Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

My own interest in Christianity revolves around the following factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

This is why I say that you post and repost the same post time and again. Once one has read the first time what your interest and focus is, one gets it.[/quote]

My view is that you (and others here) are missing an opportunity because, as I see it, there is not enough link to the contemporary events that we are in the midst of today. I do not want to critique your focus because of pique but rather because it does not seem to really penetrate to the heart of the issue.

Examining your four-point list I would introduce the following:

1) There will never, ever appear the *proof* you ask for. All god-concepts are just that: god-concepts. There will not ever be a way to encapsulate the totality of existence -- what it is, how it came to be, and our appearance in it -- in any satisfactory form. A god-concept appears to be a sort of abbreviation for a sense of miraculous wonder. And then social rules & regulations, a way of explaining the world, etc. So what you are really asking about is how it has come about that people, mostly in the past I think, developed these sorts of conceptual-pictures.

2) Here I think is another instance of opportunity offered and opportunity squandered. If I were to focus more or less exclusively on the Occident, and the Classical world where Christianity had its birth, I would know that notions of 'immortality' and the mysterious paths that were said to be available and *real* were part-and-parcel of what was absorbed and integrated into Christian belief, specifically Catholic doctrine and ritual. So you are asking a question but you seem to have no real interest in the question you ask. So in my own view, if you and anyone else is especially concerned for the Occident (and you may not be) it would behoove you (i.e. people like you) to become more genuinely interested in the topic. To research it more. To then be able to talk about it at the very least more entertainingly. But here is my *poignant observation*: I do not think you really care. You seem like a broken record that skips over the same position. Should I apologize for making such a horrifyingly bold statement? For heaven's sake man this is supposedly a philosophy forum.

3) My observation is that you do not actually write about the main topic that you indicate is most important to you and most relevant. You refer to it constantly though. And then link to lengthy posts that you hope other people will read. But it seems to me that you miss an opportunity by not writing more directly and immediately on this issue of dasein. If you are so into Heidegger's thought it seems to me that you could do much better in drawing other people into it.

4) Sure, but that is an observation ("horrible things happen with or without god") that once it is made does not need to be made again. It seems to be for you the dagger in the heart of a believing religionist. But they simply refuse to lie down and die.

It's simple. Men and women interact from day to day to day. How, they wonder, ought they to behave? On this side of the grave in order to facilitate the least dysfunctional communities. And, for the Christians, to assure the arrival of their soul in Heaven on the other side of it.

Again you miss the opportunity to link this observation/question to the events of the day. I get the impression that you do not pay much attention to the news, to contemporary discourse, to social conflict, to the deep divisions that widen at every moment. Do you read books and articles that deal on these issues and problems? I'd have to say "no" from what you write.

But this is a philosophy forum and one that is linked to a philosophy magazine. Those who write articles for that magazine are deeply involved in contemporary cultural issues. Therefore, at the least, they set the tone for what should take place here. But what do we wind up with here? Disturbed people who can do little else but endlessly bicker.

As for you, I almost never read your own "wall of words" posts. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of words defining and defending other words. Words that almost never actually convey anything relevant to our day-to-day interactions.

Do you read the *walls of words* that are the articles in Philosophy Now? Do you read the walls of words that make up the works of philosophical literature? How about articles in journals of opinion? What are you actually saying? You do not *believe in* the use of language on a forum where it is only the written word that is or means? And hold on a minute: if our day-to-day interactions are important to you why don't you focus on these things in your posts?

Though, as I acknowledge in turn, that's just my own subjective reaction to him. Others may well react to him in very different ways. And have a lot of respect for him. And that's fine with me. We all construe philosophical discourse in different ways.

If that is true then why bother to take any position at all? Since it is all construed according to position and subjectivity it seems that all you need to do is send up post after post that says just that:

"Any view we have is cobbled together in our condition of dasein. One view is as valid, then, as any other."

And there any conversation ceases. Why not abbreviate it to the rawest of raw facts?

As to your critiques of my personal wonderfulness I will decline to respond much (though I understand what you are getting at). I do what I do because of dasein! Dasein makes me do it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: I regard both your position (Iambiguous) and Immanuel's position to be erroneous in essential ways. So my object then becomes to talk about what each of those positions are, how they came about, and what effect they have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am not insulting Harbal through this comparison. I am pointing out that he has not a spiritual bone in his body. Nor an ear that is tuned on any level to what I have named *higher meaning*. And this sort of man, as outcome in our day and age, must be better understood. How could *you* reach him?

