The Difference Faith Makes

[Barbara]

[Theo]

Not to be overly contrary (again), but the perception that there is an irreconcilable conflict between evolution and religious faith appears to be a phenomenon fairly unique to a particular brand of American fundamentalists. To most of us Europeans (including the Pope ;)), this dichotomy is hard to understand.


In other words, Barbara, I have nothing but respect for your faith in God, but where does evolution (or lack of it) enter into it?

[robsia]

[Polarbeast]

[Bill]

[Barbara]

I humbly apologize if I have unintentionally offended anyone. I was under the impression that the title of this forum was: Christianity, Civil Discussions Wanted. It was my intention to post a statement of Christian faith, not to get embroiled in a discussion regarding evolution. However, since you ask...

I think it's fair to say that what I call the evolution lobby is atheistic to the core. Yes, I know; not everyone who's bought into evolution is an atheist. But I'm talking about the really committed Darwinists. I mean the ones who insist not just that there've been changes WITHIN species, but that all species evolved from other species, through unguided mutations. I mean the ones who say all this just HAD to take many millions of years because, with no Designer, it takes a really long time for all these random mutations to fall into place the right way (more or less).

If you think about it, this position practically has to be atheistic. Everyone who takes it must demand that the making of the world can be explained entirely without God. If you buy that claim, the only "god" you can believe in is one who doesn't DO anything---not in the physical world anyway, which is the only world science can recognize. Oh, maybe there's some sort of vague, abstract, spiritual entity out there, but it doesn't deal in material things: It doesn't MAKE anything. The only "god" who can exist, in short, is a disposable one: one who doesn't HAVE to exist. For obvious reasons, Darwinists often shy away from making this point when dealing with the general public. They're more likely to say that science and religion are just two separate fields, each with its own designated territory, and if each steers far clear of the other, we'll all get along just fine. That's not how they talk among themselves, though. And from time to time, they let their real attitudes spill out in a way that's---well, let's just say "ill-advised."

Take for example, Kansas State University professor Scott Todd, in the thoroughly evolutionist NATURE magazine (9/30/99): "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Or take Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's discussion of a book by Carl Sagan, in the decidedly secular (and decidedly liberal) New York Review of Books (1/9/97): "The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of...Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus. Science, as the only beggeter of truth...We exist (solely) as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are consequences of material relations among material entities."

And that's that: Nothing else will do. Sure, Lewontin admits, it leads to lots of theories that are kinda shaky. But that's just the way things have to be---because "we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism."

For those who are truly interested, the following works are recommended:

Phillip Johnson: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
Cornelius Hunter: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
Jonathan Wells: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth
Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box
Wm. Dembski: Intelligent Design

[robsia]

[Leslie]

[Theo]

[Kolbitar]

Hello Barbara.

Thank you for the faith, hope, and joy that surely shine forth from your post; and for a post which, if one calmly reads it, forms the direction of the discussion, a direction of which the subsequent knee jerking posts evidence no real awareness -- an apology may be in order, but not one from you.

I looked up the man whom you referenced in a public debate, and found an article by Bill Dembski. He writes -- about the man you quote! hello people! PROFESSOR WILLIAM PROVINE -- that he "teaches a course for incoming freshman at Cornell University. In it, he contends that Darwin’s theory of evolution makes it impossible to believe in the existence of a benevolent God, much less in the God of Christianity. Provine informs his students that by the end of the course any belief they have in God will be shattered. In fact, he gauges the success of the course by the number of new atheists it produces."

Here is one Darwinist among many academics -- among Darwin himself -- who see an incompatibility between Darwinism and any belief in God whatsoever, let alone Christianity. It is evident to me, dear Barbara, that you were responding to a very definite view which makes the Provine contention, and that, whether or not you are a "literalist," a "young Earther," or whatever, the intent of your post was to contrast the joy and hope you have, with the darkness and futility of a Provine outlook. I think you did it beautifully, and I find the responses to you, well, much less than a beautiful thing.

God bless,

Jesse

[Leslie]

[Adam Linton]

[Kolbitar]

::But just because this man is a militant atheist, it doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't reject evolutionary theory must be an atheist.

Hi Leslie. I hope not, for I don't necessarily reject evolutionary theory. That, however, is not really what I'm addressing.

Barbara's quote:
::::What if we didn't have faith in God but accepted instead the God-denying theory of evolution? Suppose we had an atheistic view of life. Cornell University biologist William Provine declared in a public debate that if you're a consistent Darwinian, you realize there's no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for our existence, no free will. Life would be empty

a response to Barbara:
::the perception that there is an irreconcilable conflict between evolution and religious faith appears to be a phenomenon fairly unique to a particular brand of American fundamentalists.

Provine is not an "American fundementalist." Barbara may be, but that's not the point. She is presenting a view that many Darwinists hold, and placing her hope along side it.

Another response:
::Everyone here discusses issues relevant to Christianity, from both sides of the debate. A debate has to have two sides, otherwise it is not a debate. Not everyone will agree with what you will say. Even the Catholic Church does not agree with what you say. If you didn't want to get into a discussion on evolution, then why start talking about it in a discussion forum?

Now, Barbara previously said "It was my intention to post a statement of Christian faith, not to get embroiled in a discussion regarding evolution." To which this response above, by Linda, was made. But obviously Barbara is just stating her intent, which was to show a viewpoint which does exist -- reference Provine -- and give her hopeful alternative along side it. That was her purpose, she did not say she wouldn't talk about it, she is just stating her intent.

Another response:
::Aaauauuugh!! Auuuaugh!!!
Some people operate from the position that, if one does not share their particular viewpoint from literal Scripture, one cannot achieve any sort of happiness or meaning, and one cannot possibly have a sense of ethics

It's implied here that Barbara is a "literalist," one who thinks no one else can find meaning or happiness. There is no recognition that she has in mind -- whether or not he and his ilk are correct -- Provine and the outlook he shares with many others.

Another response:
::All the theory of evolution challenges is the naive view of a small minority of Christians that the world was created in seven days.

Another assumption made toward Barbara, and made completely oblivious to the reference she made; a reference which would have shown the falsity of the statement. For all the theory of evolution, as this gentleman undertsands it, would change is not ONLY the view of a small minority of Christians, but also that of such rabid atheists as Provine.

This lack of recognition that people like Barbara are responding in large part to people like Provine; and the presumption that it's just some American fundementalists who are unable to read their theology into a theory which is solely scientifc -- that there's not more to it (including Darwin himself) -- leads to oversimplification, and does a real disservice to the truth of the matter.

Thanks,

Jesse

[Barbara]

[robsia]