(G.K. Chesterton)

Alan said, “There it is. According to you, I’m only claiming to be a Christian. Those are your words. “claimed to be a Christian.” This is where the truth comes out. What you imply is, you’re not a real Christian.
I’m not implying anything. All I have is your claim….I don’t know you and have nothing by which to discern whether you are Christian or not, hence the statement, you “claim” to be Christian simply stating that I do not know this to be or not to be the case. In seeing and understanding your defense of homosexuality and of evolution, you must know that you are in opposition to Classic Christianity. You are throwing out a lot of semantics here…..as the Creationist would more typically than not also be a Christian…so, for the purpose of this topic, I was using the 2 terms (Creationist and Christian) interchangably. What point was it you were trying to make by the statement, “But then, I’m sure you don’t believe in atoms either…after all, they’re never discussed in the Bible!”??? What did I mischaracterize in that statement? Was this not a personal attack? This is an ad hominem attack not pertinent to the debate.

As for not flincing at my accusation that your actions aren’t exactly loving, I’m not surprised. More’s the pity. I’m sure that it would never occur to you that this person whom you only think of as some “gay evolutionist” might actually deserve a little respect as a child of God. I’m sure that it would never occur to you to actually read what I write carefully, rather than just jump to conclusions and making assumptions because of your preconceived notions about me.
…..simply more tripe and ad hominem attacks and straw men……making statements I’ve never made…but you play the victim quite nicely….
And I never stated I didn’t agree with James White…..I think it was an excellent article which is why I posted it and linked to it in the first place. Your idea of believing in God and also embracing evolution simply doesn’t wash…..

For other treatments of the idea of evolution and “theistic evolution” see here and here and here.

But I’m not sure you’re interested in understanding what I write. I guess it’s easier to debate a caricature of what I’ve said than what I’ve actually written.

Mike, here’s where you’re wrong, I’m not confusing science with evolution. I’m a scientist (I’m sure that will be one more strike against me, in your book…) I have a BS in Chemistry, an MS in Macromolecular Science in Engineering and I’m working on a PhD in Chemistry. Really, I do know something about science. And, I know something about teaching science as I’ve got an MA in Teaching, and I used to teach high school (A gay guy teaching High School…that must really have you quaking! LOL)

Evolution is a theory. “Theory” as I am using the word: (Websters) “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” In other words, a theory is a hyothesis that has been supported by evidence. A theory can direct our scientific inquiry, and organize our thoughts about a particular topic. Notice (before you misread or misquote me) I did not say a theory was “proven.” Scientific theories can never be proven true, however, they can be proven false. And in fact, the test of whether or not an idea qualifies as a scientific theory is that it must be able to be disproven. Scientific theories change all the time, and in fact it is this constant improvement in our understanding that drives scientific research. For example, our understanding of atoms has evolved from thinking of them as hard little spheres all the way to quantum mechanics. Scientific theories change. Thus one does not “believe” in scientific theories unless one is completely unknowledgeable about the scientific enterprise.

I “believe” in things that are unchangeable. I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ… I don’t believe in evolution, and no one should. Nor do I believe in those theories known as “Creationism” and no one should.

I’ve been to lots of classrooms, read both sets of national science benchmarks for high school, read the Michigan Standards, and no where did I ever see evolution ever mentioned as anything but a theory. Most teachers I know are petrified to even mention evolution for fear that they’ll be fired. Which is, I am sure, precisely what Creationists want.

Creationism as a “theory”, rests on an assumption that God created the world, which is not disprovable … thus not science. That’s my beef with Creationists. They take scientific theory and mischaracterize it as scientific truth. Then they attempt to create this theory called “Creationism” and try to convince people that theory is the truth.

Why is this dangerous? It leads people to believe that science is about seeking truth, when in fact it is about seeking knowledge. It leads people to believe that science seeks certainty, when the best it can give us is probability. Because it leads people to place more trust in science than it deserves, oddly enough exactly the opposite of what Creationists intend. Creationists want people to believe in Creationism. Scientists expect people to doubt science.

Then Creationists turn their pet “theory” into an article of faith, which if you don’t believe, you’re only claiming to be a Christian.

As for your snide dig about Greek, however you know very well that I believe an understanding of the Greek Testement requires an understanding of Greek. Once more you mischaracterize what I’ve said, and this time you take what I’ve said in a private email to you in an attempt to portray me as someone I am not.

You write: “since you’ve claimed to be a Christian and in my 2 encounters with you, you have chosen to A. support homosexuality and claim the Bible does not speak against it and B. that evolution is “the best scientific explanation we have right now on the origin of species, but I certainly don’t “believe” in it. I’m simply a Christian who believes God gave me a brain in order to use it.” you’ll understand if I don’t flinch at you condemning my “actions as unChristian.”"

There it is. According to you, I’m only claiming to be a Christian. Those are your words. “claimed to be a Christian.” This is where the truth comes out. What you imply is, you’re not a real Christian. In order to tell who is real and who is only claiming to be Christian is the assumption that you can judge whether or not I’m truly saved. Interesting. I’m not claiming to be a Christian anymore than you “claim” to be a Christian. I simply am a Christian, as I believe you are.

As for not flincing at my accusation that your actions aren’t exactly loving, I’m not surprised. More’s the pity. I’m sure that it would never occur to you that this person whom you only think of as some “gay evolutionist” might actually deserve a little respect as a child of God. I’m sure that it would never occur to you to actually read what I write carefully, rather than just jump to conclusions and making assumptions because of your preconceived notions about me.

Need an example of how you have misquoted me and obviously not read what I wrote? Here’s one: I would never try to paint the “‘Christian’ side of this debate as one ‘not believing in atoms since they aren’t mentioned in the Bible.’”

You put quotes around it, as if I said that. I didn’t. That would indeed be a straw man argument. However, it is not one that I ever tried to make. Look — here is a prime example of you not reading my post. I never said anything like “Christians don’t believe in atoms.” I would never make such a stupid claim. Reread my post, Mike. What I said was that YOU probably don’t believe in atoms. (though I’m glad to see I might be wrong.) In fact, everywhere in that post I talk of your point of view as the Creationist one, not the Christian viewpoint. I think you seriously misread my post.

Of course claiming that Christians don’t believe in atoms would be stupid, I know zillions of Christians who see quantum mechanics as the best explanation for matter at the atomic (and subatomic) level, just as I know zillions of Christians who see evolution as the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. It is you who are trying to paint the Christian (read that TRUE-Christian vs. those of us who only “claim” to be Christians) side of the debate as one in which a Christian must be against evolution.

(I’m not sure you know what a straw man is, Mike. Look, I’ve made several statements on here in which I’m simply stating my beliefs. If you choose to misinterpret them, that’s not my problem, but they aren’t straw man arguments. Straw man arguments are when a person creates a distorted caricature of the opposing side in order to knock it down.) Saying Christians don’t believe in atoms would be a straw man argument, for example. But I never said that, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you’d see that.

As for this being a quoted article, I know that. I assume if someone is going to quote an entire article, that they pretty much agree with what it says. Since you do, after all, say “Mr. White echoes my long-held beliefs and sentiments….”