Un-Christian.

And what if I were someone like Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LeHaye... should I NOT write from a pre-trib rapture position just because there are other Christians who don't hold the same view?

Fine, it's only fiction... as you say. But look at the brouhaha raised by Jenkins and LeHaye... people can disagree all they want, but since their books are based on events which haven't happened yet, there's really no way to be factually wrong...

Listen... if you don't like what I'm writing, don't read the book. I'm presenting a character's point of view... not YOURS.

I'm just curious about the ending.

PLEASE drop it!

If nothing else, at lease you've come to realize that making the C/E debate an issue (even a minor one) in your story is juggling a live grenade. It is a sensitive issue.

But if you want it dropped, it's dropped. Your character is an authentic Creationist.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Okay... the ending.

Randy comes back to his faith because he realizes that he has been running away from the very answer that he needs: Christ. Randy discovers that making compromises with the world just for the sake of having friends only leads to those compromises becoming dominent and overruling Christ. If this book were to be summed up under the caption of one issue alone, it would be "peer pressure," not "evolution vs. creationism." The evolution debate itself plays absolutely no role in Randy's rebellion. It is only that his father's debate before the school board leads to more teasing, which leads Randy to more desperate steps to "fit in."

In the end Randy comes back to Christ because Christ is THE answer.

I have no wish to try to correct the thinking of creationists... OR theistic evolutionists. I am only trying to present an accurate depiction of a creationist. In fact, the dinnertime conversation between Randy and his father backfires... because his father is so caught up in the "issue" that he does not notice what the real problem is... that Randy is having problems with his friends. But this is shown in the scene that follows, not in the one I posted here.

Lady Kate (and others), please trust me on this. I am 51 years old, and so I know a few things about life. I have been writing for a long time and so I know how to paint characters as real-seeming people, not chariacatures. This book is not about the evolution/creation debate, and in fact, there may be only one other scene where it is even mentioned. But I CANNOT change a character's thinking just to please certain people... the character has to be true to what is necessary to the story.

What concerns me, however, more than anything connected to the story, is the antagonism I see between people on both sides of this issue. I've just read another thread on this board where this attitude was addressed... and the discussion very quickly degraded into more bitter argumentation which resulted in the thread being closed.

WHY???

We're all brothers and sisters in Christ. And if we disagree with each other, can't we still respect each other? Unfortunately, what I've seen in this thread is people telling me that creationists are fools, that THEY are responsible for people leaving the faith... that I MUST write my story giving consideration to theistic evolution -- whether now, or to "correct" the character's thinking later -- regardless of the actual purpose of the story.

As for Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LeHaye, I don't know if it's accurate to say that they got into "hot water." Yeah, there are people who disagree, often passionately... but does that mean they shouldn't have the right to present their point of view?

We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ! Let's have a little charity toward each other.

Diana