Debate part 2 (read previous post first!)

[velvetpage]

first my (second) reply to the comment vicimfox left me. I'll post the first comment as a comment to the previous post. (Is this making any sense at all?)



After my previous answer to this, I thought about it some more and realized that as a Christian, I really ought to make one more point.

If your goal was either conversion or persuasion, you need to rethink your methodology. You didn't check to find out what i actually believe about this (and the information is readily available by checking my bio page and a few recent posts.) You leapt to the conclusion that I would take the diametrically opposite viewpoint, that of atheistic evolution, and argued from there. Even if that conclusion had been true, the method still was not a good one. People don't like to be browbeaten, and they don't like to be talked down to. I got both impressions from your post.

The argument in which you engaged was designed to overwhelm with facts. The non-Christian is going to react in one of two ways with this. Either they will engage in the argument, thereby getting the opportunity to cement their own beliefs because they have defended them; or they will write off the argument, and you, as a fanatic they don't have time for. Neither response achieves your goal.

Just a friendly observation from one who has, in the past, identified herself as an evangelical Christian, and has been known to fall into the same trap.

Their reply was:

When given the space of 4000 characters and limited ability to post pictures and mathematical equations, I do not expect to convert or persuade anyone with my posts.

When I post, my goal is to address two recurring issues.

First, the language problem of calling Evolution a "theory" or a "fact". It is neither. It is an interpretation framework (aka worldview) (aka mindset) (aka philosophy) (aka conjecture). If I can get people to understand that Evolution is an interpretation framework that is used to give "meaning" to observations, then I will be happy.

I like to use the example of what does this symbol mean? "6"

Is it the number 6, or the character '6', or the Greek letter sigma on its side, or the number 9 written upsidedown, or maybe something completely different? You and I see the same symbol. But, if you interpret it as a number and I interpret it as a Greek letter, then we assign different "meaning" to the symbol.

Which "meaning" is correct?

Unless there is some external referee, then we will always argue over the interpretation of the symbols or observations. You will be correct from your perspective that it is a number six. I will be correct from my perspective that it is a Greek letter sigma.

But, back to the Creation issue, this is where I have confidence in my perspective -- because I believe there is an external, objective referee - God. God reveals through His written Word exactly what the interpretation should be. So, if I listen to what God says instead of what men think, then I know the origins of the world from the Maker Himself.

The second reason I post is to challenge stereotypes that persists about Creation believers and that "all or most" scientists accept evolution. I try to point out that I have a degreed science background in physics and other fields, that I used to believe in evolution, that there are many other scientists who accept Creation, and many other scientists who question evolution conjectures.

Now, regarding the "style" of how I post. It helps to understand that as a teacher I do not address people's posts personally, but I try to address the larger issue. So, even though my post is attached to yours, that does not mean I am replying specifically to you; instead I hopefully am replying to the whole thread and addressing broader issues.

Comments

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

How many teachers have I met (present comany excepted at least once) use "as a teacher" to mean "as an, nay the authority on the matter under debate..."

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense. That means it is one explanation posited to cover a broad array of facts. It can also be a worldview, if it is combined with atheism. The brand of evolution you seem to be arguing against is atheistic evolution - the kind that suggests it all happened by chance. However, while there are certainly many evolutionists who are atheists, there are also many who have realized that it is possible to separate the "why" from the "how". More on this later.

The central problem with your argument stems from the issue of Biblical accuracy. If that is removed, the rest of the debate becomes pretty much null and void, because the entire reason for arguing this in the first place is to prove that the Creation story in the Bible is scientifically accurate.

Your definition of accuracy was correct. Accuracy requires truth. The reverse, however, is not true. Truth does not require accuracy. The classic example is moral stories, such as Aesop's fables. They were clearly fictional, involving talking animals running races and other improbable events. But they were used to teach core truths about moral issues; "slow and steady wins the race", for example. The moral is not rendered untrue by the fictional nature of the story used to illustrate it.

Now before you get huffy about the Bible having more truth than a fable, you're right there too. The creation story was told in such a way that anyone, from my 21-month-old daughter to Moses to a learned scientist, could understand the gist of it. My daughter would not, however, be able to understand the science related to the creation of the Earth. She is very accomplished for her age, but her age group simply wouldn't understand that.

Basically, it's a question of audience. To whom did God want his message disseminated? To a group of 21st century atronomers and physicists who had the time and inclination to check his math and observe using His telescopes? If that had been the case, someone somewhere would have thrown out all those scrolls full of gibberish they couldn't understand. By telling it in the simple form He chose, he made it accessible to the widest possible audience. The truths of the story still shine through: 1) God created. 2) He did it in his own time, in his own way, and in his own order. 3) He had a plan for his creation from the beginning.

The seven days? It's a detail. A prop for the story. It's not a central truth, and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate in order to maintain the truth of the story.

The Creation Story in the Bible is the why. Why do we exist? Because God created us. Why is the Earth as it is? Because God created it. However, nothing in this story requires us to translate it literally, and I've just given an excellent reason for not doing so. That leaves the "how" up for grabs. How did God do all this? Over millions of years or a few days? I'm much happier with the science that suggests millions of years. But then, having distinguished accuracy from truth, I have no reason to argue otherwise.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

That's precisely what I say to anyone arguing from either side.

It happened. We're here. I believe that God has a plan and has had a plan all along. My responsibility is not to fit what facts I know into a specific framework of creationism or evolutionism, it is to work within the part of the plan that I am put in – here and now. That's what's important.

Conjecture's fun, but for something like that, it's really nothing more than intellectual gymnastics. If your faith depends on convoluted intellectual gymnastics, I suggest you get back to the basics – the truth that we are called to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, one last thing. I'm a teacher too. I try not to make my students feel that I'm talking down to them. It has a tendency to turn them off.

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

I never found evolution and creation to be mutually exclusive ideas. ::shrug:: I believe that a thinking being, one capible of creating a universe, would build on what they had started with - fish into amphibians, etc. It makes sense, it would simplify little problems like several species' ability to exist in the same habitat, especially if those species need to be chemically compatible enough for one to eat the other. The natural world has such a subtle elegance, and such amazing complexity - there's no reason to make it clash with itself at a cellular level.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I agree with this, but I feel confident in making a prediction: vickimfox will say either 1) he made them all compatible when he made them, or 2) he did make one order from the previous one, just much quicker than the evolutionist worldview would have it.

I have been known to argue the other side of this debate, though it's been a while. I know all the points already. It does give me a bit of an advantage in a debate situation. :)