Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
It seems that October is most often this group’s month for dealing with weighty topics that have been of importance to the group for a little while.  Last year our October topic was about evolutionary PRATTs, the tendency of some evolution supporters to rely on arguments that are just as faulty as what’s typical of creationists, and the year before that it was about James Watson and whether what happened to him was fair.  This year’s October entry follows the same pattern, covering an issue that has been relevant to this group for a long time, especially recently.

As is stated in the summary on the group’s main page, this group has always had a neutral position towards religion in general.  We neither advocate it nor oppose it, although we obviously oppose religiously-based attacks on science such as creationism.  What this amounts to in terms of our guidelines for submissions is that we’ll accept submissions that display either a pro-religion or anti-religion viewpoint, as long as they’re relevant to evolution.  In general, this group seems to be more popular among atheists than it is among religious people, so we tend to receive more submissions with an atheistic point of view than with religious point of view.  But when we receive submissions related to theistic evolution, as long as they meet the rest of this group’s guidelines, we always accept them also.

In August, this group had its first example of someone leaving the group because they opposed our position about this.  (I won’t say who it was, in case they would prefer that their identity be kept private.)  What they opposed specifically was our having accepted this stamp submitted by Dogss, and the theistic evolution perspective that it portrays.  I suspect that the person who left the group would have been willing to stay if we had removed this stamp from our gallery, but as unfortunate as it is for this group to lose members, we consider our principle about neutrality with regard to religion too important to be willing to change it.

This incident has made me realize something, though:  I don’t think we’ve ever explained why we’ve chosen to take the position about this that we do.  This is something that deserves to be explained, both for the sake of anyone else who might consider leaving the group because of our position about it, and more generally in case there’s anyone else who’s curious about it.

The most basic premise of our position about this is that creationism is much more harmful than Christianity in general.  (I would make a broader statement about all religions, but Christianity is the only one that’s really relevant here, since all of the theistic evolution submissions we’ve received have been Christian-themed.)  I think one of the best explanations I’ve written about the harm which can be done by creationism is one that I posted at Christian Forums here.  This thread was written for the benefit of one specific person who was both a Christian and a creationist, so it’s written to explain how creationism is harmful from a Christian point of view, but most of the problems with creationism that I’ve described there are problems regardless of one’s perspective.  Because the most basic assumption behind creationism is that we must trust a written account (the Bible) more than we trust direct observation—and this is part of the official doctrine of creationist organizations such as Answer in Genesis—the mindset behind creationism interferes with cognitive processes that are vital to many other aspects of life.  And if a person ever does realize through direct or indirect observation that creationism is false, while also having been taught to believe that creationism is essential for salvation, the consequences can be disastrous.

What about Christianity in general?  From the fact that I deconverted from Christianity in 2002, it should be clear that there are certain things about Christianity that I disagree with, and the same is true of most religions in general.  However, what I’ve come to realize over the past eight years is that it’s possible to be a Christian in a way that avoids most of the problem that are often associated with Christianity.  Christians can avoid allowing their religion to interfere with science if they aren’t creationists, Christians can avoid allowing their religion to affect how they treat homosexuals if they believe that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexuality refers only to the type of homosexuality that existed in Roman times (which involved pedophilia), and Christianity does very little harm as long as these sorts of things are avoided.  As I pointed out in my entry from December of last year, under some circumstances religion can even be beneficial, as is demonstrated both by programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and by the central role that Christianity played in the fall of communism in eastern Europe 20 years ago.

Even though Emily and I both personally disagree with Christianity, our position for this group is that in the absence of doctrines such as creationism, Christianity is harmless enough that it would be a waste of effort for us to try and fight it.  And more importantly, if we wish to fight creationism as effectively as possible, we will be able to do this far more effectively if we remain neutral towards Christianity as a whole than if we were to try and fight it also.

