Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

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: 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?

It IS an insult....a disgusting one at that. I dare you to post such a comment in "breaking news" (or the like) and see how many people agree with me.

I agree with this (gasp). Look, even those of us who now longer take communion have family members who do; it's in poor taste (and rather pointless) to make jibes about other people's sincerely held beliefs.

If we had a science forum, we wouldn't have to argue about whether stuff like this was abuse; we could simply point out it was not a scientific issue, and should be taken to the religion forum.

Unbelievable. There is much going on here, and I fear some of us are getting lost in the rhetoric.

It has been posited that A-G is "the fairest of the fair," with apologies to Snow White. At the risk of gaining another enemy, I have to state that this is patently absurd. While I'm sure A-G is a lovely, well intentioned woman, in no way is she "fair" in this matter. Heck, her bloviated diatribe can be found on ALS' designeduniverse.com. She has the incredible ability to read through these 800+ posts and not see that perhaps ALS can be a bit gruff at times, to say the least. She is not the arbiter of Crevo thread "fairness."

To the point of ALS' proposal, while a step in the right direction, it smells like a trap. It reads like a trap. It looks like a trap. Conclusion: it's a trap. Trap rhymes with crap. Why? Because the christian fundamentalist definition of "christian bashing" is plastic; capable of being used in any setting, at any time. To me, the phrase, "Christians are stupid," is bashing. "Creationism is stupid," however, is not. There's a wealth on non christian creationists around. The irony here is that christian fundamentalists are as guilty as anyone in the "bashing" game, witness Gore's obsession with Junior's Catholicism. Witness exmarine's repeated claims that non bible-literalist christians aren't really christians afterall.

Non christians, non-theists, and atheists love this eternal, internal quibbling. An omnipotent diety would never allow such intra-christian strife. That's how I see it anyway.

To Vade's and I believe Nebullis' points, I refuse to dumb down my posts, to concede points because of something a 2000 year old text says, especially when it flies in the face of rational, reasoned science. Be it geology or biology, I simply can't do it. But to do so is hardly "christian bashing." I've been guilty of ALS bashing in the past, but for about a month now, I've done my best to ignore the man. His proposal, if accepted as is, would be a victory for the fundamentalist christians. I, for one, won't stand for that.

I've been called a liberal, a commie, a marxist, a socialist, a sophist, a materialist, a jerk, a DUmmie, a heathen, a satanist, and a moron. When I take into account who is doing the name calling, I let it go.

Why do I post on crevo threads? I'm a proud conservative. I do not want my politics nor my party overrun by bible literalists. Simple as that. If I can sway one creationist to become, at the least, a theistic evolutionist or OEC, then that's one less guy I have to defend against in the whole scheme of things.

Simple as that.

Flame me, ban me, suspend me, whatever. This childish crap is hardly worth my time or efforts anymore. I'm quite comfortable with my posts, and I'm secure in the knowledge that genesis is an old story written by men who had no knowledge of modern science. If that's "christian bashing" then I will say farewell and good luck.

I think it's acceptable to agree to a policy of no personal abuse or ad hominems. I'm not going to pretend to be blameless, but I think they're usually written in haste and repented at leisure, and they damage the writer as much as the recipient. Unilateral disarmament in this respect is fine.

I would agree that posts that claim either than 'naturalism leads to (insert pet evil here)' or 'Christianity leads to (insert pet evil here)' might be ended by mutual agreement. I started contributing a few of the second a couple of months ago, largely to emphasize the point of the indefensibility of the first. I have no interest in continuing them. If I wanted to engage in flame wars about Christianity, I'd be on the religion forum.

Well said. I concur completely.

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.