Christianity

[Harbal]

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

Evolution and natural selection are just subjects of science, not ideology. Science studies gravity, and I accept that there is such a thing as gravity, does that make me a gravitist? If you have to call anyone evolutionist, at least confine it to those who make a scientific study of it. You know, like you would a biologist, or a chemist. You wouldn't call a layman with an interest in chemistry a chemist, would you?

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

What do you mean by "believing in"? Science doesn't depend on faith. I would say that considering evolution to be the case is the default position, and to consider it not to be the case would necessitate excercising choice.

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

Only in as much as you might call him one.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Maybe. But I wonder how much real meaning one can say the man had in his life.

There's a difference between "pleasure" and "significance." And one might almost think that a life of unremitting pleasure would surely be one of zero meaning. In any case, it's an interesting paradox that most of what we learn, and what makes us better people, is what we learn though suffering.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Evolution and natural selection are just subjects of science, not ideology.

That's the wanted effect of saying something like that, of course.

The goal of such an utterance is to aim to put science beyond the possibility of reasonable critique -- which, ironically, is to say, beyond the realm of science itself. A statement like that is "Scientism," not science. Science delights in critique of each of its offerings. Scientism simply refuses it.

"Follow the science," they like to say in the media today; by which they mean, "Shut up and believe us." Nothing more. It's not "science" they represent -- in many cases, it's just their own prejudices and personal ideology, but employing the name.

You wouldn't call a layman with an interest in chemistry a chemist, would you?

If "chem" were a belief system, I would.

Science doesn't depend on faith.

Indeed it does. They're not opposites: they're coordinated parts of knowing, within a probabilistic situation.

What? Are we to think that scientists don't "believe" what they declare? Are we to say they have no "belief" in what they're doing? Of course not. And when they advance their theories, are we to tell them that they have no right to do so, unless they have first completed the entire set of possible tests, so they no longer have to "take their conclusion on faith?" If we did that, there would be no scientific conclusions at all.

I would say that considering evolution to be the case is the default position,

I wouldn't. I would say that for most centuries of human history, up to the last one, it was nowhere. It has, at most, about 150 years of existence, and less of popular acceptance. And it still has a lot left to prove, since it raises so many questions it fails to answer.

Like the lack of transitional forms, for instance.

[Harbal]

I would say that considering evolution to be the case is the default position,

I wouldn't. I would say that for most centuries of human history, up to the last one, it was nowhere. It has, at most, about 150 years of existence, and less of popular acceptance. And it still has a lot left to prove, since it raises so many questions it fails to answer.

At 150 years it has a longer history than rocket science, and look where that is now. That's how science works. It finds answers, which in turn raise new questions, which lead to more answers.

I know you don't actually believe what you say about evolution, IC, you are far too intelligent for that.

[Immanuel Can]

I would say that considering evolution to be the case is the default position,

I wouldn't. I would say that for most centuries of human history, up to the last one, it was nowhere. It has, at most, about 150 years of existence, and less of popular acceptance. And it still has a lot left to prove, since it raises so many questions it fails to answer.

At 150 years it has a longer history than rocket science, and look where that is now.

Yeah...I wouldn't make that analogy. Rocket science depends on physics, and evolutionism on imagining the past. Not exactly equal processes.

I know you don't actually believe what you say about evolution, IC, you are far too intelligent for that.

Very nice of you to say so. But the chips are only on the table in the matter of human evolution, not plant or animal evolution...the rest has little theological import, if any at all. And I honestly totally disbelieve in human evolution. I see nowhere near sufficient evidence to warrant ANY belief in it, at all. And I think the many verifiable fakeries of the Evolutionists shows that something of a shell game is underway, in that regard.

[Harbal]

Very nice of you to say so. But the chips are only on the table in the matter of human evolution, not plant or animal evolution...the rest has little theological import, if any at all. And I honestly totally disbelieve in human evolution. I see nowhere near sufficient evidence to warrant ANY belief in it, at all. And I think the many verifiable fakeries of the Evolutionists shows that something of a shell game is underway, in that regard.

