Will creationists ever realise that evolution is irrelevant to their beliefs?
Or at least most of their beliefs. I find it confusing how theists attack a proven observation, always starting with the creation of life. None of them seem to realise that evolution is not the description of the formation of life. It merely explains how life can change from one form to another, ending up with a diversity of life such as that found on Earth, starting from a very few simple organisms or a single simple organism. Evolution has nothing to do with the appearence of life itself, just what happened after the fact.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
»
- Vastet's blog
- Login to post comments
Nietzsche wrote that a man
Nietzsche wrote that a man only has to have a need for a belief to hold it to be true. Evolutionary theory refutes the genesis account of life. Therefore, to be a fundamentalist, one must reject evolutionary theory, no matter the evidence.
Can someone reinterpret the genesis account to fit evolutionary theory, by taking artistic license with the words in the account? Of course, and some theists have done this.
So to me, the differnce is where one chooses to depart from reality.
A fundy might choose to take genesis as literally true, and then decide to be 'scientific' from there on out. The actual outcome is that the fundy must remain ignorant of real science, and warp whatever bits he does know to fit his belief.
A liberal theist may instead take genesis as 'poetry' and simply retrofit science into the account.
So in the first case, one decides to warp science to fit the bible, and in the second, one warps the literal meaning of the bible to fit the science.
So it would seem to relate to where one feels comfortable warping reality. The fundy has no problem warping secular claims, whereas the liberal is more open to accepting science and retrofitting his bible.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'