What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

I don't think this is a false belief. It seems inevitable to me that evolution logically includes atheism.ABE: so if you want evolution to be accepted generally, you better not mention this. Just call it a explanation of "population change"--make it sound innocuous.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-25-2006 11:36 AM

Yes, but I prefer the term "nihilist."

Speak for yourself.From a political point of view--from a strategic point of view--I would think you would want to downplay the implications of evolution.

There's a difference between outright lying and just not mentioning something. You know, like Bill Clinton and Monica.

Thinking through all the implications leads to atheism, materialism, etc. Most people don't like that.

This thread is about convincing most people, not someone like you, to accept evolution.Actually, to be frank, I don't care if people accept evolution or not.They might be better off not accepting it. It might get twisted around and perverted into another version of "social Darwinism." We don't want that.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the answer to the question is yes, most definitely they hurt the cause in a political sense. It shows no political savvy at all. It would be like a Democrat trying to get Republican votes by saying, "All you ignorant redneck Republicans living out in the hills need to vote for me."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-25-2006 01:01 PM

No such scenario need be envisioned. The few shall take care of the many, as they always have. As far as America "losing its lead," why should we be in the lead all the time? Let somebody else lead for awhile. We got plenty of weapons--that's the main thing--and mighty sophisticated weapons they are too. We're good at that.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-26-2006 02:36 PM

These other Christians would need a case, however, and they have no case.

Oh, there's a case for that all right. The only problem is you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's no case for Christianity fitting in with evolution.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 02:12 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 02:13 PM

I don't know about "science," but there is a case for evolution not fitting with Christianity. See the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution."But to get back to the point of this thread, Christians who do not take their beliefs literally might very well accept evolution and promote it effectively. In that case, Christianity becomes a sentiment.If that's your idea of Christianity, then it fits very well with evolution, since Christianity in that case is merely a positive feeling about life rather than a statement about the nature of reality. If that's all it is, I see no reason why anyone should believe it. I suppose one might believe it on a whim.ABE: Not all beliefs about the nature of life are subjective. Mine are not.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 04:28 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 04:32 PM