Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'
If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.
The first chapter of a well-written non-fiction book will often be about background information that leads up to the topic you want to discuss.
As a parallel exercise, go find any book you want about the Atonement, and read chapter one. In fact, read chapter one of every book you can find about the Atonement, and report to me the topics discussed.
I am fairly certain that virtually every first chapter will be about either the Fall or the Creation of Man.
But, why is this so? These books are not about the Fall or the Creation: they are about the Atonement.
Why can’t they just start by saying that man is sinful?
Why must they go into the
reasons why man is sinful? These reasons are not the topic of their book, so surely they’re only confusing their readers by talking about the Garden of Eden when what they really want to talk about is the Atonement.
Do you ever hear of any evolutionist or non-Christian who cannot tell that the Fall and the Atonement are two different (even if related) subjects?
Why then do you think you have a leg to stand on when you say it’s our fault that creationists can’t tell that abiogenesis and evolution are two different (even if related) subjects?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.