Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?

How ironic is it that - in regard to the EVC debate (especially on this site) - religion is decried as the absolute worst form of evidence especially when faced with the objectivity of Science, and yet to claim the opposite when it is suitable to the argument...Consider the above claim: What does it matter what some uneducated clergy are willing to concede in the face of intense public pressure from academia, the media, and the public at large - especially in the face of declining church attendance. How does their opinion of science matter anymore than the supposed 60 percent of laypeople in this country who don't believe in strict darwinian evolution? Furthermore, 10000 clergy men out of approximately 400 thousand churches in the country means that these signees constitue an extreme minority (2.5%!) of nationwide clergy. If the opinions of 640 scientists are so vastly discounted by the counter-voice of their majority opposition, why isn't the same true with the clergy?Instead of ridiculing the growing number of skeptical scientists (PhDs, I might add) who are brave enough to voice their doubt of the current theories, we might be more willing hold off on our ridicule long enough to consider if there might be someting there...

It's amazing how the context of what one writes is so easily ignored...Obviously I'm talking about the their lack of SCIENCE credentials (i'm sure they are quite inundated with Doctor's of Theology and Master's of Divinity)So the matter still remains that we have 10,000 clergy with Master's of Divinity and Doctor's of Theology who know nothing about science (officially of course, not knowing what their personal interests may be) being heralded as the clincher for Evolution vs CreationAND we have 10,000 clergy with those Masters and Doctorates Versus another 350,000 + who haven't signed the document - the vast majority of which also possess those lovely Masters and Doctorates...So again I ask, what does it matter what an extremely minor fraction of uneducated (scientifically, of course) clergy believe?

OK - So we have 640 scientists who doubt evolution; but they are ignored because tens of thousands of scientists feel otherwise;We have 10,000 clergy who have a specific theology about Life Origins; but they are heralded as authoritative despite the counter-position held by 350,000 thousand clergy..See the hypocrisy?

You can't try one more time when you keep changing your approach;Are you using the the clergy list to support a scientific view? (ToE)Are you using the clergy list to support a theological view? (that evolution is compatible with Christianity?)IF the first, then I have pointed out that: The clergy are unqualified as a whole to make any contribution to science.IF the second, then I have shown that: The 10,000 clergy on your list are representative of a very minority position within Christianity. What is means theologically? Now science is going to instruct religion? The ToE is going to tell these 'ignorant' clergy what the ToE means THEOLOGICALLY? How presumptuous...

Again the presumptuousness is amazing...the minority clergy that signed the list are educated? while the rest of the clergy who didn't sign the list are ignorant? So by definition, clergy who accept ToE are "educated" while those who don't are 'ignorant'??!!And again, you're mixing your terms...making it sound like proper theology is only held by the "educated" clergy; who are the educated clergy? those that accept ToE of course!!I forgot you were elected high priest/spokesman of Christian theology

oh no i didn't; show me where I characterized clergy that support ID or Biblical Creationism as ignorant...

Well, as an 'ignorant' Christian I consider myself to be as educated both theologically and scientifically as most people...and there is no logical discrepancy between my belief in God and my skepticism of ToE, or my belief in a world-wide flood...On the other hand, you may wish to consider how well your viewpoint harmonizes with God's when we have his own Word that speaks against ToE...

You talk about the direct evidence God has left us (science), yet you ignore the direct communication he has left us (his word)..You say you trust the bible to be an accurate guide to theology yet you doubt its accuracy...It's like people saying that Jesus was a good man but not God...that's impossible; he's either God - as he said he was, or he was a liar, and a pretender, claiming to be the deity of the universe when he was not...Similarly, when it comes to God's testimony about himself and his deeds, you can either believe him at his word - or not; But don't claim to accept his word and then not believe anything he says...