There are two reasons for this, and the most obvious is that if we tried to attack all of Christianity, we would be alienating one of our largest and most devoted groups of potential allies.  Worldwide, most Christians are not creationists, and the most vocal opponents of creationism are often the Christian theistic evolutionists who are aware of how harmful creationism is to Christianity.  Kenneth R. Miller is one of the best examples of this.  People like Kenneth Miller attack creationism on grounds that are not only scientific, but also theological, arguing that it’s incorrect to believe that the beginning of Genesis should be interpreted literally.  Atheists tend to overlook this line of reasoning, either because they aren’t familiar enough with Christian theology to argue it convincingly, or because they see no point trying to get Christians to change their interpretation of the Bible when they think Christians ought to abandon the Bible entirely. But for anyone who cares about fighting creationism rather than Christianity in general, this is a line of reasoning that should not be overlooked, which brings me to my second point.

One of the most basic principles of human nature related to debating with creationists is that if you care about convincing a person of something, attacking their entire system of beliefs is not the way to do it.  Most people are far more reluctant to change their entire system of beliefs than they are to change one specific aspect of it, so if people who argue against creationism create the impression that they expect others to abandon Christianity entirely, they’re less likely to succeed.  On the other hand, if it can be explained to a creationist how evolution is compatible with Christian theology, this will make them all that much less resistant to it.  I think this is a very general principle of persuasion:  the less a new idea requires a person to abandon their existing beliefs, and the more it can be shown to be consistent with what they believe already, the more likely they are to accept it.

The classical example of how effective this method of persuasion can be is a scene from the Bible, in which the apostle Paul preaches to the Romans on Mars Hill in Acts 17.  The ancient Romans worshipped dozens of different gods, all of whom they believed had to be offered sacrifices regularly, because gods who did not receive enough sacrifices would get angry and cause misfortune.  The Romans were afraid that they might fail to sacrifice to certain gods because of not knowing about them, so in order to avoid this risk they included an altar labeled “To an unknown god.”  Even though Paul certainly would have disagreed with the Romans’ worshipping multiple gods, he decided that rather than trying to get the Romans to abandon this idea, he had a better chance of convincing them to worship the Christian god if he were to introduce this god to them as the god that they were already worshipping without knowing its identity.  According to acts 17, Paul had a fair amount of success with this method.

The version of Christianity Paul taught to the Romans probably included creationism, although it wasn’t any less scientific than most other ideas about the origin of the world that existed in the first century A.D.  But even though this time the Christian creationists are the ones setting up metaphorical altars based on false beliefs, we can still learn a lot from Paul’s method of dealing with this.

Now that I’ve explained the reasoning behind our group’s policy of neutrality towards religion, here is this month’s question: What do you think of our policy about this?  This policy is such a fundamental part of our group that it’s unlikely we would be willing to change it, but I’m still interested in hearing other people’s viewpoints about it.
Add a Comment:
 
:icon2lookup:
2lookup Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2015  Professional Artist
Neutrality is a decent position to try and take.
Knowing what that is, or if it's really possible is another question.

Frankly I think if one says they're "anti-" this or that kinda takes one out of the neutral position a bit. but honestly so.
Reply
:iconthecapewildman:
TheCapeWildMan Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2011
This is a response to RaptorArts. I am posting it here as he has decided to block me without allowing me the courtesy of putting a reply to him.

"Childish"? So by calling my responses childish, is this not showing that you are being defensive and that you are uncomfortable with me as a Christian challenging your claims?

There are plenty of scientists out there with fully qualified degrees, whoa re very much science-minded, who are also Christians. Your metaphysical naturalism has no more weight than religion because it is unscientific. You can't test whether metaphysical naturalism is true or not, just as you can't test God to see whether He is true.

The world is not as black-or-white as you seem to think. :-)

Peace.
Reply
:iconthecapewildman:
TheCapeWildMan Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2011
It's great that the group be neutral. I agree with your sentiments. :)
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2010
I like the neutrality.

I dislike religion and do not think religion can be compatible with science when one is based on fairy tales and the other is based on knowledge.

But I like the group and frequently comment on pieces posted here.:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconmiyess:
Miyess Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2010   Digital Artist
I fully support your policy of neutrality. In fact, it was one of the reasons I joined in the first place.

This group has been home to Christians, atheists, & agnostics brought together by a particular objection to creationism. As Agahnim said; our personal feelings about religion shouldn’t matter here. What matters most from a practical standpoint, is what sort of policy will be most effective for an anti-creationism group. If we wish to fight creationism as effectively as possible, we will be far more successful if we remain neutral towards Christianity as a whole. Taking an entirely anti-Christian attitude, would alienate one of our largest and most devoted groups of potential allies, and certainly mean losing the support of Christian members who oppose creationism (Such as myself).

