Perhaps that’s true, but be patient with him. With me, I found it almost impossible to be intellectually honest with myself because of strong emotional ties I didn’t realize I had. bodswood doesn’t realize he has them, either, by his own words. In a case like this no amount of rhetoric or persuasion will do. He has to deal with this himself.
bodswood seems to be maintining that he’s resistant to accepting evolution because it just seems counterintuitive to him even without reference to religion, but of course that’s a somewhat disingenuous objection because the intuition that evolution is too crazy to be true (despite the utter lack of any physical explanation why it can’t be true) necessatates an alternative explanation rooted in supernatural intervention.
An intuitive resistance to evolution is necessarily a reflexive belief in special creation. I think bodswood does have an emotional investment in creationism because he is not yet willing or able to see that he can let go of creationism without letting go of theistic faith.
Carl Sagan once said that “science is not only compatible with spirtuality but science is a profound source of spirituality.” Sagan spoke of the wonder and the exhilaration of scientific discovery and said, “that elation is surely spiritual.”
I just want to say to bods, that to many, evolution is a miracle, an incredible process of creation. It can be seen as an expression of God rather than a refutation.
It’s funny, we’ve gotten a lot of creationsist of various stripes on this board. We’ve seen a lot of the same arguments. We’ve seen creationists get shaken up, get angry, get preachy. We’ve seen them vanish after a few initial skirmishes. We’ve seen on occasion someone who is willing to rethink or reconsider his position, but I don’t think we’ve seen a creationist throw up his hands and say “you convinced me. I get it now.” We know that this does happen. There are many such as dangermouse who basically break through the denial after a while. I know I’ve seen other posters on this board who say they came here with creationist beliefs and were swayed by reading the boards. I haven’t seen them announce it as it happens, though. I think it’s largely an internal process that takes some time to work through. I’m also willing to bet that there is a natural resistance to giving one’s opponents the satisfaction of knowing they’ve made you sweat.
We’re so practiced at these debates an so often frustrated by opponents abndoning the discussions in the middle that I think we feel a little too eager when we feel like we’ve got someone close to the edge. He’s almost there. he’s followed the discussion this far. He hasn’t melted down or run away. He doesn’t seem crazy or bigoted. It feels like we can convert him but we can’t quite get him into the water.
This is just my two cents but I think we;ve nade about as good a case as we can. I don’t think one more piece of information is going to be decisive and that more pressing may just make bodswood more defensive. It would probably be best just to back off a little, let him process and just be here to answer questions rather than aggressively going after him.
Diogenes wrote: "bodswood seems to be maintaining that he’s resistant to accepting evolution because it just seems counterintuitive to him even without reference to religion, but of course that’s a somewhat disingenuous objection because the intuition that evolution is too crazy to be true (despite the utter lack of any physical explanation why it can’t be true) necessitates an alternative explanation rooted in supernatural intervention.
An intuitive resistance to evolution is necessarily a reflexive belief in special creation. I think bodswood does have an emotional investment in creationism because he is not yet willing or able to see that he can let go of creationism without letting go of theistic faith."
That’s well put (nice to see someone willing to summarise an opponent’s position in an honest and non-manipulatory way), and I would beg only to add one thing, which (I think) you hint at.
No organised group of Christians with whom I have been involved has ever made a big issue out of evolution, so I have not received indoctrination against it. Indeed, between 1974, when I did my Biology O Level, and 2001, when I read stuff both for and against evolution for my PhD thesis in critical discourse analysis(including Darwin and Behe, but also other applications of evolution in for example literary theory and sociology) I thought little about it, though intuitively not believing in both the big bang theory and common descent.
So it is very much my growing understanding of the Judaeo-Christian God that has underpinned my faith in a designer, a creator.
The fossil record as religiously pointed out by Sentient Meat is a challenge to my beliefs, but one which as a thinker working with a hypothesis I will do my best to find an explanation for. Given that few others are doing this, because their framework assumes the truth of the fossil record, I may be playing a useful role in the advancement of knowledge. After all, virtually 100% of the scientific community would view my position as ludicrous and pay it no mind, and when I air my views on intelligent chat rooms like this, the net effect of my contribution is to achieve more converts for the other side.
Perhaps I am in fact a plant for the pro-evolution lobby. Or have evolved into such a plant over the course of my lifetime(s).
You’re doing this the wrong way around. Why do you start with the precept that evolution is false? Why do you not start with an open mind, examine the evidence, and come up with a conclusion?