IC's failure to "reach" me is not because of any shortcoming on his part, Alexis. I am unavailable; nobody is going to reach me. I don't object to being "better understood", however; particularly as you think of it as something that must be achieved, but I'm not interested in participating in anyone's attempts to do it.

Without in any way wishing to offend you or anyone, you say things that you have not thought through. For this reason I perceive you as emblematic of certain realities about our present. Is there exaggeration in this? Of course. Any position we take, if we are to talk about it analytically, has to be *blown up* to be larger than it actually is, then it can be better seen and understood.

IC most definitely cannot reach you and cannot reach anyone here -- except Walker who, also, cannot actually reason through IC's position. Walker *supports* IC however because, for some reason of other, what IC says *resonates* with him. I'd like to know more but Walker stumbles over careful articulation.

You say you cannot be reached? What am amazingly weird statement. So you are impervious to reason? There is no argument, no ideas, no organization of understanding that could ever *get through to you*? But here you are on a philosophy forum where every exponent of philosophy, every philosopher, has done only that: made a case for a certain perspective or view.

You are like a termite that has found a warm home and plenty to feed on. But when dozens of such termites take over the *home* can be considered to have been invaded. Eventually, the structure falls. Do you get the metaphor?

The reason why IC cannot reach anyone (except the already-converted) can only be seen as a grotesque error and failing. If *belief in Christianity* has collapsed, what is the cause of that collapse Harbal? Did it fail to convince? Or are those who oppose *it* simply expressing a distaste for a 'flavor' when there is some other flavor that turns them on more? Was there ever a 'good reason' or a 'sound reason'?

You seem never to have bothered to think much of anything through Harbal.

For this reason I designate you an *outcome* of decadent processes. Why bother to take it personally? What a waste of time. Understanding ourselves, understanding our culture, our present, requires some level of interest in self-analysis.

We are the subjects here.

. . . but I'm not interested in participating in anyone's attempts to do it.

I assert that you should.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My own interest in Christianity revolves around the following factors:

I know, I know: too many words, too much response! But I've made my own purposes clear: I am here for my own.

I have realized a few things over these months and I will list a few of them:

1) Christianity, certainly in IC's style and variety, is a debilitating religious philosophy. It is ugly, it is weakening, and it is filled with destructive intentions that tart themselves up as *righteousness* *morality* and what is good & proper. IC and his religious faction say that they are what is needed to *rectify* degeneracy but this view can be and should be challenged. We do not know enough about degeneracy. In a sense that can be explained, though it is difficult and very demanding, Christianity has become "infected" and this disease needs to be seen, exposed and rectified. I submit that IC shows us what this is. (And those he is personally annoying I am trying to see him only as a set of ideas, i.e. impersonally).

2) What comprises Christianity can only be understood when the pagan-esque culture that received it, adapted it, explained it, and translated it through Greek terms, is revitalized as *the most important thing*, the most important endeavor. Christianity should be understood as Greco-Christianity and, since this is true, a decision must be made to refocus on what is Greek, and away from what is Hebrew. This has all sorts of ramifications that must be clarified. And this ain't easy by any means. It requires real intellectual work. What I just described necessitates in an intense work on the self and a self-confrontation. That work is *intellectual* and that work can go on when the *sick* idea of a god to who one turns over all agency is *seen through*.

The idea of *submitting to Jesus* and turning over to Jesus the existential problem in the sick hope that this god-image will resolve it and, somehow, make it right (and make any one of us *right*) is pure sickness. A completely different attitude has to be defined. Therefore, the entire construct of begging for salvation, of deep despondency in the mood of needing to be saved, must be confronted and seen through. But 'rescue' and also 'recovery' -- these are not destructive ideas.

3) Christianity, unless it goes though the purifying fires (and these are very hard to define and harder to subject oneself to) is a destructive force in our world, and certainly for our Occidental world. Again, the entire construct needs to be gone through very carefully. Like weeding a garden.

4) Any view, and *feeling*, that some person-god named Jesus is up there, or over there, with decisions already made, with opinions that you tune into to receive, with set attitudes that one must tune one's own frequency to, is absurd and destructive. But the *idea of god* as Logos -- that is something else.