Creationism is harmful no doubt about it. But the people involved in these debates tend to think ALL Christians are creationists. Not so. It tends to only be those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. The rest of us have no problem with science, and keeping our religious beliefs out of it. Hell, I’m currently in my third year of a BSc. in Evolutionary Biology at university. My passion is palaeontology; here are some of my contributions to this group: [link] & [link]

It is true that most Christians are not creationists, & the most vocal opponents of creationism are often the Christian theistic evolutionists who are quite aware of how harmful creationism is to both Christianity & Science (Dr. Kenneth Miller is a perfect example of this, not only attacking creationism on the grounds that it is not scientific, but also arguing that it’s incorrect to interpret the Bible literally).

I have long been a vocal opponent of creationism. This month’s journal comes at an interesting time, with me just having posted this journal entry; [link]
Here are a few other instances of me opposing creationism; [link] , [link]
And my favourite; [link] & [link]

Though I may not care for the person who caused this ruckus over a stamp, I’ll say this; to each his own. There’s always going to be extremes on either side, be it hard core atheists, or fundamentalist Christians. I’m indifferent to the stamp, but I have to agree with Sinande when she said; “I'm a bit puzzled by the mindset that would make someone quit this group because of that stamp. Seriously? I don't even interpret the stamp as a pro-religion statement so much as one that says "creationism isn't the only way to be a Christian", ...but if you quit the group because of that stamp, you're just an oversensitive twit.”
Reply
:iconwethrildae:
Wethrildae Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2010
Science: knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

I understand the supposed futility of defining words in an discussiont, but I find it beneficial to first agree on the grounds upon which you're discussing. If we can at least agree on some semblance of that definition then I think it's safe to continue...

I nae mind the neutrality of this group...but it is a great disappointment to see the subtle introduction of over-intuitive, paranormal, supernatural explanations and processes in science. Science(the verb) is contingent upon testable theories and hypotheses...repeatable observations and experiments that produce a rich database of evidence in support or in refute of ideas. Since when is the existence or non-existence of a god or deity testable or subject to experiments? Perhaps the wonderland of quantum and string theory physics has dulled us (in some cases) of our responsibilities and liabilities to the overall quantitative method of science. I fear that these compromises do not so much supply better relations with our fellow Homo sapiens, but are, in truth, the harbinger of the overall erosion of cognitive, logical thought.

It was through cognitive thought...through logic that Darwin envisioned his 'tree'. It was in the face and in spite of dogma and superstition that his and Wallace's theory prevailed.
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
I also disagree with anything that supports religion. I Joined this group because it is based on science and fact and from what I thought was a purely atheistic viewpoint. Now I see I was wrong and this is disturbing to me as well as whomever the one person was that left. This is the DOMAIN of DARWIN hence evolution through science not theistic pov's. Science is fact. Theism religious fantasy's are hogwash and should never be accepted as fact. Once again I am very disappointed in this group for allowing anything god or religious related on here.
Reply
:iconkiyarasabel:
KiyaraSabel Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Need I point out Darwin himself pretty devoutly believed in god?
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
read up in your history books cause thats false.
Reply
:iconkiyarasabel:
KiyaraSabel Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
He wasn't a religious man, but he was definitely a Theist.
Reply
:iconewilloughby:
EWilloughby Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2010  Professional General Artist
It's a common misconception that evolution is inherently atheistic. It's important to remember that evolution and all of the science accompanying its theories do not claim to know how or why evolution began, but seek only to explain how it works and has worked in the past. I don't think we would accept any images in our group that sought to fill gaps or unexplained phenomena in evolution with religion - that's treading too close to intelligent design, which we actively disapprove of. As Agahnim already tried to point out, creating a hostile condition in this group for religious people would be completely counterproductive because our goal is ultimately to eradicate creationism, not Christianity, and religious hostility will never accomplish that. Talk Origins, the largest and most respected anti-Creationism website on the internet, also agrees that evolution (and all of science) is not inherently atheistic: [link]
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
Theres far more science behind evolution than any kind of made up nonsense for religion. I just feel that evolution and Atheism should be one and the same. We may not be able to explain all the things but we will in time with the advancement of technology. I prefer not to have my head in the clouds and living in the dark ages. I see life as it really is. Not some gray area "What If". Sure there's lots of gray area but its slowly becoming black and white with more and more factual scientific discoveries. As for attacking Christianity that's their problem. If people of different religions don't like it they can bugger off and live the lies that have been told to a primitive people from the past and to the children of the present. Religion should be abolished. The only good religion is no religion and that's a fact I will stand by to the day I die.
Reply
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
or, you know, they can just skin you alive and burn you on a stake

