tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post8918615979847058864..comments2024-03-27T06:28:06.962-05:00Comments on Homeward Bound: Do you know why you don’t believe?ChrisBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611311820554248004noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post-78989190964464636602012-09-24T21:26:13.556-05:002012-09-24T21:26:13.556-05:00A good post. I actually believe that if evolution ...A good post. I actually believe that if evolution is true, it was a mere tool God used in directing His creation. God influences our lives in so many ways small and great. Can He not influence small or great changes in dna?<br /><br />Ultimately, most YECs are just as bad as the extreme atheistic evolutionists. if you don't agree with them, they both will cast you out of their church and paint you as an apostate, ignorant, or both.Phil Swaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069567130220885554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post-68062424775223248102007-09-25T18:25:00.000-05:002007-09-25T18:25:00.000-05:00Proponents of naturalistic evolution are a notorio...Proponents of naturalistic evolution are a notoriously slippery bunch; they often use evidence for micro-evolution as if it supports macro-evolution. We do have to be diligent about making them define their terms and watch that they don't try to equivocate. <BR/><BR/>On the show, Strobel clearly stated that he meant macro-evolution, and he stayed consistent. My concern was when he equated naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution.<BR/><BR/>Like the new "beard" :-)ChrisBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04611311820554248004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post-4156325286606318862007-09-24T17:54:00.000-05:002007-09-24T17:54:00.000-05:00I think that part of this problem lies in the word...I think that part of this problem lies in the word "evolution" as it is defined. Strobel took it to mean macro-evolution--"a random, undirected, and purposeless process." Others take it simply to mean variation over time. You distinguish between Darwinian and theistic evolution. <BR/>Coming from a non-scientific educational background, I do not believe that the word has been well-defined, and I believe this is on purpose.<BR/><BR/>For example, I read a book recently on the topic of teaching evolution in school (the self-described "unbiased" book was for it). The author relied in heavy part on the slippery definition of evolution for many of his arguments. In one place, it meant cosmic evolution. In another, breeding dogs. He did not qualify his use of the word; it was left to the judicious reader to figure out what he was doing. When this technique is applied and not detected (and I find that it is applied a lot), any dissenting response can only be perceived by the establishment as Strobel's was: Ignorant, unintelligent, etc. <BR/><BR/>To his credit, Strobel defined against precisely what he was arguing. Instead of criticizing him, we should do as you do and define the term, or perhaps even better, make evolutionists define the term themselves. Hiding behind a slippery, ever-changing definition should always be called out and never accepted as the basis for an argument.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533252542115553519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post-54734618236174274112007-09-24T07:46:00.000-05:002007-09-24T07:46:00.000-05:00Strobel's books do deal with skeptical arguments, ...Strobel's books do deal with skeptical arguments, but I think his books would be stronger if he let actual skeptics make their case rather than trying to do it for them. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by!ChrisBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04611311820554248004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8196630391794341478.post-25200519702144775612007-09-24T06:12:00.000-05:002007-09-24T06:12:00.000-05:00I think Strobel does his readers a great disservic...I think Strobel does his readers a great disservice by portraying himself as an investigative journalist because it leads them to believe that he is giving them a balanced picture of both sides of the debate. I think Strobel's fans believe themselves to be well equipped to deal with skeptics' arguments, when in fact they don't what skeptics believe or why.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com