…on the Sacred Science of Evolution and its strange utility in manipulating political discourse.
Awesome. Flynn is a treasure.
Exhibit A in the case of “Why people are so very cynical towards the media”.
The references to Augustine & Aquanis are just what I’ve been looking for. I have a lot of atheist friends. These aren’t the internet, militant type of atheists. They’re just ignorant and lazy & have accepted as gospel that the prophet Darwin disproved Christianity. They feel that “religion” was something ignorant goat herders made up to explain the world, and now we “know” how the world was created, it’s not needed. Seriously. When I point out that recent popes say that evolution isn’t contrary to the faith, they just wave it off as the church backpedaling in the face of overwhelming evidence. So it’ll be nice to show them that in the 4th century a doctor of the church acknowledged the possibility of evolution.
I think you are correct that your friends are intellectually lazy if they maintain that evolution science disproves christianity. It does offer proof that the creation account in genesis is not literally true but no more than that.
As an atheist, I don’t think any of it is true, however, I have found that outside the fundie community very few Christians make the claim that Genesis is literal. Honestly, I find it frustrating when they try to tie atheism to evolution. Most atheists believe in evolution but so do most Christians.
Disproof of Christianity is not required; it is a claim that requires proof. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that any gods exist.
You may see me as a militant type of atheist, but I honestly have no idea what that means.
Others have said it before, but you’re a decent guy, Bill.
While there is still a depressingly large young-earth creationist population out there, it’s a relatively new development in Christianity (much like the rapture). Likewise, atheism has a much more intellectual history than the recent militants would lead one to believe. And unfortunately, as usual, the loudest guy gets the mike. I appreciate that you’re intellectually honest enough not to judge us based on Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, and I hope we can return the favor by not judging you based on Dawkins or Dennet.
Regarding the burden of proof argument, I’ve never been able to accept the axiom that we live in a purely materialistic universe, so postulating a creator-god has always been a lot easier. As with any axiom though, it stands or falls based on how well it’s accepted and whether it leads to a consistent system.
Anyway, thanks for your continued presence here. Disagreement without shouting is more or less a lost art (hell, every time I think I’ve got it down I’ll angrily fly off the handle at someone).
I guess I’d have to be a creationist, I just don’t see how Nessie (or any other cryptozoological life form) can disprove evolution.