A few months ago, I created a thread on the attitude of certain church-goers to “the teachings of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount”. @gbrooks9 has seen fit to try to hijack it with a post attempting to further his quixotic crusade against methodological naturalism in evolutionary biology. I have already flagged it as off-topic, so rather than replying there, I am creating a new topic.
Given that I have read recently that non-church-going Republicans are increasingly identifying as “Evangelical”, it does not require the malign influence of “atheist scientists” to explain an increased acceptance of Evangelical shibboleths, such as evolution-denial.
Can I prove that it is this politico-religious realignment driving this? Of course not. But it would seem a more likely explanation than an inexplicably-suddenly-increased impact of the comments of “atheist scientists”, whose views most Americans have in all likelihood never even read.
And this is one of the reasons I really hate apologetics – it is about cherry-picking facts to fit a pre-defined narrative (in this case, yet again the malign influence of “atheist scientists”), rather than thoughtful investigation.
I didnt say what you accuse me of saying. I do not blame atheists for the changes we see in the GOP (I blame Tea Party and MAGA for that).
My concern about the noticeable hegemony of atheists over the tone and content of PS.org is that the average Christian Evolutionist visitor has concluded (and will conclude) that there is LITTLE “Peaceful” tolerance of blending “threshhold miracles” (e.g., virgin birth and/or resurrection from the cross, Adam/Eve’s origins) with evolutionary science - - but
in fact visitors find a strong bias against any attempt to allow for a divine motivation for conventional evolutionary interpretations.
If there is an actual “noticeable hegemony” here at Peaceful science, I’ve always thought it was a hegemony of science-affirming scholars and professionals who care about evidence—at least in terms of content. No doubt some frequent posters may exert greater influence over the tone than others but that is no surprise to me. (And, yes, sometimes I would prefer a calmer tone. Yet, I also understand the frustration that can come with fielding the same-old-arguments and the refusal to engage evidence.)
The quality/quantity of evidence and use of logic by a poster certainly has an enormous impact on the tone of responses. I would be delighted to see increased participation on this forum from those who do not find the evidence for evolution compelling, for example, but only if they avoid lame tropes and long-ago-refuted rhetorical games. (Otherwise, it becomes nothing but lame repetition.)
One of my life-long dreams is that someone like Todd Wood would join us here. I disagree with him on various topics, needless to say, but I respect his willingness to engage the evidence, even when it has cost him the ire of other Young Earth Creationists. (Clearly, the major YEC organizations despise him.)
Meanwhile, I am well aware that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics on this forum who disagree with my theological positions. Nevertheless, I’ve always felt well treated by the community and consider many of the participants as online “friends” of a sort, even though we’ve never met face-to-face.
Yes you did. After a lengthy quote of polls on Republican acceptance, you stated:
In spite of the fact that you presented absolutely no evidence linking “atheist scientists” to this trend, you decided to blame them.
This is again incoherent. You have neither established relevance of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection (or similar “threshhold miracles”) to Evolutionary Biology, nor where intolerance of it has been a factor.
You are painting all of Christianity with the colors of MAGA and Biblicism. Consider these quotes from a 2014 Pew publication:
“… the surveys suggest that the change in views on evolution occurred [in the 4 years between 2009 & 2013] especially among the less religious segments of the GOP. Among Republicans who attend worship services monthly or less often, the share who say humans have evolved over time is down 14 percentage points, from 71% in 2009 to 57% today.”
“Among Republicans who attend services at least weekly the share who believe in evolution has gone from 36% in 2009 to [merely] 31% today…”
“Among Democrats, beliefs in evolution have remained about the same since 2009, irrespective of religiosity.”
“Among Democrats who attend services at least weekly, roughly half say that humans have evolved over time (52% in 2013 vs. 48% in 2009, which is not a statistically significant change). Among Democrats who attend services less often, roughly three-quarters say humans have evolved (75% in 2013, 73% in 2009).”
[End of quotes]
So can you guess who gets alienated the most when atheist scientists start criticizing Evolutionists who are also Christians?
I think you are looking at this in the worst possible light. That’s “A” Christian’s view, not “ALL” Christians view. I don’t think any frequent member here would interpret that as ALL.
Careful with the interpretation here - the survey says that “views on evolution have changed”, but that’s not correct The real change is probably in those who say they are Republican. IOW, this survey is a cross-section of people who say they are Republican, not a logitudinal survey of beliefs over time.
I see that Pew goes on to examine this question, and I haven’t read the whole thing yet. Stand by …
… and they say nothing very conclusive. Maybe the Republican base really have changed its views on evolution, but cross-sectional surveys don’t follow individuals, so they really don’t have the right tool to asnwer the question.
The whole point of that Pew article was to isolate the “driving” cause for the VISIBLE changes to the GOP regarding Young Earth themes (in contrast to the Dems).
Pew found that the biggest change came in the ranks of the less-educated GOP. A “reasonable man” assessment of this conclusion might include the idea that the original “less educated” GOP component may have been driven out by “Tea Party/MAGA” rhetoric, to be replaced by a more “biblicist” group of “less educated” GOP.
For the sake of fairness, one might wonder if a better answer is provided by the notion that the less educated GOP originally reported answers that they THOUGHT would make them sound less ignorant - - and that they are now reporting more honestly.
The difference between what people say and what they do is a fundamental problem in opinion polling. Doing the math can be relatively easy compared to figuring out what it means.
I blame atheist scientist PARTICIPANTS of @Peaceful Science for creating an atmosphere of alienation against Christians who EMBRACE evolutionary science.
I usually accept that my awkward use of semantics is to blame for someone’s misunderstanding of my intentions - - but @sfmatheson understood me perfectly well.
It never occur to me that you would think I was blaming atheists for upsetting Creationists AND for upsetting non-Creationists!
Now that we have worked out a better sense of my intentions I am hoping we can move along to more interesting aspects.
Are you willing to admit that you were blaming “atheist scientists” for the poll trend? If not, then why did you quote the polls immediately before dragging “atheist scientists” into your post?
I reject your unsubstantiated assertion that “atheist scientist PARTICIPANTS of @Peaceful Science” are “creating an atmosphere of alienation against Christians who EMBRACE evolutionary science.”
Your accusation makes no sense. Get over it. I have never suggested such a thing. And if i were, i would not do so by muddling the issue in the way you describe.
Where do YOU see the “peaceful” side of the group?
When I first encountered the group’s name, I could easily imagine a gathering of Christian Evolutionists preparing a soft landing for those unwilling to give up thr Father-head of creation … but who could grasp the idea that God uses Evolution to effect His creation.
I saw PS as a gentle conversation between Christians who embraced Evolution - - and those who lumbered under the dead weight of Young Earther concepts.
