We perhaps need to refer back to the implied premise of this discussion, i.e. John Gray's reference to the truth and the meaning of myth where, absolutely, there should be no emphasis placed on a literal meaning given to biblical account. David f quite validly refers to literal biblical belief as being quite incompatible with science - this point is fundamental to any polemic surrounding evolution and creationism. If we move from beyond this hurdle, which I fear biblical literalists are near unable to do (fortunately, A.J. shows us his escape from this binding literalism) we can perhaps further ruminate. '[M]yths can be more or less truthful in reflecting the human situation. In this sense the Genesis story is a truthful myth. It tells us that knowledge need not give humanity life or freedom; it may only bring slavery and death…'

Maybe we should be asking, "Is the more modern and secular myth of human progress dangerously shallow and superficial when attempting to address a deep emotional need.' I digress a little, but as also mentioned by Gray, the prohibition of torture is supposedly the mark of civilisation - G.W. Bush, however, 'fudged' this tenet and found little problem with the inquisitional torture method of water boarding . Can we take this as a mark of 'progressive' evangelical Christianity - or perhaps just an inept President regressing in order to favour a 'moral majority'? Just how far, in moral terms, have we really progressed and how thin the veneer of civilisation? Undoubtedly, those who perform in the name of a wrathful Allah or a powerful and retributive Judeo-Christian God are staunchly theistic. These performances, incidentally, are reckoned to be requisites for justice (and supposedly, ultimate peace). Where in fact does true morality lie - can it be through theistic belief or through atheistic belief? Perhaps ultimately, neither.

cont'd...

...cont'd

I find many a-theists to be not only highly evolved examples of intelligence, but tolerant and gentle of disposition. Theists, such as Issac Newton share a similar brilliance - but are of a different age and paradigm. Some here will have the perception as to who wrote the following - hopefully there is also the wit to grasp its reality, 'There is mystery in the universe, beguiling mystery, but it isn't capricious, whimsical, frivolous in its changeability. The universe is an orderly place and, at a deep level, regions of it behave like other regions, times behave like other times. If you put a brick on a table it stays there unless something lawfully moves it, even if you meanwhile forget it's there. Poltergeists and sprites don't intervene and hurl it about for reasons of mischief or caprice. There is mystery but not magic, strangeness beyond the wildest imagining, but no spells or witchery, no arbitrary miracles.'

Dan,

<<After another four posts of fervent support for evolution, your concluding comment concerned those out there with unshakable, fundamentalist-style beliefs (raise eyebrows!).>>

But Creationism has been debunked – evolution hasn't. So your point here is irrelevant.

<<This does partly explain the length of this thread, but I disagree that all such people are found on only one side of the argument.>>

There may be an extremely small minority on the evolutionist side but ALL on the Creationist side fit this description.

<<However, I would like to get away from using the term ‘fundamentalist’,...>>

OK. So where to now then?

<<as it carries little meaning outside of a particular context.>>

And perfect meaning in the context I used it in.

<<(Thanks, david f, for giving us some dictionary type definitions of the word, a few posts back...>>

Yes, and those dictionary definitions also supported my point.

<<These days the word ‘fundamentalist’ is often used as little more than an insult...>>

That doesn't mean it's not true, as I have clearly demonstrated.

<<You accused theists of having failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread.>>

Yes, and the more you post with arguments that I've already demonstrated to be false. The more you prove my point.

<<When I asked you to supply an example of this, you came up with ... Well, that’s your opinion.>>

But you haven't been able to dis-prove my opinion yet.

<<I believe evolution is largely held to for philosophical or historical reasons, but not for the force of evidence.>>

Then why don't you prove your belief with some evidence of your beliefs? Why can't Creationists come up with anything that seriously questions evolution?

<<But opinions and logic are a different category of beast.>>

That they are.

But until you can dis-prove my logic, you have no point here.

<<I’ll admit to not being able to follow your points very well, but it is impossible to ‘fail to accept basic logic’ until we are first presented with some.>>

I've presented plenty. Yet you can't give any examples of my lack of logic

Continued...