5) A relationship to the present has to be conceived of as something of extreme importance. Meaning, that we are all living in the *outcomes* of degenerating processes. We will either confront this or we won't but our *moral duty* is there and there alone. One has to define oneself in relation to all of this. One cannot remain aloof and in this sense uncommitted. We are all expressions of degeneracy and as degenerates we need to see and understand why this is, how it has come about. And we need, as a result, to reconstruct ourselves. Which also means knowing upon what model this reconstruction must take place. But who does know? And how would that be talked about? Who can? Who does? What this means (in my own view of course) is to be capable, intellectually, of taking some sort of stand toward what is going on around us. There are veritable battles going on daily and the background of these must be better understood.

6) Most people -- I base this on those who write here -- are in most senses *in the dark*. They should be situated in their *power* and they should understand much more. But most seem (to me -- it is a personal perspective) to be drifting along indecisively.

[Harbal]

Without in any way wishing to offend you or anyone,

You're not offending me, although I know you're lying about not wanting to.

you say things that you have not thought through.

Yes, I already knew that.

For this reason I perceive you as emblematic of certain realities about our present.

And, without in any way wishing to offend you, I perceive you as a pretentious wind bag.

You say you cannot be reached? What am amazingly weird statement. So you are impervious to reason? There is no argument, no ideas, no organization of understanding that could ever *get through to you*?

When someone puts as much effort into trying to shape the opinions and attitudes of others as you do, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to leave themself open to persuasion.

You are like a termite that has found a warm home and plenty to feed on

Isn't a warm home and plenty to feed on what everyone wants?

If *belief in Christianity* has collapsed, what is the cause of that collapse Harbal?

I've never had such a belief, so I don't consider myself qualified to answer the question.

You seem never to have bothered to think much of anything through Harbal.

Why should what I don't seem to have done be of concern to you?

For this reason I designate you an *outcome* of decadent processes.

Does that mean I'm going to be entered onto some sort of register?

Why bother to take it personally?

I would no more take anything you said personally than I would take being barked at by a stray dog personally.

but I'm not interested in participating in anyone's attempts to do it.

I assert that you should.

That's because you're a pompous wanker. No offence meant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would no more take anything you said personally than I would take being barked at by a stray dog personally.

Perfect. We’re on the same page then.

[tillingborn]

But because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," an undetectable variation could not be "selected for."

Quite apart from the fact that it simply doesn't follow that an undetectable variation could not be "selected for" because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," who are you to say what nature cannot detect?

Darwin said it. Argue with him, I guess.

Darwin did not say "an undetectable variation could not be "selected for."" If it is a position you think worth defending, it falls on you to do so, because no one who knows what they are talking about would make such a vacuous claim.

But it makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense to you because you choose not to believe in evolution. The challenge with things that makes sense is to find out whether they are true.

If "survival of the fittest" is what drives forward evolution, then whatever is "selected for" can only be a feature that makes the organism "more fit" than its rivals. That means it has to be something important, something functional for survival, and something complete...instantaneously.

One possibility is that God created this butterfly

complete and instantaneously, along with the other at least 15 000 species of butterfly, and that Noah collected two of every species of butterfly, along with two of every species of every other creature on Earth, checking he had a male and female, while simultaneously building a boat large enough to house them all. Alternatively, the picture may have built up gradually. Perhaps some ancestral butterfly had a few of the spots of white in what now is the pupil of the 'owl'. Not very convincing, but enough for a predator to pause to weigh up whether that is light reflecting in the eyes of something much bigger than dinner, just enough that butterflies with those few white dots had a fraction of a second longer to sense the danger and take flight, survive and breed.

It's a problem for Darwinists...it's no problem for me.

Science is easy if the answer to every mystery is 'God did it'. There are scientists who believe, ultimately, that is the answer; to them the difficult question is how? Then there are creationists for whom the problem is explaining away the overwhelming evidence that their chosen hypothesis is false.

...Darwinianism requires that one species can convert into another.

Yes it does, and that is what the fossil record shows.

[promethean75]

that butterfly (moth?). see what i mean? why would god do that if not only to fuck with us. like you couldn't design an animal to look like an example of natural selection any better than that.

god creates a world with humans on it who he wants to believe in him (and intelligent design), and then just to be an asshole he plants evidence in favor of evolution and natural selection everywhere. U can't win with this guy.

