Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

In the thread on 'Expelled-no intelligence allowed' Theodoric's last post got me thinking about starting this thread.
The problem he brings up is what to do about fundamentalists that proclaim biblical inerrancy and are 'locked in' to a mental state that allows no change or growth to occur. Sort of the modern day counterpart of the shout, "great is the goddess Diana of the Ephesians".I would suggest this thread to address the issue of the best approaches to deal with this particular problem.This is not a thread to argue about biblical inerrancy. It is not to discuss atheism vs theism. It is only to discuss how best to promote dissemination of ToE evidence to those who are currently ignorant of those facts. It is to discuss the best manner/way to bring everybody up to speed with those facts. I am assuming then for the purposes of this thread that the argument of whether the ToE is true or not is past, that it is indeed a fact.I would like to hear from theists who accept ToE and whether accepting ToE presented a challenge to their faith and how they overcame/resolved this conflict in their minds, or whether it presented no conflict from the get go. What was it that facilitated this change in viewpoint allowing you to accept the ToE?From the atheist camp I'd like to hear whether they think challenging the fundamentalists' faith along with pressing the ToE is the better approach, maintaining the dichotomy as an opportunity to rid the world of 'superstition', or whether they think the ToE accepted by a majority of religious people is an acceptable goal and worthy of pursuit in its own right.The thread about the bible supporting a flat earth world view revealed to me that this has a partial success. There were two who posted that seemed to accept a fallible position as long as that was due to the fallibility of men rather than of God.Another idea is creating a movie debunking "Expelled - no intelligence allowed" that includes the strongest current evidence for the ToE and abiogenisis(an area of 'expelled' that was woefully out of date).What other ideas do you have to provide for this mini-think tank thread? Someone thought of the idea for this forum at some point in time, and now it is a reality. It does such a good job that YECs I have encountered elsewhere are afraid to post here and one even referred to it as "the lion's den".

Hi Huntard,
Thanks for the post of the movie links. I will view them as soon as some downloads finish. The method you describe is likely the best. It is the basis for business models for companies like Amway and ACN. It is easier to accept information that you might disbelieve/distrust from someone you know and trust than from a stranger on a forum. As for giving up, read my reply to Taz that follows.

Hi Taz, I was engaged with a 'last Thursdayist' (on another forum) and was thinking along the same lines as Huntards' reply that it was pointless, but kept going anyhow. I focused on remaining as respectful as possible to other viewpoint and just kept discussing the issue as I would have, had the discussion been with my own child. When I posted a link to a youtube video the reply was the sidestep "Youtube videos? Seriously". I replied "Sorry ____, I made the mistake of assuming your inquiry was genuine. No problem then. I'll bow out of the debate. Enjoy the victory." After a few days she posted again with some further questions.I kept bringing up different problems with the POV w/o thrusting everything I could upon her all at once. I left off the thread and came back on occasion. Finally I noticed a change in this persons' posts. Her posts started indicating a possibility that her view was lacking/incorrect. She began to acknowledge she could be wrong. But it could not have occurred in an atmosphere of slinging insults and ridicule or of being condescending.The thing that is important to remember is we were there once ourselves, to one degree or another, and being in possession of a superior bit of knowledge does not make us superior to another who lacks that knowledge.This observed change in this YEC, actually a YUC, was worth the effort IMO. But of all the YECs I've encountered I would have judged her the least likely to have modified her viewpoint.

Hi ICANT,
This is OT but I will respond. If you want to pursue this debate please feel free to start a thread if you don't like any of the existing threads on these two topics. The theory of abiogenisis is being worked out and although not complete yet, a reasonable pathway is being thought out that eliminates the problems involved with the chance assemblage of the first cell. Keeping in mind the great length of time that this cellular level of evolution lasted before the cambrian explosion we might surmise that the development of the proper type of cellular life for higher organisms to evolve was not trivial. Why if God created life mechanistically would He leave this trivial part of creation alone for such a long period of time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorIYou live in an age our forbears could only have dreamed of. You have at your access knowledge of the very methods of creation, but like the children of Israel prefer to murmer and complain..