There are all kinds of clever explanations as to why these inconsistencies are only apparent, but you’re right; believing in the absolute literality of Genesis is quite a feat; in my own experience, I would say it was done by means of tightly focusing on the Bible (or rather, what *a handful of people were telling me about the Bible) and making every effort to avoid absorbing any factual data about evolution.
It is certainly true to say that most vociferous creationists don’t even know what evolution means, and they don’t want to know - they have accepted a strawman definition presented by other creationists. Reality checks are strongly discouraged.
No one starts with an “open mind”. Everyone approaches a problem with a theory. You start with the precept that creation is false. I don’t think it matters - in fact I think such pluralism is a good thing. Trying to keep one’s mind as open as possible while attempting to come to the hard-won truth is important. As is honesty and the willingness to hold views which are deeply unpopular for whatever reason, whether, for example, for reasons of politics, culture or fashion.
Wrong. This is called “projection”. Basically, you assume that everyone is like you in this regard. We’re not.
I did not approach this question with any precept. I was taught evolution in school, like most people in the developed world. Later, when I realized there were people - also living in the developed world and with full access to modern education - that denied evolution, I got interested and looked into the matter. I wanted to see what they built their case on, and what the promoters of evolution built their case on.
Quite frankly, what I found is this: the case for evolution is overwhelming, and its opponents have no credible evidence for their view. This isn’t an emotional viewpoint, it’s a fact. It’s reality. I don’t know exactly why the opponents of evolution hold their view, but my discussions with them have led me to believe that it’s a totally emotional stance. For some reason, they believe that evolution somehow invalidates or disproves their religious beliefs, and they do not dare let go of it.
In this thread, you’ve done nothing but reinforce this impression in me. I directed you to Ben’s website, you said “the questions were a little over my head”. I’m sure they were (they were over my head the first time I went there too), but the information you needed to understand them was right there on the same page. Had you truly wanted to learn, you would have read it and then gone on to try and answer the questions. You were given cites, arguments of logic, articles, papers, studies, anything you could want, and your constant reply was “interesting, but how about this?”. You never presented any evidence for your claim, which, as far as I can make out, is “God created everything the way it is”. You never gave answers to the questions we asked.
From this, I can only surmise that you’re never, no matter what evidence we provide, going to accept evolution. Ever. I’m not sure why, but for some reason your mind is locked in a read-only position. Furthermore, as you amply show with your projection quoted above, you believe this is somehow right, or that everyone is that way. It just isn’t the truth.
You can refute this in one simple way. Tell us what evidence would convince you. What could we do, say, or show you that would make you go “OK, I understand now, evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen”. What would you accept as evidence?
From Index to Creationist Claims
There really isn’t anything fresh on the menu.
I think this misconception stems from how the scientific method is often taught. Traditionally, students are taught that the scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, testing it through experimentation, making observations, and then interpreting the observations to refine the hypothesis (and repeating the loop). Students are rarely taught that the process must begin with observation; that a hypothesis is not simply a guess, but rather a tentative explanation of observations. The observations have to come first, or the hypothesis doesn’t make sense.
Pseudoscientists like to pretend to use the scientific method, but by starting with the hypothesis (and generally skipping the experimentation). That is not science. The hypothesis has to follow from observations, or it is just a guess.
No doubt about it. The great scientific achievments have usually resulted from the plain fact that observed events didn’t agree with the predictions of the theory. Galileo’s rolling balls demonstrated that objects didn’t have to have a continual push in order to keep moving as Aristotle’s physics claimed. I believe it was Henry Cavendish who showed that water was not an element but rather a compound of elements and helped Lavosier to the new chemistry that eliminated phlogistin. Mercury’s orbit didn’t quite agree with the predictions of Newton’s mechanics. Pasteur’s experiments led to the germ theory of disease.
And on and on.
And, more to the point, it was Darwin’s observations during the voyage of the Beagle that forced him to abandon the fixity of species and develop his theory of evolution. He wrote of his growing conviction that species are not immutable in a letter to a friend, “It is almost like confessing to murder.”
I feel compelled to clarify something here, lest someone give me more credit than I deserve.
The “Great Conversion” I recently experienced–which was less an event than an ongoing process which is still occurring–began with my questioning the fundamental tenets of Christianity due to the fact that, for over four decades of life, all dedicated to Christianity, the “observed events” in my life, and the lives around me, “didn’t agree with the predictions of the theory.” It just didn’t add up.
Lest I hijack this thread, I won’t go into detail about just how I got there. My point, though, is that I never felt free to examine evolution without profound prejudice against it until I was free to question the bible as the word of God, or God’s very existence. Ideas such as evolution fell right into place then, almost effortlessly.
