Posted: Sep 12, 2019 12:39 pm
Jayjay4547 wrote:Hermit wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Hermit wrote:
If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?
In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.
What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?
Presumably you meant "millions". They don't matter. As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".
Doing so requires no great effort. It breaks no laws, and it does not destroy theism. As I mentioned at least twice already, the theory of evolution is not about where life originally comes from, but how it evolves. It is for that reason that the majority of Christians have no problem accepting it while still believing in a god, an uncaused cause that brought life, the universe and everything into existence.
When I started replying to your last post, I tried pointing out that TofE isn’t “atheist ideology” but that seemed pedantic so I started again. Now the confusion is persisting.
Let's recapitulate in the hope of clearing up your confusion: I pointed out that the theory of evolution is accepted by millions of Christians without damaging their faith, and therefore cannot be regarded as an atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. You countered by asking "What about the missions(sic) of theists who don’t accept TofE?" My reply to that was that as long as millions of Christians have no problems reconciling the theory of evolution with their faith in the existence of a Christian god, you know, the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology", the Christians who do have a problem with it don't matter. Recognising that your objection made no sense you now engage in what can only be termed a Gish gallop, namely this:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The theory of evolution as AR Wallace developed it, was the best available explanation for the palaeontological record. That Darwin had long been developing a very similar theory, but had hesitated to present it, shows how entangled he was, as a more significant social figure, in the controversy the theory would raise in Victorian society. Anyway, Darwin presented the theory very persuasively in Origins. In the decade before publishing Descent, Darwin found a powerful and effective ally in the agnostic TH Huxley, and some opposition from Christians. My argument is that Darwin presented a picture in The Descent of Man, that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, while also incidentally, supporting the male-dominated and imperial-minded British establishment. It’s from then that the influence of atheist ideology on the theory can be observed and traced.
Darwin's seminal publication was not titled "On the Origin of Life". It was titled "On the Origin of Species", and that is a fundamental fact you keep ignoring. It is true, as you point out, that Darwin's theory presented a picture that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, but again, this does not make his theory an atheist ideology for the same reason I cited before. To wit: As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".
It is becoming increasingly obvious that you cannot define that thing you label "atheist ideology". You now even deny explicitly that the theory of evolution is not it and retreat into a vague assertion that it might be
Jayjay4547 wrote:...how the human origin story being offered to them in terms of evolution, is laced with what is food for atheists but poison to their belief.
Wow! What is left of the presumed "atheist ideology" now? A poison that Christian fundies perceive, but somehow does not affect the vast majority of members of all mainstream Christian denominations?
Surveys are hard to come by, so I go to the statements of the leaders of the Anglican and the Catholic Church.
When asked "Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?", the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams replied: "Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."
Turning to the Catholic Church, it laid out its official view in the papal encyclical "Humani Generis", wherein Pope Pius XII laid out the Catholic Church's accommodation with Darwinian evolution—provided Christians believed the individual soul was not the product of purely material forces, but a direct creation by God.
Between your prevarications and what church leaders actually say about the matter, you don't appear to have a leg to stand on.