Looking back at my OP I see I really didn't leave a venue for participation by ICANT and those who reject the ToE. And yet it is those who reject that theory that this thread is about. How to rid ourselves of the problem of the need to deny reality. So here is a way for ICANT to contribute.What if you received this "sufficient proof" that the ToE were true beyond any doubt. How does this affect your theology? Do you arrive at a situation where you have to abandon your faith utterly and convert to atheism, or do you modify your theology to allow for the facts of science? Again please do not argue the evidence for the ToE, this is an 'imagination' inquiry for you.As an aside, do you preach that the ToE is false from your pulpit? Do you lay this irreconcilable burden upon your congregation so that you will not be alone? Or do you let the matter rest with them to decide upon individually? Thanks.(edited to correct spelling)Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Thanks Stagamancer,A few thoughts about those adults. Not all are set in their ways with regards to the ToE. Some simply have not given it any thought. I for instance hated biology in high school and managed to steer clear of it afterwards. It had more to do with my aversion to the complexities of the subject matter. On the other hand I loved physics. I am fascinated by animal learning and would love to work in that area. But back to those adults who don't know the details about the ToE but whose world view is not threatened by it. They will accept the evidence currently available when presented with it IMO.Maybe an idea would be to put together some targeted collection of current evidence in a presentation that could be given at the school level - a special parent teacher conference. The idea would be to get the community behind teaching the ToE. If we can eliminate the scenario where the children get taught one thing at school but hear scepticism at home that would help quite a bit.

Hi Kelly,I think the evidence for macro evolution is there as well. ERV patterns are pretty conclusive in that regard especially when considered along with Chromosome 2 fused in humans from two identical chromosomes in our cousins.
The problem with accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is you are left with a model of God mechanistically creating or transplanting life forms over vast amounts of time. For the vast majority of that time nothing much is accomplished by God other than filling the earth with single celled life forms. Then the Cambrian explosion occurs and with what follows taking a much smaller percentage of the whole time available. Also most of this life perishes from extinction. So the idea of micro-evolution without macro-evolution does not make much sense when viewing the data. If you disagree with an old earth, please see RAZD's thread, a collection of independent physical data that correlate with one another about the great age of the earth. If you need help locating it let me know.The flat earth thread is where to raise your objections to a flat earth. I referred to it to state what I had learned from the observed participation of other posters some of whom are able to cope with a fallible bible and keep their theology intact while others find it impossible to do so. That was the reason for the remark in the OP. I do not wish to debate that issue in this thread.If you do not accept the ToE completely, then this thread for you is about how accepting the entire theory, macro as well as micro, would affect your current theology. Would you modify it or feel that atheism was the only viable alternative left?

Hi Percy, Thanks for your clarifications on the rebuttal film.For those who have an interest here's the NCSE page on 25 ways to support science education.
Page not found | National Center for Science EducationThreads that help out quite a bit are focused presentations of data with explanations for the layman like RAZD's collection of independent physical data that correlate with one another about the age of the earth.The creationist attack and way of thinking is a scattered approach at present. Trying to find fault with this fact or that and provide a seemingly valid alternate interpretation. Those rebuttals are easily dismantled by scientists but the layman is often left in the dark unable to understand how the creationist argument is flawed. Perceiving science as atheistic they continue to march behind creationism. Most people, I hope, 'get it' that science has to leave 'God' out of the equation simply because there is no way to collect evidence one way or the other for 'God' or any involement by the same on any level. This does nor mean science is anti-religion, it merely means it cannot address the issue.The problem that remains for creationism is that 'allowing for the sake of argument' that their individual reinterpretation of individual facts were 'correct' they still don't make any sense when taken together as a whole. There is no cohesive creationist model that addresses all the known facts in any intelligible manner. It is all a mixture of ad-hoc nonsense plied together to support a particular view or literal approach to the scriptures. They are guilty of what they accuse the scientific community of - interpreting facts to support a pre-existing model.

Hi Kelly,
Before you decide whether to swallow the red pill or the blue pill take a couple of aspirin..I did not change the topic CS, I enlarged it so those who reject the ToE could add comments and participate.For those who do not accept the ToE try to keep the discussion focused on how it would affect your faith if true and how you view the issue of teaching the ToE in school etc. Tell us what you think should be done with all the knowledge that has been gathered by scientists for so long a time.Since we are in possession of facts that dissagree with a particular interpretation of a particular religion are we not to present those facts to students in the school system? Do we do the same thing for all religions? Teach nothing that steps on the toes of anyones' private beliefs?

