Of course, I agree with you, Jon, but my comment about the role of those who teach the basics of science, stressing compatibility with faith is necessary for many as a first step. Blogs like yours, and this one of Josh’s (and occasionally my own) do some of this but are more excited by and interested in the next step. which could be phrased as “the challenge of discernment”. I think both steps are useful; it could be confusing for many to see the second before fully incorporating the first. Sort of like trying to have a discussion of the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants with someone who never heard of Jesus Christ or the Gospels.
2 Likes
I see where you’re coming from, but when people have heard of Catholics and Protestants (like in most of the world) they’re quite likely to ask an explanation of “which religion is true” - that’s how they’ll ask it, but one will reply with a brief account of why there are differences, what is shared, and end in “mere Christianity”.
Nowadays, people are aware of scientific controversy, not to mention “science” v “creation science”, and I doubt it’s helpful in the long term simply to endorse the first, and scorn the latter, because one day they’ll discover that the adaptationists scorn the neutralists just as much!
2 Likes
Related to a more recent conversation too: The Paradox of Scientific Consensus.
i also have noticed in any subject of science there is controversy, anger/hurt feelings, and constant claims that the others got it wrong.
There is seldom consensus unless a long time later. LIKE GERMS are real. They all agree now.
There is no credibility at all to tell creationists anything is settled in origin subjects. Its as unsettled as anything and heaps more EVEN without creationist complaints.
In North america today origin issues are famous for division inn opinion. Its beyond famous.
I don’t think any subject in science is/ever was as contentious intellectually as origin conclusions.
rightly so!