The next time some learned person slowly and patiently begins to explain to you that “there is no conflict between faith and science, when both are properly understood … “, ask him point blank:
“Professor, by “science” I take it you mean Darwinism. Is that right? Few actual sciences are controversial for most Christians.
Now, you are asking Christians to change their basic understanding of human nature to conform to the latest from Darwinism/”evolutionary psychology”.
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?”
Ask but don’t expect a coherent answer, never mind an honest or believable one.
After all, what can he say? If he knew enough about the evolution controversies to know that Darwinism is implausible as the key driver of changes in life, he would not talk the rot that he does. But chances are he can’t afford to know that much.
For him, the honest answer would be, “No, nothing. Every bit of Christian wisdom falls, once challenged, before the vagaries of Darwinism.”
In other words, the man isn’t a Christian. Fine, nice to get that straight. Except you won’t likely get that straight an answer from him.
So this exercise is only for fun.
“there is no conflict between faith and science, when both are properly understood…” That’s the sort of thing Mivart would say.
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?
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’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,
I don’t want to be taken seriously by evolutionists, because I certainly don’t take them seriously.
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,
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, 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.