Hi Kelly,
Believe it or not I have read a few creation books. The arguments have all been addressed and refuted over and over again. People on this forum and elsewhere patiently continue to help the late arrivals understand how and why the creationist interpretations are incorrect. And new evidence arrives all the time and guess what? It strengthens the ToE and not the creationist viewpoint.I would challenge you to also read a book. The one referenced by Lithodid-Man in post # 50.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It is free. The chapters are shorter than they at first appear because there are lots of pages of end notes. Granted it is not much fun reading a book online. Maybe you can print it out. I would be very interested in your reaction to it. I would be willing to wager that chapter three will resonate with you and in chapter four you will be forced to close the book and read no further.The problem with the fundamentalist approach to truth is the order of acceptance of evidence and resulting facts based upon that evidence. Fundamentalists start with the 'truth' and gather evidence in support of that 'truth' and ignore evidence that conflicts with that 'truth' and label it as erroneous usually in some ad hoc fashion. Where as others start with the evidence and see where it leads them.I think that is why catholic scientist posted that your theology is horrible. By declaring the bible to be inerrant by fiat you are really demonstrating that you have no foundation for your faith..

seeing if I can do my homework and provide ideas for further discussion..Nature - Not FoundOne of the basic fears of religious fundamentalists who challenge the teaching of evolution, be they 'young-earth' creationists, 'old-earth' creationists or the slightly more sophisticated crowd of 'intelligent design' supporters (Scott, 1997), springs from the idea that the teaching of evolution sets us on a slippery slope that inevitably ends with atheism. Leaving aside the fact that many scientists can be both religious and believe in evolution, and the obvious point that atheism is a legitimate philosophical position thatin a pluralistic societyought to receive the same degree of respect as any other metaphysical school of thought, 'slippery slope' arguments are logically fallacious (Epstein, 1999). The fallacy lies in the fact that most peopleincluding, alas, prominent science popularizers such as Richard Dawkinsdo not make the subtle but crucial distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism.Naturalism, broadly speaking, is the idea that there is only nature and that the supernatural realm and phenomena do not exist. As a philosophical position, it has a long history of elaboration and debate. Philosophical naturalism, then, is the strong metaphysical position that there is, as a matter of fact, no such thing as the supernatural nor a higher being, which obviously characterizes any individual who considers themselves an atheist. Methodological naturalism, however, is a metaphysically more modest claim. It takes the position that while there may be a supernatural realm or being, it does not enter and need not be invoked in any discussions of scientific findings (Forrest, 2000). For the methodological naturalist, scientific explanations of the world around us are naturalistic by definition, or else science would not have produced a set of reliable theories and empirical methods to work with and build on. This is why the most embarrassing question one can ask a proponent of intelligent design is: if I gave you a million dollars to set up a scientific research programme, what experiments would you pursue with the grant? There is no possible answer.The crucial point here is that scientists are by definition methodological naturalists; however, they do not have any specific commitment to philosophical naturalism aside from their own metaphysical views. In other words, science does not necessarily demand atheism, as feared by the fundamentalists. How can we explain this to the general public? One way is to point out that most people are methodological naturalists when it comes to everyday life. Suppose your car does not start today: how do you react to such an annoying occurrence? Most probably you will not invoke a supernatural explanation, nor will you attempt to have the car exorcised by a priest. Instead, regardless of your religious convictions, you will take it to a mechanic, assumingmethodologicallythat there must be something physically wrong with the vehicle. Moreover, even if the mechanic is not able to find the problem and fix your car, you will persist in the reasonable belief that there must be something physically out of place, with no supernatural implications or intervention required. You will shrug your shoulders, grudgingly pay the bill, and go in search of a new car or another mechanic. That is exactly what scientists do, and are required to do by their professionno more, no less.Scientists and science educators, when faced with irrational attacks against science, usually respond by clamouring for more and better science education. However, there is evidence that increasing science literacy not only will be insufficient, but also may have little or no effect if it is not accompanied by similar efforts to teach critical thinking and the philosophy of science (Walker et al, 2002; Johnson & Pigliucci, 2004). The problem is that too much pre-college and even introductory-level college science education focuses on factual knowledge at the expense of broad conceptual issues, especially in the biological sciences. Obviously, we want our students and the population at large to be clear on some fundamental scientific facts; but, more importantly, we desperately need people who understand the scope, power and especially the limits of the scientific enterprise. Such understanding is crucial for the functioning of modern democracies, in which science has an ever-increasing role in everyday life.The fact is, the teaching of critical thinking and the understanding of the nature of science are more properlyor at least equallyseen as the domains of philosophy, and require philosophers as well as scientists to be engaged in the response to fundamentalism. Moreover, as I have tried to argue above, both anti-intellectualism and anti-science fundamentalism are rooted in issues of ethics and religion, again the proper domain of philosophy, and areas in which scientists usually find themselves unprepared and uneasy. We need not turn scientists into philosophers, nor can we pretend that the general public can become knowledgeable of the depth of scientific and philosophical inquiry. What we can and need to dourgentlyis to promote a wide, interdisciplinary effort to educate scientists, science educators and the public at large about the science—society—religion triangle and the borders between each faction. Modern societies evolved when science and reason freed humanity from superstitions and religious dogmas and our developed societies have become increasingly dependent on scientific and technological progress to solve its manifold social and environmental problems. Attacks by fundamentalist ideologues therefore threaten nothing but the future of modern civilization.

