Unsettling the Lines in Origins

Is disputing I.D. really necessary on this site?

If we accept that God created life using natural law AND miraculous engagement… I’m not sure it matters any more!

1 Like

I wasn’t really even disputing ID in that comment, just its reputation in response to Paul’s comments.

Reminder though: I’m an atheist, so…

3 Likes

Many atheist assist pro-evolution Christians explain science to Creationists… for the sake of promoting evolutionary awareness.

2 Likes

I’m fine with that, but “creationists” includes ID proponents in the broadest sense - they believe in some kind of “creation” by an intelligent designer, often the Christian God. Of course, ID is far less objectionable than classic Young-Earth Creationism, but still, I’m not on board.

2 Likes

@evograd

I think you would find ID proponents who DID agree that humans evolved over millions of years as important allies in discussions with YECs.

There are only 2 groups of ID folks that bother me now:

  1. Those who attempt to use ID to DISPROVE God could not have used evolution; and

  2. Those who talk about ID to veil the fact they oppose the idea of two viable Christian concepts of human creation: Special Creation and Evolution!

1 Like

Maybe they would be, but I’ve never really seen it happen. More often than not, ID proponents tend to publicly side with YECs on the basis of their shared belief in “design”, rather than siding with “evolutionists” on the basis of their shared belief in common ancestry of humans and apes, etc. That’s one of the reasons that they’re often lumped together. It also doesn’t help that the shadow of the Wedge document still hangs over them.

2 Likes

@evograd

Oh, I agree with you on that!

My hope is that on THIS site we can groom a new generation of Evangelical union…

1 Like

Evolutionary awareness, and plain old reasonable discussion. Creationism isn’t a problem science can solve, but the pro-evolution Christians have a bit more leverage.

1 Like

Part of our goal here is to unsettle and shift the lines in the current debate. This is one reason we welcome atheists here too.

There are diverse theological ideas put forward here, but in the science we seek to be as theologically neutral as possible. It is a disciplined approach to tolerance. We want to make space for those who think differently than us. We do require basic honestly, both in representing evidence and science.

There is high value in stamping out illogical, inaccurate, and deceptive arguments, even if they are ultimately arguing for something we think is correct. Erroneous arguments in service of truthful claims do much to cloud our understanding of truth. They undermine trust. In the end, it has never been enough to be right; we also have to be trusted.

However, interpretation of evidence outside of science can follow non-scientific rules, and incorporate other types of information. So, in the end, I do not think we will come to single unified conclusions to “believe in our hearts.” However, we might still come to see science as a place of common ground, where an honest, though partial, account of the world can be found. That is how we imagine what Peaceful Science might look like someday.

3 Likes

…and in history, and in philosophy, and… but, these things are best uncovered in mutually respectful dialogue. : )

1 Like