Okay, IC, I won't try to scare you into admitting evolution by threatening you with eternal damnation if you don't embrace it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I honestly totally disbelieve in human evolution. I see nowhere near sufficient evidence to warrant ANY belief in it, at all.

Yet I’ll bet *nearly anything* that if you were asked to explain how humans came to be that you would evade doing so. It would take little more than a terse paragraph though.

My burning question as to do with the archerfish. Obviously exceedingly adept now. But he must logically have started out inaccurately ejecting some unfocused drool first, right? like a haughty teenager …

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, IC, I won't try to scare you into admitting evolution by threatening you with eternal damnation if you don't embrace it.

Well, I always marvel that people aren't more concerned that their Materialism, or Physicalism, or Darwinianism, or whatever they happen to choose in order to fend off any concerns about God, itself allegedly precipitates them into eternal nothingness, void, blackness forever. And that's their best-case-scenario. It always occurs to me that they aren't nearly concerned enough about that "threat" that is implied by their own worldview, but get all bent-out-of-shape if a Christian suggests there might be something after death.

But if this life itself has any objective meaning (as opposed to merely the delusions of subjective "meaning" we make up momentarily between the womb and the tomb, as the Existentialists put it), then something has to bracket that life, so as to make it "mean" something. And it seems to me quite charitable to tell people that objective meaning in life is not the impossibility that their Materialism or Physicalism or Naturalism implies it is, but could be actual -- and could be good.

So rather than "threaten" people with Hell, or "scare" them, isn't it better to offer people hope of eternal life? And if one, like a Christian, actually believes in that, wouldn't it be an act of singular cruelty and unkindness not to mention it? I would think so.

So I look at it that way.

[Immanuel Can]

And I honestly totally disbelieve in human evolution. I see nowhere near sufficient evidence to warrant ANY belief in it, at all.

Yet I’ll bet *nearly anything* that if you were asked to explain how humans came to be that you would evade doing so.

You'd be wrong, of course.

I'm a Christian. You already should know exactly what I think. I believe human beings are the unique creations of God. And it didn't take me a paragraph to say it, either.

My burning question as to do with the archerfish. Obviously exceedingly adept now. But he must logically have started out inaccurately ejecting some unfocused drool first, right? like a haughty teenager …

A huge problem, you are pointing to.

What did all those generations of archerfish do while they were perfecting their shots, according to Darwinism? When the "squirt" from their mouths was weak or inaccurate, what did they eat? And how did their spitting turn into a survival advantage before it was developed enough to get them food? In fact, would they not have been wasting time spitting aimlessly, and starving to death while "more fit" fish got on with the business of hunting down conventional underwater prey? So there's a complicated Evolutionist's story that needs to be spun out in the case of the archerfish, for sure.

But the archerfish is actually a comparatively easier case for Evolutionism, if there are such. For there are actually organisms that depend on things like triadic symbiotic relationships with other animals -- so that if any one of the three were less than functionally evolved, the organism would simply not even survive for one life cycle. And I've always wondered how Evolutionists can account for things like that.

Here's an example, not exactly from an anti-evolution organization, National Geographic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiL-v4X8w8. How does the parasite evolve with no birds or snails? And how does the parasite "know" how to control the snails, and make them do things snails don't do, and make them "look" specifically like what birds seek out? And what were the steps by which all three came into this very strange, triadic dependency? I'd like to see the Evolutionist's story about that one. That's orders of magnitude harder than the archerfish problem.

And now we have but three of many such problems. If Evolutionism is science, wouldn't Evolutionists be glad to see us raise such questions, and delight to refine and improve the whole theory as they were investigated and solved? That's what real science would do. But Evolutionists always seem to want to say, "So what if we can't tell the story? Just shut up and believe it."

