Wow…just when I thought I’d heard absolutely everything that could possibly be said about the Terry Shaivo case. I hadn’t considered the idea that someone would try to blame her case on evil-ution, but I guess I should have expected it. I think it was probably also the fault of the the freemasons, the Jews, the hole in the ozone layer, and The Simpsons.

Making this leap does nothing but demean the tragedy of the situation and attempt to exploit it. Sad, really.

Most don’t see a “leap” here as much as a logical progression that stems from the supposed “tenets” of the Theory of Evolution. The idea of “survival of the fittest” and the equation of man to the simplest animals have caused much prejudice over the years as well as lowered society’s value of human life. It is a natural outpouring of the theory. Speaking the truth about evolution does nothing to demean Terri’s battle or situation. So are you an evolutionist-Christian too? LOL

An evolutionist-Christian? Certainly not. Even if I were to think that such a thing should exist, I’d put Christian first. An “evolutionist,” I’m guessing, would be someone who “believes” in evolution. It’s 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. (A stunning revelation these days, alas.) I’m also someone who doesn’t deify science the way so-called “Creationists” do. I think the need to explain a theological understanding of Creation in scientific terms simply demonstrates a lack of faith in the language of Scripture, and an overdeveloped faith in the language of science. The problem with Creationism is not just that it is bad science, it is bad theology too.

In any event, linking Miss Shaivo’s situation to evolution is still a ridiculous leap. You call it “logical progression.” That progression requires someone to believe: Humans are descended from less highly evolved species therefore human life is not to be highly valued. That simply stupid. There is simply no reason to make that leap. Let’s be honest…what you really want to say is people who believe in evolution are murderers. When you put it that way, it demonstrates the silliness of the argument.

One could make the exact same argument: Christians believe in Heaven, therefore human life is not to be highly valued. And of course you wouldn’t make that leap, because it isn’t convenient for you to do so.

Silliness is equating a belief in Heaven with a teaching of “survival of the fittest.” You’re not even making sense….. and yes, it is a logical progression in the theory of evolution….after all, if we are indeed “evolving” then aren’t we at a more primitive state now that man will be in the future? We have not attained “perfection.” In evolution “we have evolved from animals and are still evolving.” To say that this doesn’t devalue human life is to have one’s head buried in the sand. I might add, that you, yourself, have made this argument on another of my posts……

Aside from the fact that most credible scientists today no longer embrace the theory of evolution as stated.

” Aside from the fact that most credible scientists today no longer embrace the theory of evolution as stated.” So many of you folks claim this, yet I never see any proof. Do scientists continue to modify their understanding of evolution as a scientific theory? Indeed! Of course! Just as they continue to modify their understanding of atomic theory… Scientific theories are always being modified (yet another reason they should never be considered articles of faith, as you Creationists would have us believe.) But then, I’m sure you don’t believe in atoms either…after all, they’re never discussed in the Bible!

“Silliness is equating a belief in Heaven with a teaching of “survival of the fittest.” I couldn’t agree more. Alas, that’s your doing, not mine. Evolution is a scientific theory. It’s you Creationists who are trying to make it into an article of faith. Thank you for making my point for me.

” if we are indeed “evolving” then aren’t we at a more primitive state now that man will be in the future? ” Please do some research on evolution before making uninformed statements. Evolution occurs by environmental pressures making it less likely that some traits are going to be passed on to the next generation. Most humans don’t live lives that are that tightly tied to environmental conditions. There are many human traits that have not been selected against through natural means because we are NOT tightly tied to environmental conditions.

“In evolution “we have evolved from animals and are still evolving.” Mike, you say I’ve made that argument? You use quotation marks around the phrase to indicate that I’ve said that? You’re lying and assuming that people aren’t going to read my previous posts (which they likely aren’t.) This is your blog, and you’re free to post what you like, but lying about my previous posts seems quite un-Christian. I can say catagorically, that I’ve never made such a statement, and I can only assume by your use of quotation marks that this was a direct quote directly attributed to me. Where?? That is simply untrue.

As for not making sense, you’re the one promoting 6 days of creation. I’d say it’s pot calling kettle black.

I see now you’ve posted about evolution. Not having made the case linking Miss Shaivo to evolution, you modify the debate. Typical. I look forward to reading what you choose to post on evil-ution.

Alan said, “You’re lying and assuming that people aren’t going to read my previous posts (which they likely aren’t.) This is your blog, and you’re free to post what you like, but lying about my previous posts seems quite un-Christian. I can say catagorically, that I’ve never made such a statement, and I can only assume by your use of quotation marks that this was a direct quote directly attributed to me. Where?? That is simply untrue.

I never attributed that quote to you, Alan….and, 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.” Secondly, of course it’s ludicrous and typical to try to paint the “Christian” side of this debate as one “not believing in atoms since they aren’t mentioned in the Bible.” To the contrary, the existence of atoms and subatomic particles (information to which Darwin was not exposed) further proves the complexity of life and creation and serves to stretch the mind’s credulity to the breaking point to put so much stock into a theory of chaos.

Alan stated, “I see now you’ve posted about evolution. Not having made the case linking Miss Shaivo to evolution, you modify the debate. Typical. I look forward to reading what you choose to post on evil-ution.

The debate has not been modified. This post is still open for comments and the debate has not been closed. So I don’t know what you’re talking about. For someone who likes leveling the charge of “building straw men” you certainly construct enough of them. Secondly, the post was written by someone else (stated in the post itself.) It seems, Alan, that perhaps you should read past the title of the post and stop assuming you know what was stated in the post……

Finally, a little truth under the smokescreen.

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….”

Perhaps, Alan, I was taught evolution incorrectly….you stated, “In evolution “we have evolved from animals and are still evolving.” Mike, you say I’ve made that argument? You use quotation marks around the phrase to indicate that I’ve said that? You’re lying and assuming that people aren’t going to read my previous posts” Though I didn’t attribute this quote to you, you still leaped to that assumption, when, in fact, this is simply what evolution itself states. Is it your intent to state that evolution does not purport that we have evolved from simple animals?

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.