Stupid Christians Continue Idiotic Evolution Argument?
Q. What's worse than the evolution v. Creation debate?
A. Christians barely literate in their own religion talking about evolution as if they're experts.
Please tell me how fundamentalist Christians can argue that evolution is a 'scam' when they themselves are not evolutionists? Does that not defeat the fundamentalist argument? For example, a fundamentalist will charge, "evolution isn't science, it's a bad theory and I'm sick of it!" That's like an atheist saying, "Christianity isn't faith, it's a bad belief and I'm sick of it!" But apparently that's the best they can come up with.
No Wonder the World Hates [Fundamentalist] Christians
How about this one, "I can prove using science that without a doubt God exists!". What the heck?! One on hand fundamentalists reject 'science' but then on the other hand they play the science game, mixing Bible with science, to prove their own theories? Let the scientists be the scientists and the church be the church.
Here's some advice free of charge: do not engage in dialogue on a subject you have no clue about. 97% of all Christians fall under the category of 'no clue' when it comes to evolution so shut up about it. Learn your own book rather than pushing somebody's agenda for literal six-day creation or what have you.
If that's not enough, it look incredibly bad on the faith when fundamentalist hog the limelight and create challenges to 'atheists' (because apparently evolution = atheism). This is the problem, fundamentalist will declare with absolute certainty that evolution is a scam and God's creation can be proven scientifically. Read this post about a debate coming soon between 2 fundamentalist Christians and 2 atheists.
Kirk Cameron (remember that stellar production Left Behind?) is an ACTOR. He knows NOTHING about evolution and probably even less about his Bible (Ok, I went to far, forgive me.) But apparently those two represent Christianity and anybody else, those Christian who may believe in evolution or don't adhere to six-day literal creation are dead wrong.
How can that be when Christians are saying the opposite thing! Read this article about a geneticist (hooray he actually went to school!) discussing aspects of evolution.
Here's the problem. Both are apparently Christians but both hold two different opinions. The fundamentalist proclaims six-day literal creation or ELSE *waves fist in air* and the other honestly reflects on what is really at hand in what he's good at, genetics.
Quite frankly, this whole fundamentalist run is getting tiresome and old. Sure I will go to bad on certain issues, but man, I'm not going to cut down fellow Christians over secondary issues like this. Do not proclaim six-day literal creation to be the only way. I have no problem if you believe that, but do not proclaim it to be absolute or you are no different from the atheist proclaiming no God--in fact, you're probably more of a pompous nob too deaf to follow your rules.
Popularity: 59%
If you found this page useful, consider linking to it.
Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site (Ctrl+C to copy)
| 
Stumble it!
gary said,
May 23, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Do "fundamentalist " christians have a right to say what their beleifs lead them to beleive? Should a christian be overly concerned with what worldy intellecutuals have to say? Where, in a true christian epistimology, is there room for accomidation to a world view based upon materialsit assumptions? Shall we conceed the evolution debate merely on the basis of the insistince of the fallen and unregenerate world view that God is not real and hence special creation is an ancient fallacy? Must we bow before the dubious claims of a science which is not yet 200 years old - when we know - from the history of science itself, that this evolutionary theory is more likely to be over thrown in the course of time than it is to be supported? ( ie Kuhn's paradigms) The christian intellecutal must not lose sight of the fact that it is within the realm of faith alone that Knowledge grows. Deprived of the fertile soil of biblical truth we must rightfully be suspect of any and all claims of the worl...
ro said,
May 23, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Do "fundamentalist " christians have a right to say what their beleifs lead them to beleive?
Of course.
Should a Christians be overly concerned with what worldy intellecutuals have to say?
Of course.
Where, in a true christian epistimology, is there room for accomidation to a world view based upon materialsit assumptions?
What on earth makes you think you're excluded from the very same assumptions?
Shall we conceed the evolution debate merely on the basis of the insistince of the fallen and unregenerate world view that God is not real and hence special creation is an ancient fallacy? Must we bow before the dubious claims of a science which is not yet 200 years old - when we know - from the history of science itself, that this evolutionary theory is more likely to be over thrown in the course of time than it is to be supported? ( ie Kuhn's paradigms)
Sure, I'm game for moving forward, but guess what, Christians need to do the exact same thing. I don't think evolution will be thrown out, developed though I would hope so.
