Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

I agree that Rrhain's was the most comprehensive address of your points. I would add one more thing to his criticism and you can address it within your response to him.As far as prophecies go, and especially your specific example of Israel, in addition to the problem of vagueness and generalizing (to keep a failed prophecy alive which is what Rrhain pointed out) there is also the problem of the self-fulfilling prophecy.Israel is being built by people that specifically want to see it rebuilt because of their faith in that prophecy. If a gypsy fortune teller tells me I am going to get an ice cream sundae next week, do I chalk one up to her being visionary when I then go out and buy an ice cream sundae?If one wants to believe in prophecies then that is fine, but a person making something happen is not miraculous and hardly proving a prophecy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You do realize that other portions of science, like modern astronomy, also directly or indirectly reject literal Biblical descriptions?The same issue we are facing now with evolution, has occured in the past with other scripture. Heliocentric theory is an example of this, and was equally felt by religious people that its acceptance would be an end to belief and spitting in the eye of God. Ultimately evidence won out, and now it is taken by most people that the contrary scriptural statements are parable or poetics.Unless you are contending that heliocentric theory is wrong and antiChristian, I am unsure how you choose evolution as any less correct than heliocentric theory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You need to freshen up on your history. While you are correct that it was the RCC doing the fighting, and they certainly did have issues of clinging to specific Greek authors, this is still much the same as the fight going on today.1) The idea that the earth was the center was not just Aristotelian (actually it is referred to as Ptolemeic), it is within the Bible if you take it literally. At the time they were pointing to scripture, which you can still find today, which suggest that the earth does not move, and that the rest of the things in the sky are the ones in motion around us. Here is a link to an article on the subject of modern geocentrism and how it is tied to creatonism or biblical literalism. You will see that I am not just making this up... Xians are.I am unsure how you posit this as a "political" fight, when Galileo was friends with the pope and even wrote a book for the church on the subject. He was blasted for not adhering to and supporting scripture, not Aristotle. There are some scholars who suggest it was his defiance of papal orders that did him in, but reports from the inquisition only discuss heresy.Once the totality of evidence made terracentric theories untenable, the church and those finally having to face reality demoted the scripture from literal fact to fanciful description not necessary for belief in God.Here is a quote from Robert Bellarmine (a church official at galileo's time) on the possibility of heliocentrism and what it would mean for biblical literalism... 2) Today a group of people are making the same type of argument... that literal interpretation must be upheld... and appeal to certain ancient Greek philosophers should be viewed as authorities on the way science be conducted.Thus the comparison of events is almost 1:1. There were other schisms between science and the Bible as well, but again they were written off the same way. We are repeating history here. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, other than atheists can use it without fear of contradicting their own metaphysical beliefs. Theists may as us it without fear as well unless they have metaphysical or historical beliefs which are contradictory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is not a good way to discuss a subject. You have already said it was a political fight and not based on scripture. I have given you a link showing that it was, it can be, and it still is a debate about scripture.I even provided you with a quote from a leader within the church at the time discussing the ramifications of heliocentrism on biblical reading.Your simply repeating your premise in the face of contrary evidence is really bad form. Please deal with the evidence provided. This is remarkable, either in its disingenuity or in its display of ignorance regarding the text of the Bible. Yes, let us look at Job 9:6... That clearly suggests the nature of earth is to be immobile. It has a place from which it can be shaken, and which causes the pillars to tremble.If taken literally, that would make astronomic descriptions of earth to be contrary to scripture. Not "according to me". I gave you a quote from a Xian involved with the issue at the time and provided a link which discusses modern geocentrism and the claims made by those Xians today. I am taking them at their word.Unless you are going to start rambling on about them not being Xians or something, by the fact that they disagree with your convenient interpretation, you need to deal with the reality that literal readings of scripture certainly do support a geocentrist view, regardless of Aristotle. Evolutionary belief held by a Xian would not be contradictory. It would only be contradictory to those Xian who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. That kind of literalness is not necessary for becoming a Xian, just as you and most other Xians have reject literal interpretation regarding geocentric wording in the Bible.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well you can say what you mean, but you were as wrong about this as you have been about everything else. As has already been pointed out: simile, metaphor, and "literal" does not mean "read from literature". What would "figurative" mean? Read from figures? There is absolutely no question that that is a position that one can take. However you have utterly missed the point. Clearly there are Xians that have and still do believe that those passages must be taken literally (not your definition of "literal"). Thus one can find such passages that when taken literally would defy scientific theories.You have not proven that they cannot mean that when taken literally, just that they do not have to be taken literally... they are "instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author."Now let's see if you can answer my question. If this can be true of those select passages, why can this not be true of other select passages? That is what I was getting at. Was that quote from my citation, or one of your own?I am not necessarily in total disagreement with it, but that still means nothing to our ongoing discussion. TODAY, the ID MOVEMENT and CREATIONISTS appeal to a Platonic view of science and believe that if it is not accepted, then Xianity will fail. That is within ID literature and the Kansas school board just said they have an intention of changing the definition of science to move it back to that.There is still a mistake going on in not differentiating inductive science from deductive science... believing one is necessary for a religion to exist and so it must be maintained.Like the Galileo/Church fights over geocentrism, religious people need to realize that rejecting an ancient greek method of science is not necessary, and neither is a specific interpretation of scripture, specifically when evidence is accumulating that a literal interpretation and a similar scientific theory are wrong. You can't just keep reasserting your position. That is not an argument and cannot make you more right.It has already been shown to you that evolution does not contradict theism "in general". Many theists can use it. The only ones who cannot, are the ones that must have speciation occur through different means.It has also already been pointed out that you are not the arbiter of what is "correct" literal interpretation (like how you've changed back on the definition again). There are many different versions of what is correct. Yes evolution would conflict with your interpretation, that is all. No offense, but evolution does not deny the personal, caring, loving an purposeful God found in scripture... the Bible denies the personal, loving, caring, and purposeful God I keep hearing about from people like you.He is an angry and jealous God. He said so himself. His direct command is obey and worship or suffer and die. He has slaughtered children and animals en masse to make a point to a few men and women. The Bible is not a nice book. Well there are debates about that, because it also hinges on interpretation. God was angry that they defied him and ate from the tree of knowledge and then feared if they ate from the tree of life. It is stated quite clearly that only if they had eaten from the tree of life would they have lived forever.Here is the quote from Genesis: Thus death was around them anyway and eternal life was not necessarily in the cards for them. While God said that if they ate from the tree of knowledge on that day they shall surely die, it can also mean that their world would end, you know... a metaphor?That would be in keeping with his other statement about their actual longevity.Thus sin and the fall and even Christ's redemption may be about suffering and not about life and death itself.I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation or the only one (indeed I believe in a bit more lengthy version which is nontheistic) but it certainly rules out yours as the only version and thus that evolution removes Xianity from existence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, that's what I said. Now why is Genesis not poetics regarding the early days of the universe and man, written from the perspective of the author, though influenced by God to have a moral meaning?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I still have the same question. As someone has already pointed out, the copy you are reading is an interpretation of an interpretation, which itself cames from who knows how many generations of oral interpretation before it entered written form (the original of which we do not have).So yes, I still have the same question.Your list actually adds some more questions, but I have the feeling I'm not going to be getting any real answers from you, am I?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That is your interpretation. I still honestly have the same question, you are still dishonestly avoiding answering it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)