It should be clear by now that often people are talking past each other when it comes to this topic. I think there is also a common misconception that just because an objection to evolutionary thought doesn't sound complicated or "educated", that it cannot be valid. All data only has meaning when it is interpreted. If you approach the data from a worldview that presupposes evolutionary ideas, then you'll likely come to a wrong conclusion.
Something we must also remember is that man is not morally neutral. He is corrupt and will not approach the topic of creation rationally and without bias, no matter how much he claims neutrality. The choice one has to make as a believer is this: do I follow an idea that is incompatible with the bible or not? If you believe the bible is true, then all data must be interpreted accordingly.
11 comments
"Objections" are appropriate to arguments, not to demonstrable facts. Evolution isn't philosophy and isn't an argument. If you have valid factual points that might disprove evolution, then yes of course, you have to explain it in an educated way. We listen to scientists who can show us real evidence.
If your dislike of evolution boils down to "It hurts my tender feelings", or "God said ___ ", or "It's not in my bible", or "Were you there?", those are not evidence.
You could always behave rationally and accept where the demonstrably true evidence leads. And knock it off with the transitional species babble, genetics has confirmed evolution. Bye the bye, all data only has meaning when interpreted by people competent to make that interpretation.
Show me where evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Bible. Because I do remember the early parts of Genesis, and even if it were meant to be taken literally, it doesn't explain the mechanism for any of what happened. And it isn't meant to be taken literally.
You can't say that people shouldn't presuppose an outcome in science, then go on to presuppose an outcome and say science must comply with that. Do you people listen to yourselves?
Complains about corrupt, biased humans interpreting data the way they want (to support Evolution).
Goes on to discuss how we ought to interpret all data to agree with what the Bible says. In the very next sentence.
It's like these people don't hear the words coming out of their mouths.
Since the Bible is demonstrably wrong in multiple instances, how should its data be interpreted except as wrong as well? Do you believe that insects have four legs, as the Bible states? Is pi=3? Are bats birds?
If you're driving in unfamiliar territory and discover the road you're on isn't taking you where you thought it was, do you continue in the wrong direction or look for a road that will take you where you need to be?
“It should be clear by now that often people are talking past each other when it comes to this topic. I think there is also a common misconception that just because an objection to evolutionary thought doesn't sound complicated or "educated", that it cannot be valid.”
"All data only has meaning when it is interpreted. If you approach the data from a worldview that presupposes evolutionary ideas, then you'll likely come to a wrong conclusion.”
“Something we must also remember is that man is not morally neutral.”
"He is corrupt and will not approach the topic of creation rationally and without bias, no matter how much he claims neutrality.”
"The choice one has to make as a believer”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
