- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I know I'm a bit of a softie towards creationists, partly because I've been there before myself, so I don't expect that you all will agree fully with me. But looking at the way evolutionists have been responding to creationists here on OT, I wonder if maybe we could rethink the style of our replies.
Especially things like this:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25020739&postcount=22
I don't mean to use this particular post as personal insult but it's a good example of what I mean. When a creationist reads this what will he think? "Oh, it's just another condescending evolutionist farting. Told you they were atheists in disguise - they sure act the part." And if I were a fence-sitter reading this I would be more inclined to agree. Of course, if I were diligent, I could probably look up that particular term and see if I can figure out why the evolutionist was calling it a PRATT. But I wouldn't bother to because of the presentation, and anyway most fence-sitters are probably not as absorbed as we are
No personal insult here, but from a purely practical point of view, this doesn't really communicate anything about evolutionism other than "evolutionists are arrogant". Sure we have our reasons to be terse - I'm quite sure that some of these arguments are already literally PRATTs - but are they obvious and justified to the outside observer?
I think that maybe it would be more acceptable to at least give a sound-bite of why the particular argument is wrong, followed by a link to a more comprehensive rebuttal. Of course, most of these links are going to be TO links, and a creationist will probably react in the same way anyway. But at least a fence-sitter is only one click away from seeing a reasonable explanation of why the post is wrong. More generally, it would be better to encourage dialog rather than stifling it by straight-away firing a PRATT judgment. For me, when I feel terse, I either don't post at all or try to elicit a response from the other person by asking a short question (like "Don't you think evolution predicts that all new species are detectably evolved from older ones?"). Provide a road for further discussion: it's far more charitable and hospitable than putting up an instant "This is rubbish" roadblock from which creationists can only turn back to their regularly scheduled programming.
It would be good to remember that for many creationists (especially the "Evolution is a dogma" crowd - that particular argument is a giveaway) YECism is fundamental to their faith, and subconsciously they cannot picture themselves ever being both Christian and evolutionist, meaning that we who imagine ourselves to be both at once is a fundamental violation of their worldview. And people do not take to worldview violations lightly. For them, saying we evolved from apes is pretty equivalent to spitting at the Bible. So handle with care.
At the end of the day, it's not likely that any effort to soften our postings will soften their hearts. They'll still think of us as atheists in disguise, standing on a scientific pedestal spitting down at them normal Christians, no matter how much we try to soften that image in their minds. But ... at least we can try. We have the responsibility to try, even if we know we will likely not succeed. It's the Christian thing to do, to me at least.
Especially things like this:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25020739&postcount=22
I don't mean to use this particular post as personal insult but it's a good example of what I mean. When a creationist reads this what will he think? "Oh, it's just another condescending evolutionist farting. Told you they were atheists in disguise - they sure act the part." And if I were a fence-sitter reading this I would be more inclined to agree. Of course, if I were diligent, I could probably look up that particular term and see if I can figure out why the evolutionist was calling it a PRATT. But I wouldn't bother to because of the presentation, and anyway most fence-sitters are probably not as absorbed as we are
No personal insult here, but from a purely practical point of view, this doesn't really communicate anything about evolutionism other than "evolutionists are arrogant". Sure we have our reasons to be terse - I'm quite sure that some of these arguments are already literally PRATTs - but are they obvious and justified to the outside observer?
I think that maybe it would be more acceptable to at least give a sound-bite of why the particular argument is wrong, followed by a link to a more comprehensive rebuttal. Of course, most of these links are going to be TO links, and a creationist will probably react in the same way anyway. But at least a fence-sitter is only one click away from seeing a reasonable explanation of why the post is wrong. More generally, it would be better to encourage dialog rather than stifling it by straight-away firing a PRATT judgment. For me, when I feel terse, I either don't post at all or try to elicit a response from the other person by asking a short question (like "Don't you think evolution predicts that all new species are detectably evolved from older ones?"). Provide a road for further discussion: it's far more charitable and hospitable than putting up an instant "This is rubbish" roadblock from which creationists can only turn back to their regularly scheduled programming.
It would be good to remember that for many creationists (especially the "Evolution is a dogma" crowd - that particular argument is a giveaway) YECism is fundamental to their faith, and subconsciously they cannot picture themselves ever being both Christian and evolutionist, meaning that we who imagine ourselves to be both at once is a fundamental violation of their worldview. And people do not take to worldview violations lightly. For them, saying we evolved from apes is pretty equivalent to spitting at the Bible. So handle with care.
At the end of the day, it's not likely that any effort to soften our postings will soften their hearts. They'll still think of us as atheists in disguise, standing on a scientific pedestal spitting down at them normal Christians, no matter how much we try to soften that image in their minds. But ... at least we can try. We have the responsibility to try, even if we know we will likely not succeed. It's the Christian thing to do, to me at least.
