Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Ironically, one of the complaints is that the anti-evos are Christian-bashers by their own definition. I think the Doctor's criticism is dead on.
Oooo! I liked typing, "The Doctor".
You have taken yourself out of the loop on being part of the solution.
The basic problem is that the two sides are never going to agree on the object of knowledge or standards of evidence. Science, whether conducted by Christians, Hindus or atheists, seeks to find and quantify the regularities of nature, the aspects that are uniform over time. Religion looks for unique events that signify the hand of God. Science, by its nature, dismisses miracles, even when it can't explain a phenomenon. This is simply the way it works -- always assume that events are the result of uniform laws. The assumptions and thought processes of scientists are automatic in this regard.there really isn't ever going to be a science that seeks to prove miracles. The scientific mind is always going to assume that unexplainable phenomena are simply not yet understood.
Returning to the topic of the proposed agreement: We can tone down the rhetoric and remove name-calling from the threads, but we are not going to eliminate the friction caused by questioning each others sources and witnesses.
Anyone should still be allowed to see what's there. I won't have a God who gave me eyes and a brain and then says, "Don't use them."
Let's stay above this fray and continue the scientific discourse that appeals to the reasoned among us.
Are you really sure you see the same visions when you munch the wafers?
You have no credibility to make peace. None.
How do you get credibility back when you've dashed it against the wall with every post of every thread? You don't.
Actually, I suspect that's what we're seeing today. As far as I know, no crevo threads have been pulled in about 10 days, since this thread: Unlikely group may revive Darwin debate [Evolution v. creationism], which died on the 18th. Everyone's afraid to hit the abuse button, since the thread gets pulled, and blame is assigned to the other side for pushing it. Though, we have been seeing the rare post be pulled nowadays.
That's your opinion, which is not necessarily shared by all.
Before we really even get into who it seems to me it would be useful to define what we are discussing.
My understanding is that we are not talking about limiting content, but form.
For example, I would not sign onto anything that didn't clearly state that calling men "girls" or "peeing chihuahuas" or suggesting that they are fags is strictly verboten.
You may call this fighting fire with fire but I fail to see the fire that calls for this behavior.
I see...if the Christian is meek, acquiescent, and obsequious, THAT sort of Christian is acceptable. But the Christian who is uppity, i.e. assertive, outspoken, probing, and challenging, SHOULD BE bashed. Somehow that doesn't sound ethically equitable...
She's nicer than you, C-Jen. She's no saner. She's nothing approaching neutral and, if she's not part of the problem, she's certainly never going to be part of the solution.
That's pretty much what Jesus said, anyway.
This is thinly-veiled ridicule. You just can't help yourself can you?
Jesus was far from obsequious and acquiescent, and I use the word "meek" in the worldly cowardly sense, not the biblical sense.
Ping to 783.
For any agreement to work there needs to be some understanding of how science "thinks". There at least a couple of posts on this page indicating that scientific thinking is inherently anti-Christian, inherently evil, inherently anti-conservative.
This is, without using hot words, a form of name-calling. Any agreement that has a chance of working has to ban the tactic of conflating science (or religion) with evildoers, liberals, totalitarians. This is just name-calling in disguise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.