Should those who accept modern science and evolution?

Question

even bother trying to explain it to the Fundamentalist Theists among us?

Their typical question is "If you don't believe in God then how did we get here?"

Since their explanation involves a talking snake, does it really even justify a response?

Wouldn't it make more sense to tell them to rethink that talking snake bit and then come back when they have a better explanation that doesn't sound like Mother Goose?

I am definitely of the opinion that the person with the talking snake story is the one who has some explaining to do, and not the other way around.

Answer 1

as far as I know apes dont talk either, the person who thinks apes became speakers needs to do some further explaining too..

Answer 2

1. Why it should disturb it is the truth. How come a man come from a monkey. First of all creation of evolution itself is a theory. it is not a well established fact. Till date none of the science can able to proove that man has came from monkey. 2. Since I am rejecting Evolution it doesn't mean that I accept that the world is existing just from 6,000 years. This has been mentioned only in the Bible and the bible itself is manipulated and corrupted state. So you can't take the words in the bible as totally 100% correct. It may be right or wrong. But in the case of the evolution it is 100% wrong. 3. God created the world in six days and on the seventh day he went for rest. First of all if any person requires something then he can't be god. God is the one who doesn't require anything to fulfill his needs. He is omnipotent and needless. As far as six days are concerned it is possible. For god to create a world like this is possible with in a second also.

Answer 3

I agree with you absolutely, but that is because we are coming at this from a rational viewpoint.

I think the real sticking point for them is the fact that their grand father was a monkey aspect of evolution.

This means that we are all animals, no different from all the other animals except for highly developed communication skills.

The fundies do not like this. They want to be special, different from all the other creatures on the planet.

The other aspect of this is that evolution has not stopped. It is improbable that we are the ultimate life form that will ever exist on this planet.

Again this concept is an anathema to the fundies. They want to be the top, the pinnacle of the universe, designed in God's image. The ultimate (after God that is. LOL)



The ironic thing is that they are quite happy conceiving the inconceivable with an infinite God. But when it comes to conceiving how long 3.5 billion years is, a very big but definitely finite time, they totally fail to realize just how much can happen in that time.

Answer 4

The difficult I have with "modern science" and evolution is the similarity, as in your question, with the principles of mythology. It's not only the snake whose reputation is being used as a "fundamental" building block of the universe we live in. If you understood the scientific approach as a mindset, rather than as a preferred vocabulary, the aspect of passage of time might be more to the point than analysis of entities or groups. Time distortion is a feature of hypnosis, epilepsy, dyslexia etc. Experiment as a word is related to experience, which means "ex peril." Therefore, it would be appropriate to define the subject matter in a more workable fashion. Who is "us"? How do you know what fundamentalist theists believe? I take it that the "talking snake bit" is the definition of what a fundamentalist theist believes.

The whole thing reeks of black and white thinking, which is not evidence of a healthy scientific mindset. I prefer science in practice to a scientific ego.

Answer 5

Try all you want. "Science" is indisputable and any reasonable Christian (yes, we do exist) will accept truth. The problem comes when a "scientific" idea has been accepted by many but has no basis in truth. Take Darwinian evolution for example. First, we must show that Darwinian evolution is different from "evolution," it is more specialized in it's definition. Second, we must look at the general scientific community's opinion on the matter:

Prof. L.H. Matthews, in a Forward to a recent edition of "Origin of Species" : "Belief in evolution is...exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to present, has been capable of proof."

Prof. Andree Tetry: "In point of fact none of the theories we have been discussing provides and entirely satisfactory account of all the facts of evolution."

Dr. Pierre Gavaudan: The [Darwinian] theory is incapable of giving anything better than a highly fictional description of the origin of these remarkable arrangements.

Pierre Paul Grasse: Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution...some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposefully overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsities of their belief.

Grasse: When is Darwinian doctrine going to be subjected to a thorough, critical re-evaluation?

Prof C. P. Martin: Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution.

Dr. W.R. Thompson, in the introduction to the 1956 "Origin of Species": Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce paleontological evidence sufficient to prove his views...the evidence he did produce was adverse to them.

and the list goes on...

The reason intellectuals reject Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with theism or talking snakes. It has to do with lack of scientific backing and evidence.

Answer 6

All throughout history religions have been holding back scientific progress and spawning fanatics that kill in the name of some imaginary being. YES we should bother! It is time to fight these silly superstitions for the sake of the survival of our species.

Bush can launch a nuclear missile on a moments notice. Middle Eastern countries are trying to acquire this technology and it is INEVITABLE that they will get it. The weapons that science has provided DEMAND that we, as people of reason, take responsibility for them. It is time to bring the superstitious in and educate them or EVERYONE will pay the price.

Answer 7

how are modern science and evolution that closely related, the study of evolution is only used in a few biological studies, one does not need to accept evolution to accept modern science.

While I am not saying I do not believe evolution is the most vaild explanination of how we got here, the concept of an ancient bacteria, having the knowabouts to evolve is hard to swallow. Because if the process of evolution was encoded in its DNA, how did it get encoded, random chance. Evolution is a good theory and the best one we got, but it is not full proof

Answer 8

Yeah, it is amusing when they say there's "no proof" for evolution.
But you shouldn't be stubborn, go on and concede the point- talking snakes are common. No big deal. And a lot of times I have to tell god to quit talking so I can get to sleep.

Answer 9

Actually, it used to be that that talking snake had a better genetic make up made for survival.. the reason it talked was because the ones that didn't talk were eaten by the newly brought dinoplatypus, a secret lynk that the scientists are just finding out, it would eat the non-talking sankes.. you see evoultion and bible can work together right??

Evolution sounds just as rediculous to those brought up with creation point of view as for you being brought up atheist..

try praying... whats 5 minutes of your life..

Answer 10

So that's what your decision is based off of, a talking snake? If he can raise from the dead how hard is it to have a snake talk? So God didn't create the earth? Let's see, matter has always existed, it never was created, it just is and was, and every once in a while something happens to have it create a universe that creates intelligent beings that can talk about it.

Answer 11

Thank you

They think "god did it" is a legitimate answer and requires no further discussion to prove their point

The burden of proof is on those who are trying to prove something, not those trying to disprove it.