[Immanuel Can]

Darwin did not say "an undetectable variation could not be "selected for.""

By implication, he certainly did.

"Natural selection is scrutinizing the slightest variations, rejecting all those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good..."

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

-- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

(We can ignore the anthropomorphisms...they're a feature of every attempt to describe human development without reference to God. The speaker always ends up attributing God-features to something like "nature," or rather "Nature" or to "Time," because it's actually so compelling to do so that it seems even the most ardent Atheist cannot help himself from speaking in such a way as to imply the falsehood of unguided processes producing order.)

If "natural selection" is "scrutinizing," is can only be for advantage relevant to "survival of the fittest." In almost every case, evolution is supposed to eliminate, not add, features to a creature. It eliminates features which are survival-maladaptive. The only way it can add a feature is if that feature already produces survival value.

If the feature does not, there's nothing for "natural selection" to "see." It cannot be "selected for," because according to Darwin, "natural selection" is keyed to nothing but "survival."

That's the argument.

Noah collected two of every species of butterfly...

You didn't listen to Darwin's title.

Darwin didn't try to explain the existence of variations within species; he claimed to explain "The Origin of Species." His theory is supposed to describe not how white butterflies can morph into blue ones, but rather, how paramecia can become fish, and fish can become frogs, and frogs can become human beings...whole different species, not variations within a single one.

There has never been a problem with observing variations within species. And intra-species variations don't make evidence for Evolutionism, but merely for mutation within fixed species. So Darwin's finches don't make evidence for evolution, even if Darwin accidentally imagined they might. That is, at best, argument from analogy not evidence. Nor are different "shades" of modern humans any less the species called "modern humans" on account of a difference of skin colour. They aren't apes. And there aren't even any half-ape-humans around. There are only modern humans...one species, in which variations appear.

As you say...

...Darwinianism requires that one species can convert into another.

Yes it does, and that is what the fossil record shows.

Actually, it does not. And the reason it does not is very obvious indeed.

There is not just a shortage of transitional forms, but given the mechanism of time (billions of years) and chance (which necessarily means many accidents, false starts, failed mutations, and so forth: for natural selection would be, by any account, a massively wasteful process including millions of mutational failures in every stage, all eliminated by "survival of the fittest," and only successful adaptations remaining) we ought to expect to be buried in billions of fossils showing these failed "experiments" by "natural selection."

But that's not what we see. We see fixity of species, and have to go to extraordinary lengths to find anything we can offer as a single "transitional form," such as the archaeopteryx. And as for human evolution, attempts have been made to argue that fossils of orangutans, dwarves with rickets and even fraudulently aged bones (such as the famed Piltdown Man) to serve as "bridges" in the narrative. However, the remarkable thing that each of these attempts begs us to overlook, and which is even more shocking than the lack of a particular transition, is that by all evolutionary reasoning, there ought to be an incalculable number of specimens of each of phase.

We might well ask, how could it come about, given the Evolutionists' story, that this could even become a problem? If human evolution were true, would it not be the case that there would have been millions upon millions of dead humanoids with failed adaptations manifesting? And would not some of these, surely, have been fossilized? Why should we find that we even have to try to find the necessary human fossils of transitional forms, let alone the millions of "false starts" that Evolutionism requires us to believe there had to be?

Yet the record has nowhere near enough samples for us to demonstrate interspecies adaptation of humans, and nothing near what we need to demonstrate the countless maladaptations that the "survival of the fittest" explanation would require us to expect.

However, we are, at this point, very nearly changing the topic to "Evolutionism." And there would not be much at stake, speaking from a Christian perspective, if there were evolution among lower species -- we could posit that evolution were simply the terms on which God created. Theologically, the only argument with a payoff vis-a-vis Christianity would be the argument that man evolved, and thus was not the unique creation made "in the image of God," as Genesis claims.

So if you can show that man evolved, you've got a critique of Christianity...and, I would concede, a very serious one. Otherwise, there is nothing that should concern a Christian on the table, in the Evolution debate.

[Gary Childress]

Darwin did not say "an undetectable variation could not be "selected for.""

By implication, he certainly did.