The unfortunate bottom line is that while I was a Christian, a pretty fundamentalist one, I never accepted evolution. I still believe (but am open to persuasion otherwise) that any Christian who does accept evolution necessarily still contends with some degree of cognitive dissonance, the same sort of cognitive dissonance that was the ultimate cause of my “conversion.”
Dangermouse, this notion that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with Christianity is one which interests me. I’ve got a busy weekend planned, so I can’t see myself being on-line again until Tuesday morning, but perhaps this is worth a seperate Great Debate. One could make a case that any faith involves cognitive dissonance. One could also make a case that being a Biblical literalist also involves cognitive dissonance.
I’ve been a Christian all my life. I’m also an engineer’s daughter, and the church I grew up attending had a larger than average proportion of engineers and their families in the congregation. Last I heard, it still did. I was taught logic, reason, and thinking for myself at home as part of what a good and sensible person was meant to be. I can still remember thinking to myself when I was 8 or 9 years old, “OK, so yellow and blue make green. Who said it should be that way? Who said they should make green, rather than purple or brown or something?” I’m a trifle short on sleep this morning, so I’m not going to try to wax eloquent, but to me, knowledge of what we know of the processes which produce species or stars doesn’t eliminate a Creator, but instead provides greater awe and wonder at One who set them in motion. As I’ve said a few times, my knowledge of science increases my faith, awe, and reverence, rather than detracting from it. Then again, the religious tradition I grew up in was quite different from American Fundamentalist Christianity. Perhaps for me and for the sake of my faith, it was better that way.
Respectfully,
CJ
Is suspect that you should change “Christian” to some other word in your last sentence–perhaps Fundamentalist, perhaps some other decriptor. Christianity has a tradition dating back over a thousand years of not placing Faith at odds with science. (It has, admittedly, been honored at least as often in the breach as in the act, but the tradition is real.) As early as the late fourth century, Augustine of Hippo remarked in a work discussing Genesis as a literal work,
Having been raised to believe that Scripture conveys ideas in many different media rather than to believe that Scripture conveyed facts, I do not ever recall being confused or conflicted about the stories in Genesis 1 and 2 either because of their conflicts or because of the conflicts that they (seem to) have with science.
What Tom says is true, although Augustine had a few weird ideas due to his Manichean influences. Many Christians believe in evolution. If I were to convert, it wouldn’t shake my faith in the least. As CJ points out, if you believe God started the whole thing rolling (regardless of whether he created out of nothingness or not), it doesn’t really matter how much he chose to micro-manage developments after that.
Bodswood it’s interesting that you use the word ‘convert’ when you talk about accepting evolution. Why is this a conversion process for you?
Evolution is not something you ‘believe’ in. It is not a religious belief. You don’t have to be ‘converted’ to it.
You are correct that Christians can accept that evolution took place without losing their faith in their religion. But believe it? No, the facts as presented to support evolution do not require belief and no belief or faith is expected.
The only reason this is debated at all appears to be that fundamentalists feel that the theories of evolution and other science related stuff shakes their belief in an infallable Bible. In some ways maybe it does. If Original Sin from Adam and Eve is required for belief in your religion, then I can see where accepting a world view that implies Adam and Eve never existed to sin would be a problem. I’m not sure how Christians like CJ get past this.
Perhaps I’ve missed something, but you may have been addressing me instead of bodswood, as I did indeed use the word “conversion.”
Were you?
dangermouse1956, I was referrring to the post by Bodswood right above mine. He may have been using the term because of your previous comment, I don’t know. 
Were you actually referring to a deconversion as opposed toa conversion? It seemed that Bodswood meant a conersion from his current beliefs regarding evolution.
In any case sorry if I misinterpreted anones views
Brian wrote: “If Original Sin from Adam and Eve is required for belief in your religion, then I can see where accepting a world view that implies Adam and Eve never existed to sin would be a problem. I’m not sure how Christians like CJ get past this.”
I can’t speak for CJ, but for myself the answer lies in the fact that Adam is used to refer to men in general in many places in the Bible. The Genesis account may be interpreted in this way without creating siginificant problems.
I still feel that an element of faith or belief is involved in accepting evolution, since it has not been (and cannot be) proven, and since we have to infer what happened way back when from the less than overwhelming evidence that exists. It’s strong, but it’s not conclusive.
We have discussed (and disputed) this at some length already in this thread.
Do you believe that there is an element of faith involved in accepting atomic theory, the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity? After all, none of these have been (or even can be) proven. Also, calling the evidence for evolution “less than overwhelming” is outright wrong. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for creationism, like that for ID, is nonexistent.