...Continued

<<If you want to find those with unshakable beliefs, have a look at those who posted comments above declaring evolution an established ‘fact’ in a similar sense to the testable and repeatable assertion that water boils at 100 Deg.>>

But they're opinions are based on evidence, yours aren't – which goes back to my point.

<<However, in you, AJ, I’m glad for having discovered an evolutionist that is so open to being persuaded of the possibility that it may be wrong.>>

We could all be wrong. It's a just pity that Theists can't accept that they could be too. Especially Creationists, who have no proof at all. Instead, Creationists/ Theists claim that their beliefs are The Ultimate Truth!

<<Yet I stand by what I said about modern science owing much of its beginnings to the European Christian mindset.>>

Yet you can't demonstrate this...

<<Science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium at a time when certain currents of thought came together>>

So why didn't those certain currents of thought arrive before that then, when Christianity took a strong hold in Europe? On the contrary, science and technology came to an almost total halt.

<<Crucial was the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator and therefore could be rationally interpreted. People began searching for the laws set in place by an orderly creator.>>

Davidf answered this well.

You're implying that without the the “orderly creator”, people would have never started studying science. This is absurd...

<<If there was no creator ... why should people have assumed that the universe contained any order?>>

...Because you can see it everywhere.

<<David f says, ‘biology rests on evolution’. I say codswollop!>>

Then tell us why it's “codswallop”?

The study of evolution has lead to many biological discoveries. Creationism has lead to virtually nothing.

<<...philosophy masquerading as knowledge.>>

Then prove that it's “philosophy masquerading as knowledge”. And while you're at it, try proving Creationism.

Creationism is the only philosophy masquerading as knowledge:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

Here's a 15 part video that debunks Creationist claims:

http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists&search_type=&search=Search

Dan,

I'm going to have you pre-empt you on an argument that I know you're going to come back with to help make this thread even longer, and give it the appearance that there is actually a serious debate.

I said: “So why didn't those certain currents of thought arrive before that [era] then, when Christianity took a strong hold in Europe?”

So I'll need to address the 'printing press' argument...

Well, I did bit of research on the printing press and found there was nothing that mentioned this significance; which let's face it, would be pretty damn significant if it had has such an impact. They never even mentioned it in the 'Historical Impact' section of this Wikipedia article either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#Historical_Impact

However, if you can prove your claims, then I would suggest that you edit this article to include them (along with a lot of reliable source references) as they would be quite significant.

I found many mentions of science being documented better since the founding of the printing press, which encouraged scientific research, but to assume that religion inspired all this is pure speculation. And remember, Dan, in a court of law (your previous analogy), speculation is dismissed.

So yes, the printing press did play a role in the beginnings of modern science, but to assume that there had to be a belief in an “orderly creator”, is highly presumptuous. It almost sounds as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe. If you're not implying this, then there is very little validity to you claim. Especially after all that Davidf pointed out.

Anyway, that's all I'll say for now. If I start talking about too much, you might forget about the examples and proof of your claims that I've requested above in my last response to you.

So I'll just leave you with a video of some evidence of evolution that left Creationists unable to respond – not even with their usual half-truths, misconceptions or 'God did it's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

AJ,
<<I found many mentions of science being documented better since the founding of the printing press, which encouraged scientific research, but to assume that religion inspired all this is pure speculation.>>

I know, I am quoting you out of context (in which Dan makes you defend evolution by attacking Christianity).

However, it is an interpretation of western history, you might or might not agree with (yes, you cannot verify that "inspiration" in a laboratory) but I do not think you can dismiss it as pure speculation. Many philosophers of science and history (of course, not all) will agree e.g. with Alfred North Whitehead:

"Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology." (Science and the Modern World).

Even if you call Whitehead's philosophy speculative you have to accept that he was respected by Bertrand Russell, and his process philosophy has recently had a "second coming" in philosophical debates.