here's excerpts from a religious viewpoint recognizing the dangers of fundamentalism and what some churches are doing about it..Page not found – Religion OnlineThe liberal voices in the churches have long been reluctant to say anything too critical about fundamentalists, on the grounds that they have every right to live by the beliefs they feel most comfortable with. In view of the obvious devotion and commitment displayed by fundamentalists, liberals have often leaned over backwards to accommodate their viewpoint. That tolerance continued even after fundamentalists became more assertive from the 1960s onward.Although tolerance is always commendable, it unfortunately slows down the educative process. A great gap has opened up between biblical and theological scholarship on the one hand, and what went on at the parish level on the other. The ordained ministry, on the whole, failed the churches by not passing on to their congregations what they themselves were learning at their seminaries. Because they did not wish to upset their more conservative parishioners, they often left the churches in ignorance of the radical changes taking place. The time has come, and is indeed overdue, for the liberal voice to be heard loud and clear in the churches, even if it does lead to some controversy. In fact, the churches have always been at their strongest when they have been engaged in real debate, either internally or externally.There are some signs of more assertive liberalism today. Twenty years ago a leading New Testament scholar in the United States, Robert Funk, took the bold step of moving out of the university institutions to establish what he called the Westar Institute. This is a community of scholars who set themselves the task of researching the origins of Christianity, unhampered by the controls they encountered in seminaries and universities. The scholarly Fellows of Westar are supported by the much larger community of Westar members. These are lay people who attend the meetings of the institute and listen to all the debates. One of the aims of the institute is to spread what they call biblical literacy. When invited to do so, it sends representatives to congregations to conduct weekend seminars.More recently some liberal church leaders in Canada have established the Snowstar Institute. It aims to counter the rise of Christian fundamentalism by means of holding conferences and seminars that will bring church congregations up to date with biblical scholarship. American Bishop John Spong has taken on his own Anglican communion almost single-handedly, writing such books as Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. Next year the Westar Institute is planning to hold a mass meeting in New York to publicise its work and challenge the churches. These are a few ways in which liberal voices are making a positive response to the dangers they observe in the rise of Christian fundamentalism.

Hi Sarawak,It is not as bleak a picture as you paint. I know very many who have made the transition from YECism to accept evolution. Most of these did so w/o affecting their faith. Admittedly for some the process is slower, but the cat is completely out of the bag now with the internet.Maybe the solution is to take the creationists to court on fraud charges, not with the intent of winning/punishing, but to get more publicity on TV.

Engineers don't have any biology requirements to fill. At least I didn't.You are east and south. That explains a lot. I was raised in California.As far as the fraud charges, I was thinking along the lines of organizations like the ICR or the Discovery Institute. There may be some possible way for an individual to sue them on fraud charges depending on the circumstances. It could be someone who has given them money via donation. It could be someone whose life was damaged in some significant manner by accepting their dawdle as fact. An enterprising lawyer could probably find something.As far as change being a long way off we'll have to wait and see I guess. I think that human chromosome 2 and ERV pattern evidence is substantial enough that most of the younger generation at least will be on board with evolution. This has rather recently been made available and the internet as a means of dissemination via youtube is a fairly effective vehicle.

ERV pattern evidence and human chromosome 2 evidence did not exist when most parents went to school. Most parents will not want their children to be handicapped with false teachings anymore than they will want them to be taught that Galileo was wrong and the earth really is the center of the solar system and universe.