Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution a Radical Idea?
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 42 of 195 (350472)
09-19-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 9:53 AM


Heavens to Betsy! That's a lot of posts in a short time.
Because it is indirectly addressed to me I'm going to quickly respond to your OP, kind sir, and then try and shuffle on through the rest of the discussion. We'll see if I have anything to contribute.
As the quote in your first post indicates, my gut feeling is that attitudes to heliocentrism and attitutes towards evolution are comparable and furthermore, that a comparison is instructive.
Fundamentally, both have been seen as challenges to recieved ideas of God's motives and his perceived modus operandi.
With regards to the church's distaste for heliocentrism, it had been widely assumed until Copernicus that humanity's home, having been created by a god with big squishy feelings for us, was likely to be afforded the top spot in the celestial order. A contradiction of that assumption seemed initially like a threat to the foundations of the Christian faith, but instead just required a reinterpretation of the relevant sections of scripture and the church was good to go.
I can't see how the evidence for evolution is any less persuasive than the evidence for heliocentricity.
I think that there will at first be a period of resistance mirrored with the debate about the relation of the earth and the sun. Subsequently though, the beliefs accrued around the core of the Christian faith that make evolution seem unpalatable will be sloughed and replaced with new, compatible beliefs derived from revised interpretations of religious text. That's my hope anyway.
I don't see why God's contribution would be belittled in any way if it was just to make organic chemistry work in the first place. In truth, I don't see any "just" about it.
Its an embarrassing failure of empathy, but I remain unable to comprehend how literalists can find the stolid imaginings of nomadic barbarians to be more profound and inspiring than the incremental development of rational, methodical scientific enquiry by the best minds of the subsequent two-and-a-half thousand years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 9:53 AM robinrohan has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 137 of 195 (351406)
09-22-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 4:44 PM


I think many people would agree with you that the idea of evolution is making a more fundamental claim than the idea of heliocentrism, and as such poses more of a threat to the beliefs of a theist.
I, however, am suggesting that neither the claims of heliocentrism nor the claims of evolution are necessarily problematic for a theist. If a theist believes that a god is capable of installing processes that will appear to unfold naturally and logically over time, such as the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry and biological laws, then I see no problem.
Neither should such a deity be considered deistic and remote: an omnipotent and therefore omniscient deity is aware of his unfolding creation in the most intimate and profound of ways.
Edited by Tusko, : such as the laws of physicals, apparently!
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 4:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 142 of 195 (351423)
09-22-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
09-22-2006 5:17 PM


Re: evolution and Christianity
Hi Faith -
I agree with you when you say (or I think you say) mental gymnastics are required if you are to judge for yourself which parts of a holy text are literally true and which are figurative.
However, I also believe that mental gymnastics of a particularly noteworthy suppleness are required if one believes a holy text to be unquestionably true. One is then forced to attempt to reconsile apparent contradictions - within the text and with modern scientific enquiry. I suspect it presents no difficulty at all to a mind adept at cerebral exercise however.
I also don't have the necessary mental stamina to find one holy text among the many and then believe that one at the expense of all others.
(By the way I don't mean to sound snide if I sound snide - its just how it comes out!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 5:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 5:37 PM Tusko has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024