"Natural selection is scrutinizing the slightest variations, rejecting all those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good..."

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

-- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

(We can ignore the anthropomorphisms...they're a feature of every attempt to describe human development without reference to God. The speaker always ends up attributing God-features to something like "nature," or rather "Nature" or to "Time," because it's actually so compelling to do so that it seems even the most ardent Atheist cannot help himself from speaking in such a way as to imply the falsehood of unguided processes producing order.)

If "natural selection" is "scrutinizing," is can only be for advantage relevant to "survival of the fittest." In almost every case, evolution is supposed to eliminate, not add, features to a creature. It eliminates features which are survival-maladaptive. The only way it can add a feature is if that feature already produces survival value.

If the feature does not, there's nothing for "natural selection" to "see." It cannot be "selected for," because according to Darwin, "natural selection" is keyed to nothing but "survival."

That's the argument.

Noah collected two of every species of butterfly...

You didn't listen to Darwin's title.

Darwin didn't try to explain the existence of variations within species; he claimed to explain "The Origin of Species." His theory is supposed to describe not how white butterflies can morph into blue ones, but rather, how paramecia can become fish, and fish can become frogs, and frogs can become human beings...whole different species, not variations within a single one.

There has never been a problem with observing variations within species. And intra-species variations don't make evidence for Evolutionism, but merely for mutation within fixed species. So Darwin's finches don't make evidence for evolution, even if Darwin accidentally imagined they might. That is, at best, argument from analogy not evidence. Nor are different "shades" of modern humans any less the species called "modern humans" on account of a difference of skin colour. They aren't apes. And there aren't even any half-ape-humans around. There are only modern humans...one species, in which variations appear.

As you say...

...Darwinianism requires that one species can convert into another.

Yes it does, and that is what the fossil record shows.

Actually, it does not. And the reason it does not is very obvious indeed.

There is not just a shortage of transitional forms, but given the mechanism of time (billions of years) and chance (which necessarily means many accidents, false starts, failed mutations, and so forth: for natural selection would be, by any account, a massively wasteful process including millions of mutational failures in every stage, all eliminated by "survival of the fittest," and only successful adaptations remaining) we ought to expect to be buried in billions of fossils showing these failed "experiments" by "natural selection."

But that's not what we see. We see fixity of species, and have to go to extraordinary lengths to find anything we can offer as a single "transitional form," such as the archaeopteryx. And as for human evolution, attempts have been made to argue that fossils of orangutans, dwarves with rickets and even fraudulently aged bones (such as the famed Piltdown Man) to serve as "bridges" in the narrative. However, the remarkable thing that each of these attempts begs us to overlook, and which is even more shocking than the lack of a particular transition, is that by all evolutionary reasoning, there ought to be an incalculable number of specimens of each of phase.

We might well ask, how could it come about, given the Evolutionists' story, that this could even become a problem? If human evolution were true, would it not be the case that there would have been millions upon millions of dead humanoids with failed adaptations manifesting? And would not some of these, surely, have been fossilized? Why should we find that we even have to try to find the necessary human fossils of transitional forms, let alone the millions of "false starts" that Evolutionism requires us to believe there had to be?

Yet the record has nowhere near enough samples for us to demonstrate interspecies adaptation of humans, and nothing near what we need to demonstrate the countless maladaptations that the "survival of the fittest" explanation would require us to expect.

However, we are, at this point, very nearly changing the topic to "Evolutionism." And there would not be much at stake, speaking from a Christian perspective, if there were evolution among lower species -- we could posit that evolution were simply the terms on which God created. Theologically, the only argument with a payoff vis-a-vis Christianity would be the argument that man evolved, and thus was not the unique creation made "in the image of God," as Genesis claims.

So if you can show that man evolved, you've got a critique of Christianity...and, I would concede, a very serious one. Otherwise, there is nothing that should concern a Christian on the table, in the Evolution debate.

So what are all those bones in the ground that science calls early hominids? Were they failed attempts at creation that God abandoned? Does absence of evidence for evolution prove Christianity is the case and not some other version of spirituality?

[Harbal]

So what are all those bones in the ground that science calls early hominids? Were they failed attempts at creation that God abandoned? Does absence of evidence for evolution prove Christianity is the case and not some other version of spirituality?

