Well, now, Lynn is fairly close to my position. She apparently doesn’t have a clue of what constitutes a valid scientific theory. Discuss that first, in a neutral setting – say, whether cold fusion might work or not.
Then concede her point. In the sense that the theory of evolution doesn’t state an absolute irrefutable truth of the sort that “water is liquid at room temperature and one atmosphere pressure” does, she’s right. That it’s a valid theory because it most ably explains all known data relating to the history of life, in the absence of supernatural intervention, is a different ball of wax.
Now, having established the validity of all this data, take up with her the foibles with the data usually advanced by creationists – “Nebraska man” and the “Paluxy man tracks” being two examples of ongoing garbage that keep being brought up. Discuss how well radiometric dating and the stratigraphic column fit together – and how creationists will claim that “there’s no complete stratigraphic column” in defiance of common sense in an effort to refute this.
Next discuss the idea that God is a god of truth, who loves mankind enough to send Jesus, with all that He did.
Then ask her if such a God is up to playing shell games with the universe and demanding belief in man’s opinion that the first chapter of Genesis is a literal historical account, and if He’s in favor of the lies spread by creationists in her opinion.
Because, like you, I’m convinced that the wonder of the universe formed by the big bang and the wonder of the diversity of life created through evolutionary processes are among the best witnesses to what kind of God there really is.
I have done some research on Darwin and found that Darwin himself is partly a creationist. He believed that instead of creating the species as they are now, he created the first cell, and “planned” how it would evolve. He was not an atheist, but he sincerely believed in creationism. This I believe is the balance that must be struck between literal interpretation of the bible and outright rejection of it. If your friend does not accept this then fine, there is no point in trying to change him.
On rereading my post, I’ve discovered an apparent insult against our esteemed Lynn Bodoni in it. The “she” of my second sentence was of course intended to be the “creationist friend” of the OP, not Lynn!!!
I’m sure that I have heard quotes from Darwin’s writings saying words to the effect “God has done XYZ” and so on, but I can’t find anything to back that up (you try searching for Darwin Said God and see what you get!); in any case, this was the language of the day, so it may mean nothing.
I did a search for “Darwin Said God” on google, and got a grand total of three hits. None were about him being a believer or partial creationist.
On the other hand, there are tons of cites backing up the fact that he was an agnostic for most of his adult life, up to and including the end of his life. This site gives some details on his religious beliefs, and the site definitely doesn’t have a pro-agnostic stance.
I’m going to need a lot more evidence that he was “partly a creationist” than “I did some research on Darwin”, before I’ll lend any weight to that supposition.
I think the poor Google results may have been because you enclosed the entire search string in quotes; it’s not at all surpising that the words “Darwin Said God” cannot be abundantly found in exactly that order.
In any case, it seems to be rather difficult to find any unbiased reportage of Darwin on the net; I’m quite happy to accept that he gradually lost faith as a result of his theories/discoveries; it’s hardly surprising, given that biblical literalism was the majority view in those times.
When I was in college I had a roommate who was an evangelical born again Christian. (I was at a state university) One night he asked me if I was an atheist. I said no, although I was an agnostic. What followed was a discussion of what I believed and what he believed, including his statement that he HAD to believe the bible was literally true and there was a God because if there wasn’t “in a perfect world women wouldn’t be able to survive without God’s help.”
At that point I stopped the discussion and told him how much I disagreed with him, much to his amazement, as though having told me what he thought I would immediately see the error of my ways.
For the rest of the semester I would occasionally find tracts laying on my bed, but we never discussed comparative religion again.
I wasn’t offended at his attempts to “save” me because I recognized that as an evangelical he felt it was his responsibility to do so, and to fail to even try would be a betrayal of his beliefs, but I had made my opinions clear and he at least didn’t verbally harass me.
What I’m wondering is, are you an evangelical person yourself? Do you feel you have to “preach” on behalf of evolution? If not, leave it alone unless your friend asks for your opinions, or makes confrontational remarks to you keep them to yourself. If she is curious enough to question her beliefs and learn other points of view she may change her own mind, but trying to “convert” her is only likely to cause a conflict.
If you are evangelical about science (an oxymoron perhaps?) then maybe you need to relax and ask why. It’s really not necessary.
I reckon informing somebody that Creationism is by no means science is different from evangelism. It’s like informing somebody that the earth is not flat.