“And then he just looked blank … “

Clive, the world is not like the US Bible Belt. Scientifically trained? Oh, I meant something along the lines of a university degree in natural science - I do not include Mathematics, Philosophy or Law in this category, by the way. Capt. Haddock

Capt. Haddock,

Clive, since 99.99% of scientifically trained people accept evolution as the best model, it comes to the same thing.

This is false to begin with. And what does "scientifically trained" mean anyway? Some preeminence in ability to think by comparison to the rest of the world? Please. Clive Hayden

Clive, since 99.99% of scientifically trained people accept evolution as the best model, it comes to the same thing. And I notice that, as I predicted, neither you nor anyone else engages with my main point. Capt. Haddock

Capt. Haddock,

P.S. If you want to make an enemy of science, be my guest, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

I don't want to be taken seriously by evolutionists, because I certainly don't take them seriously. Clive Hayden

O'Leary's argument is very strange indeed. If someone started off a debate with me by saying, as O'Leary proposes: "Now, you are asking Christians to change their basic understanding of human nature to conform to the latest from Darwinism/”evolutionary psychology”", I would certainly be dumbfounded. Is this how O'Leary would hope to start a serious discussion - by telling her interlocutor the conclusion of the debate before it has even started? It should hardly need saying (though it seems to have passed O'Leary by) that her assertion would be seen as nonsensical by any educated member of most of the Christian denominations - whether a scientist or not. Most Christians long ago came to an interpretation of God's purpose for Mankind, the Fall, Redemption, etc., that has no conflict with the ascent of man from the rest of the animal kingdom by natural processes. But I get the feeling there's no real interest in having a debate about that, when there's fun to be had traducing the views of scientists and then chucking custard pies at them. P.S. If you want to make an enemy of science, be my guest, but don't expect to be taken seriously. Capt. Haddock

Yes, Heinrich, I am glad to hear that and am always on the lookout for more. If we could retire Fred and Wilma Flintstone, we could have a serious discussion of evolution. O'Leary

So is there any thesis in Darwinism that it would be right for a Christian to reject, on the basis of received wisdom from the millennia? Any thesis at all?”

I guess received wisdom from the millennia would suggest any thesis without decent evidence to support it should be rejected. Luckily a lot of evolutionary biologists also reject a lot of evolutionary psychology. Isn't it wonderful when we agree? Heinrich

"there is no conflict between faith and science, when both are properly understood..." That's the sort of thing Mivart would say.

We find then that no incompatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers worthy of mention) between “evolution” and the co-operation of the Divine will; while the same “evolution” has been shown to be thoroughly acceptable to the most orthodox theologians who repudiate the intrusion of the supernatural into the domain of nature. A more complete harmony could scarcely be desired. As to the old, worn-out saying, “There can be no discrepancy between science and religion,” it is quite true if religion is always careful to change its teaching in obedience to science, but not otherwise.

Vladimir Krondan