The christian intellecutal must not lose sight of the fact that it is within the realm of faith alone that Knowledge grows.
So then how would you describe knowledge? Rationale? Monderism? Post-modernism? Foundationalism? What paradigm do you fall under. The point being we have to be contextual in order to be relevant. That doesn't mean discard Truth, but it does mean follow the very same rules we call the 'secular' world to follow.
ro said,
May 23, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
I'd like to hear your additional comments that were cut off too
Daniel said,
October 7, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
we thing science is good for people actually, it helps us with our day ,the problem is that the Big bang theory and evolution has no scientific proof or ANYTHING so stop acting like they are facts of "science" plz.
http://freehovind.com/watch-id-5207159640493874061
Matthew said,
February 5, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
You appear to be suggesting that a Christian, who is not a Biologist, cannot say anything about Biology. If such is the case, then logically we should surrender the right to debate with other religions as to whether Jesus Christ is the Son of the one True God, since a Christian is obviously not a Muslim, or a Budhist. Ie: We should abandon all attempts at Evangelism, since we'd be talking about a subject in which we had no personal experience. That is a Genetic Fallacy.
Which Creationist is railing against science itself, and not particular theories or conclusions (many of which assume uniformitarianism)? It is the Evolutionists who usually claim their opponents reject science altogether. It is a condescending and unfounded claim, since it is because of science that people like Anthony Flew came to doubt Darwinian Evolution! Are not Christians also allowed to appeal to the natural world to assert the credibility of their beliefs? Even the Young Earth Creationists think they have scientific reasons to believe what they do. Whether or not a person's reasons turn out to be wrong, it is a straw-man to simply say that they are "anti-science", and the intent is obviously to question the person's intelligence. It's even worse coming from a fellow Christian, who at the same time claims they're "not going to cutdown a fellow Christian" for it.
Naturalism is the philosophy of the Scientific Establishment today. Naturalism is a Worldview, just like Christianity. No one has proven that God doesn't exist, nor has anyone proven God doesn't act in the natural world, it is just assumed He is irrelevant in the Naturalist view. A true follower of Christ cannot be a Naturalist, but they can still pursue science because the Christian believes phenomena can be explained according to the natural order of the Universe put in place by God. A Christian however differs from a Naturalist because they believe that God has intervened in the past. Regardless, Naturalism cannot stake a solitary claim on science.
The problem is, there are many in the scientific establishment now who predicate the validity of a Scientist upon their stand on Naturalism! That is to say, it is okay to have your beliefs (or not), just as long as they don't impact the real world. Otherwise, you may lose your tenure or are overlooked for promotion. Where Naturalism becomes the litmus test for scientists, only a compromised Christian can survive. Why else does the suggestion of evidence for Intelligent Design cause such apopleptic reactions? The reaction is so great that you cannot even point out the weaknesses in certain Evolutionary explanations in classrooms without fear that you are somehow implicitly teaching Creationism. It is so disagreeable since it is first perceived to be against the ideology (which it isn't necessarily, since the designer need not be super-natural), and secondly against the established theory. This is evidenced in how many apologists for Evolution spend more time declaring why Intelligent Design isn't science than dealing with the arguments that are being made.
If there is such an ideological rejection of Intelligent Design, then it indicates that some Scientists won't allow any evidence to challenge their axioms, and that they are more interested in finding explanations that fit the existing paradigm than the truth. That is resorting to mere rationalization. It is not good for science.
You make the statement "No wonder the world hates Fundamentalist Christians". First and simply stated, if World hates the followers of Christ, it does not mean the World is right and the Christians are wrong. If the World loves me, I would rather be more concerned whether I have too closely conformed to it. This was Christ's opinion. Secondly, I would propose that the biggest problem the World has with Christians is that our Truth comes from the Bible, which they believe is either untrue, or an unreliable source. For example, Atheism, which through various regimes has done more harm in the 20th century than any other religion, is less the subject of horror in the eyes of the World than is Christianity when it says there is a God, that He Created us, that certain actions are immoral, and that Jesus is the only way to be saved. The two things should not even compare, but if the Christian Worldview is viewed as the real travesty, then how can it be explained except that the World's hatred of God exagerates the rudeness of a few visible Christians.