Evolution, driven by natural selection, is a scientific certainty, Gary, and I really don't understand why anyone would dignify any assertion that it isn't by engaging in an argument about it. I suggest we rise above it, Gary.

[Immanuel Can]

So what are all those bones in the ground that science calls early hominids?

There aren't many that have even been proposed. You will recall the famed searching for "the missing link," such a topic of hot conversation back in the 70s. You will also recall the "monkey-to-man" charts upon which we were all raised. And you'll wonder how such things could exist, if there were even a doubt about the fossil record behind them...

Today, however, you'll find the monkey-to-man chart has become a bit of a quiet embarassment for Evolutionists.

Of course, proponents of Evolutionism never seem to apologize for their misleading of the public, even after their mistakes are uncovered. They just say, "Oh well; science progresses," retract nothing, delete the mistake from the textbooks, and roll on as if they hadn't blundered into saying they were sure about things that are now evidently fraudulent.

Check the story of "the Piltdown man," for the most outlandish example of this. It's a great case of Evolutionists rushing to judgment and embracing a fraud. And it makes you ask, "Why were they so quick to buy in? Why were these 'scientists' so easy to fool? Why were they so slow to believe they were wrong? And where's the retraction from them admitting they were fooled? Most importantly, we might ask, "Why are people who allegedly are only interested in 'the scientific truth' so enthusiastic about rushing into declaring their evidence conclusive?"

There are unannounced scientific objections to "the Java man," (which has been called "the product of a skullcap, femur, three teeth, and a fertile imagination") and "the Peking man," which was originally generated the finding of a single tooth. Gibbons, orangutans, human skeletons with rickets, and so forth have also all been offered as "missing links." But the reason you haven't heard of all this is exactly what I said above: Evolutionists never seem to admit their errors. They just expand the timeline, alter the terms of the theory, and then insist they were never really wrong.

However, you'll note that the tidy monkey-to-man charts, with their neat steps, from which they taught us and which were so key to the inciting of our own early imaginations, have quietly left today's textbooks. Ask yourself why.

And in all this, what has gone utterly unnoticed and unremarked is how bloody hard it seems to be for scientists to find the fossils they need to back the record -- which surely should not be expected, given the wasteful, extravagant process of successive failures and extinctions posited by Evolutionary theory as necessary for the generating of one single step in the right direction.

Where are all the fossils? There should be tons and tons of such half-humanoids; we should be knee-deep in them, after the millions and millions of years Evolutionists insist have been necessary to produce human evolution.

Does absence of evidence for evolution prove Christianity is the case and not some other version of spirituality?

No, and that's not what it's evidence of.

Debunking one theory doesn't show which other theory is necessarily right. All it shows is that the debunked theory is wrong. For what you ask there, you'd have to do something comparative, something relevant to the other "spiritualities" you would want to investigate.

[Harbal]

Today, however, you'll find the monkey-to-man chart has become a bit of a quiet embarassment for Evolutionists.

It really is time that someone put a stop to all this throwing of "ists" around. I mean, I'm not the brightest light here by a long chalk, but even I can see through the tactic.

[Immanuel Can]

Today, however, you'll find the monkey-to-man chart has become a bit of a quiet embarassment for Evolutionists.

It really is time that someone put a stop to all this throwing of "ists" around. I mean, I'm not the brightest light here by a long chalk, but even I can see through the tactic.

"-ists" is just a suffix indicating that the persons in question believe in a particular ideology.

We have "Marx-ists," and "capital-ists" and "Social-ists," as well as "Fasc-ists," but also "scient-ists," and "Athe-ists" and "The-ists." There's nothing at all "tactical" in it...it just indicates their association with a belief. It can be a good belief or a bad belief, a true belief or a false one; no judgment about that is entailed.

Can't somebody choose to suppose Evolution might be worth believing in?

But if one does, he's an "Evolution-ist."

[Gary Childress]

Does absence of evidence for evolution prove Christianity is the case and not some other version of spirituality?

No, and that's not what it's evidence of.

Debunking one theory doesn't show which other theory is necessarily right. All it shows is that the debunked theory is wrong. For what you ask there, you'd have to do something comparative, something relevant to the other "spiritualities" you would want to investigate.

Sometimes I think Epicurus was ultimately right. And there's nothing that I know of in Epicurianism that contradicts with anything along the lines of scientific evidence.