This goes along with what I see from posters on forums such as these. As a believer, yes I am dumb-founded just like he says, and up to now I’ve only had atheists attempt to explain this rationale to me. Their attempts have come up short, largely because atheists show little knowledge of Christianity. In reading Miller’s book, I find that he also shows little knowledge of Christianity.
Interestingly Richard Dawkins is also accused of having little knowledge of Christianity when he argues against belief in God - and his arguments are more developed than the simple argument that evolution disproves Christianity. I suspect that it is your knowledge of Christianity that is limited, mistakenly thinking that the doctrines of your sect define Christian belief.
Since however, you offer no explanation of your objections it is impossible to know exactly where the problem is.
If anyone considers that a quote mine, I’ll be glad to add some surrounding statements to show that it’s not — it’s central to the lesser statements around it. He appears to be saying that evolutionists know more about the nature of the Christian God than do Bible scholars.
No, he doesn't. The point appears to be quite simple. To give God full credit for the creation you must acknowledge the full glory and majesty of that creation. By lessening the creation you implicitly lessen the creator. There's no need for any great understanding of Christianity.
The point is that even though Dawkins arguments are MORE sophisticated than simply arguing that Christianity is incompatible with evolution his arguments are still rejected on the supposed grounds that his understanding of Christianity is too poor, his concept of God too anthropomorphic. This contradicts your rejection of Miller's views.
You’re probably not alone, the belief that different Christian denominations hate each other has been erroneously put forth by the scientific community for decades now.
I didn't say anything about Christian denominations hating each other, I simply said that your knowledge of Christianity was too narrow. (Although there is a good deal of hatred for Catholicism among extreme Protestants),.
he fact is, ALL Christian denominations basic doctrines are exactly the same — that Christ was the true son of God, that he was one man who lived and died for the sinful nature of humans that originated from one man, the first fully formed man, Adam
I think that you will find that belief in a literal Adam is not something shared by all Christians. Certainly the view that Adam was physically created is unnecessary (the official Catholic view is happy with idea that the physical form of human beings is the product of evolution, for instance).
As I recently pointed out in another thread, the Billy Graham crusades, as well as the Answers In Genesis creation museum in Kentucky are only two examples of many, of Christian organizations that transcend all Christian denominations.
The AiG "Creatiion Museum" is there to support Young Earth Creationism. Do you REALLY believe that all Christian denominations support YEC doctrine ?
I hope these last three posts of mine have clarified my position some more. I’ve never had a detailed discussion with a genuine theistic evolutionist like Miller — I hope one will come along on this thread. We’ll wait and see.
You still haven't explicitly said where - in your view - the conflict between evolution and Christianity is. The only point you explicitly mention is belief in the existence of an Adam (but the Catholic idea that God supplied a soul to Adam rather than physically creating him goes a good way to getting around that). However, you also hint that you believe that Christians must accept YEC doctrine, which goes a good deal further.
Glory and majesty, of what Dawkins calls "blind, pitiless indifference". How can two people see such differences in the same science, and show little or no desire to discuss it with each other? I'm not necessarily talking about Miller vs Dawkins, I'm talking about theistic evolutionists in general vs atheists in general.
Dawkins believes in BOTH the "glory and majesty" and the "blind pitiless indifference" of nature. There's no contradiction between the two. And don't forget that Dawkins has no interest in finding ways to reconcile evolution and Christian belief at all. Why should he want to help Miller in that endeavour ?
Is that officially noted somewhere on the internet? I’d like to see it. Also, I can’t find a single official Catholic review of this book anywhere. There are several reviews on the back cover of my paperback from scientific sources, but none from Catholic sources. I can’t find any Amazon reviews of it from a Catholic source. I’m not saying that none exist, but if no one on this thread can point me to one, then it’s safe to say they don’t exist. Why are they hard to find/non existent?
The singling out of the human soul, rather than the body doesn't come from a review of Miller's book. It comes from the 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II. And in fact, such a view was considered much earlier. John Paul II quotes Pius XII:
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God
The word young isn’t necessary. It’s not called the Young Earth Creationist Museum. The one single dimension of time that humans are limited to isn’t accepted as a measure of all of reality by Christians the same way it is by atheists.
That is just silly. AiG is a Young Earth Creationist organisation. The museum presents a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. The presence of the word "Young" IS necessary to accurately characterise the museum.
I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word young. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that.
No, you haven't. And since there is a real and valid distinction between Young Earth and Old Earth Creationist views - and those are the generally accepted terms - I don't think you need offer any more explanation because your assertion is obviously wrong.
Anyway I will ask again. Do you really claim that the YEC doctrine of AiG with it's dinosaurs living alongside humans and the like is endorsed by all denominations ?
I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word young. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that. Concerning Adam’s soul vs a literal person, That’s a big leap, one that reduces Genesis (and all of Christianity) to an allegory.
I think that you are confusing two different points. First I suggested that it was possible for a Christian to reject the idea of a literal Adam, then I pointed out that Catholics allowed for humans to have physically evolved, but insisted on the human soul being God's creation. Two distinct ideas.
Even more, "reducing" the Garden of Eden story to an allegory is hardly reducing all of Christianity to an allegory. I think it's fair to say that the story as it stands is an obvious myth - so shouldn't Christians prefer an allegorical view of it ? Because if it isn't literally true it's significance can't come from the literal meaning, can it ?
Dawkins is one of the few prominent atheists who doesn’t care
So you agree that you were wrong to suggest that he should help Miller ?
Most atheists want to help Miller. It’s always about the money.
There doesn't seem to be much money in supporting Miller. And I've not seen anyone suggest that they want to help Miller work out his theology. Your quote from Provine only suggests that scientists are keeping quiet about the fact (as Provine sees it) that science provides very strong evidential support for atheism. Unless you agree with Provine on this point - and I don't think that you do - then it doesn't help you at all.
Anyway, perhaps you can tell me what your objection to theistic evolution actually is. It seems very odd that you haven't done so yet - shouldn't that be the main thing you talk about on this thread ?