tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post5681764009275809029..comments2023-03-28T04:45:24.131-04:00Comments on Deus Decorus Est: Asa Gray's Thoughts on EvolutionSpeaker for the Deadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10032990561585099482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-18180241085807636192015-11-16T22:40:45.886-05:002015-11-16T22:40:45.886-05:00Great quotes collection. Thanks for sharing!!Great quotes collection. Thanks for sharing!!Evolution quoteshttp://www.quoteschart.com/evolution-quotes/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-50403184395091168462008-01-06T15:26:00.000-05:002008-01-06T15:26:00.000-05:00Well, in my experience, the ID movement has been v...Well, in my experience, the ID movement has been very prominent in Christian "thinking." I think it's important that being a "theistic evolutionist" or whatever is not making a heretical concession to naturalism or anything.<BR/><BR/>It is important to focus on what Christianity is. But how people perceive Christianity completely affects whether or not they will be willing to even consider what Christianity really is.<BR/><BR/>If Christianity is <I>falsely</I> seen as incompatible with science, it is very important, in my mind. I guess this is sort of like "becoming all things to all men."<BR/><BR/>I'm not recommending we believe Christianity on false premises. But what can the ID movement gain? I don't think they've convinced anyone outside of their camp, and they have repelled people from Christianity. So unless they think that anti-evolutionism is necessary for salvation, I think they should just drop it.Speaker for the Deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032990561585099482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-6360494896989525162008-01-06T10:12:00.000-05:002008-01-06T10:12:00.000-05:00Interesting... when I was reading this, I was hone...Interesting... when I was reading this, I was honestly thinking, man this is really really old news, because I don't really know of any proper theologians today who argue against evolution (though I know Plantinga has argued that if we are to think we have any tendency towards truth, it must have been guided). Sure there are fundamentalists, but why they argue probably has little to do with rational thinking, either pragmatic or theological. <BR/><BR/>As far as both your own comments and Glass's I have a tough time seeing the pragmatic sort of arguments as admissible into any discussion. Who cares how people see Christianity? Isn't it more important just to focus on what Christianity really is? <BR/><BR/>In other words, I don't really think the fact that Christianity wouldn't flourish if it is *seen* as incompatible with science is an argument for anything one way other the other; if Christianity actually is incompatible with science then it should be seen as such and probably rejected. <BR/><BR/>At the very least the people who would consider incompatibility with science grounds for rejection should in fact reject it. Believing Christianity on false premises shouldn't be seen to benefit anyone, should it? <BR/><BR/>In any case I agree that Christianity is not incompatible with science, so the pragmatic discussion is somewhat moot. <BR/><BR/>Look forward to your response.Spaceman Spiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02195067716296117149noreply@blogger.com