87
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 176:
Line 176: + +
Talk:Question evolution! campaign (view source)
Revision as of 22:20, September 14, 2011
, 22:20, September 14, 2011→A Purported Biologist's Response to the "15 Questions"
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)