Yes, Christians should not deride others for thinking differently on secondary issues (or any issue), especially uncertain ones like this. But there are people who don't care how nicely you tell them the Truth, they are going to be offended anyways.
Alex said,
February 9, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
I am also sick of Christians complaining about evolution! Can they not see how similar we are to chimps? No
scientific proof...ha...there's more proof for evolution than God(but they will just say you have to "find" him to see He exists, but by then you are so brainwashed you'd beleive anything)! Science is always a work in progress, its going to have some gaps now and then, but look at the people who thought the world was a sphere! They were labeled insane and crazy just like evolutionists...
If they wasn't any religions there would be no wars...so just give it up now
ro said,
February 10, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Alex if you're going to bash Christians at least make some coherent arguments. Saying we look like chimps and thus we have scientific proof is just as dumb as fundamentalist Christians saying the earth must have been created in 7 days.
And by the way, two of the world's worst atrocities were pushed by 'non-religious' minds. Both Hitler and Stalin. So your 'no religion = no war' is baseless.
Mike said,
April 20, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Matthew,
i do believe that a Christian should be a biologist in order to argue about evolution. or at least to have studied biology. i would also hope that a Christian would study the canons of other belief systems before they tried to argue with them. thats all, just wanted to mention that about your first paragraph.
Hugo cantu said,
May 20, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
The more we discover, the more we confirm the validity of the theory of evolution. We find more and more fossils of the type and at the proper level that we predicted that we would find them based on the theory of evolution. We advance on genetics, and the study of the DNA in humans puts us closer to apes than to any other family, just as would be expected based on the theory. The tree of species based on the DNA also maps accordingly to what would be expected of the theory of evolution, it matches the sequence of the species in the fossil records, and the age of the rocks through radioactive dating. We have identified recently evolved bacterias (as the nylon-eating bacteria), and explained the evolution of the eye from basic light-sensitive cells in less advanced animals. Virus and bacteria acquired traits to be resistent to drugs, all facts that are explained by evolution. Yet, whoever that doesn't want to see, will keep on claiming that there are are no proofs of evolution.
LoveOneAnother said,
May 22, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Evolution is just a theory. It ain't been proven. Actually it is a religion created by Atheists and Communists. Many scientists are disowning the evolution myth and embracing intelligent design. God created everything. How do I know? Because it is plain obvious. There is too much complexity in the world for it to have evolved. And my Bible confirms this. Just read Genesis. This is true since the Bible is the inerrant word of God, because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because God says so. We didn't come from monkeys, we were created in the image and likeness of God. It's all there in the Bible. All you have to do is pray and read it. Amen.
LoveYourSelf said,
June 26, 2008 @ 10:39 am
To LOVEOneAnother,
I'm sure your a nice little person.... Your kinda like that 2 year-old that still believes in Santa Clause. How cute!
To say "it says so in the Bible, so it must be true" is ridiculous. Firstly, the bible was written by many people and translated in many different languages.. BY HUMANS. Who are, sinful by very nature.. (says so in the bible).... So you have sinful people translating the bible... Do you really think it's all true then.. word for word.. verbatium?
The BIBLE is a book... I could write the BIBLE: The Sequel tomorrow... say God told me to write it and you'd have no ability to prove it isn't the word of God vs. the original Bible.
Look, I think the God exists... I think the bible may have some truth in it.. But to blindly believe in the bible as the word of god... is just naive.
But there's no arguing with people that say it is.. Because you can't argue faith.
Secondly.. you don't even know the meaning of the word scientific theory... go look it up before you call Evolution.. (just a theory).
ro said,
June 26, 2008 @ 11:06 am
To Loveyourself,
Keep it nice.
You're bashing literalists, they can still believe what they want without a fear of being thought of as 'less than smart'. The more poignant way to approach this is to say that the Bible IS to be taking word for word, however, those words MUST be taken seriously in light of literary context.
No you couldn't people have tried. People think that 'proof' is only conducted in the test tube. Fact is our entire legal system is not based on 'proof'. 500 years from now would you book still be around? Many people have done what you've said, so if they really did write BIBLE 2 then where is it?
See my comment RE: context.
There is such thing as blind faith. and FYI, when I said 98% of Christian have no clue about evolution and should shut up, the same would be for non-Christians too. Very few people are biologists/whateverists to coherently talk about evolution.