We might well wonder, why is Evolutionism so touchy? Doesn't it want to advance science?

[Lacewing]

rather than "threaten" people with Hell, or "scare" them, isn't it better to offer people hope of eternal life? And if one, like a Christian, actually believes in that, wouldn't it be an act of singular cruelty and unkindness not to mention it?

So, you're being 'kind' by spreading toxic nonsense because of what you believe.

[Immanuel Can]

So, you're being 'kind' by spreading toxic nonsense because of what you believe.

If I believed it were "toxic nonsense," I wouldn't be "spreading" it. But of course, I do not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm a Christian. You already should know exactly what I think. I believe human beings are the unique creations of God. And it didn't take me a paragraph to say it, either.

Different Christians think different things. And you alluded to some specific belief but you did not get specific. But in my book you’d have to be able to make specific statements.

All creation, and any created thing, is as miraculous and ‘impossible’ as the arrival of man. You said that animal evolution does not have a theologically relevant dimension but it really must.

Christianity, rather sadly, holds to a pathetic way of referring to creation. It must double-down on the more ridiculous creation myth but the more it does so, the more it associates itself with the ridiculous. It cannot really deal with its own idea.

But other Christians simply jettison the traditional biblical creation story while avoiding to replace or clarify it.

[Lacewing]

So, you're being 'kind' by spreading toxic nonsense because of what you believe.

If I believed it were "toxic nonsense," I wouldn't be "spreading" it. But of course, I do not.

The world is full of such people, yes? Spreading one wacky thing or another they believe in.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm a Christian. You already should know exactly what I think. I believe human beings are the unique creations of God. And it didn't take me a paragraph to say it, either.

Different Christians think different things. And you alluded to some specific belief but you did not get specific. But in my book you’d have to be able to make specific statements.

That's an interesting claim...coming from somebody who adamantly refuses to define what he means by "Christian." However, that boat's sailed...you won't do it, it seems. So there's no use in me pointing it out again.

I trust my last statement, the one you imagined I wouldn't dare to make, fixed your uncertainty.

All creation, and any created thing, is as miraculous and ‘impossible’ as the arrival of man. You said that animal evolution does not have a theologically relevant dimension but it really must.

No, it just doesn't. And the reason primarily has to do with the unique Scriptural mandate of mankind, which is not shared by any other creature, and the unique narrative of the Fall of Man, which sets off the whole slate of events in the entire Bible, and gives them their context. The presence or absence of any other creature makes little, if any difference; and it's even allowable to imagine that a person could believe that creatures other than man could have been "evolved," and it would not disrupt the Biblical account in any way that really matters. For instance, some have suggested that the "days" of creation can be "periods of time." And that's an ordinary usage of the word "days," so it's quite permissible. (example: we say, "Well, this is the day of the internet," or "Every dog has his day," and we mean a time either more or less than 24 specific hours. The Biblical text uses this metaphorical term "day" quite frequently, actually, as in "the Day of the Lord will come," which actually means not 24 hours, but eternity.)

But that is not the case for the creation of man and woman. And Genesis is much more explicit about that, too.

Christianity, rather sadly, holds to a pathetic way of referring to creation. It must double-down on the more ridiculous creation myth but the more it does so, the more it associates itself with the ridiculous. It cannot really deal with its own idea.

But other Christians simply jettison the traditional biblical creation story while avoiding to replace or clarify it.

Sorry: I can see you don't know anything at all about what "Christians" actually do or think. I don't want to be difficult, but you're wrong both times.

But then, really, what can one expect from a person who has no definition at all for what a "Christian" even is? How could it be otherwise?

[Immanuel Can]

The world is full of such people, yes? Spreading one wacky thing or another they believe in.

Is your world like that?

Mine just has people in it who are trying to figure things out, and tend to tell you what they think is true. Probably some lie. Probably some are sincere. It's not often easy to tell. But I think it's worth listening to them, all the same.