they are still in the majority
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
Unfortunately that is true. The religious peasants are the majority. I hope one day the human race will come to its senses and realize theres no god no heaven or hell.
Reply
:icongodofwarlover:
godofwarlover Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2010
That will be the day humanity is extince because mankind will still believe in sonme form of god or afterlife. Religious beliefs are part of the evolution of man and sentient beings. Many people will rather die than to get rid of their beliefs
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
so let them die and as humanity destroys itself through its pathetic beliefs in gods, devils, demons, angels and all that bullshit, hopefully some of us who have common sense to know facts from fiction will survive but its unlikely.
Reply
:icongodofwarlover:
godofwarlover Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2010
Neanderthals even believed in a form of god. Ever heard of Venus of Willendorf? [link]

In Primal Rage, The Dinosaurs and Apes in that game were worshipped as gods

You also against Buddhism, which is a less violent religion, but has a nutcase group called Aum Shinrikyo?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
the chances for it are really small

some facts are too horrifying for the average human being to accept, it's a self defence mechanism of the human mind
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
If you want to be part of a group that’s specifically about attacking religion, you should consider joining one of DA’s atheism groups, such as #dAtheist, #Atheist-Artists, or #atheist-alliance. DA has quite a few anti-religion groups, so people who are looking for that sort of group will be able to find one even if Domain of Darwin isn’t this way. But on the other hand, I don’t think DA has any other evolution groups that are neutral with regard to religion. So if we were to make this group a copy of DA’s atheist groups, those of our members who prefer this group the way it currently is would have nowhere else to go.
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Professional Artisan Crafter
Thanks for listing those 3 groups I just joined all of them.
Reply
:iconthecapewildman:
TheCapeWildMan Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2011
Saying that evolution is atheistic is unscientific, because you can't provide evidence to show that evolution is truly atheistic. Your claim is purely metaphysical and is not science.

The millions of Christians who accept evolution also shows that your claim is fallacious, for they see evolution as compatible with their religion. Why? Because evolution is NOT atheistic.

I would even go as far as to say that you do not understand evolution, RaptorArts, because all evolution concerns itself with is the diversity of life. It does not concern itself with the supernatural, as that is not what it is about.
Reply
:iconraptorarts:
RaptorArts Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2011  Professional Artisan Crafter
And why are you telling me this?
I am an Atheist to the core.
I believe in only science and what is real.
I dont believe in religous faith or any of that bullshit, thats for primitives.
Reply
:iconthecapewildman:
TheCapeWildMan Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2011
LOL

How old are you?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconvoidrae:
Voidrae Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I would assume that if you attack a religion because of a disagreement you have with some beliefs by some members, you completely discredit any claim for neutrality you might have. It's better to accept people's thoughtful and positive religious approaches, because you cannot eradicate religion. You can, however, try and "train" people to express their religion in less harmful ways by addressing specific and logically understandable issues. You can't teach a dog not to chew, but you can teach it what is and isn't acceptable to chew on.
Reply
:iconsizab:
Sizab Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
I definitely support a policy of neutrality, since I've seen my fair share of evolutionists be completely immature and in-your-face towards creationists, which I find a poor tactic for debating since no one is going to respect an aggressive attacker. (Stating that you don't believe there is a God is not attacking religion; generalizing that the followers of Christianity idiots, nincompoops, etc., is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not exactly a great way to change someone's mind when they gain the opinion that evolutionists are cynical jerks.)
As you pointed out, it's much easier to change a part of someone's life or ideas than to tell them to completely change how they think. Being overly aggressive will not gain anyone's respect.

And I love that stamp, I found it a humorous way to show that evolution and the concept of God (or whatever, I 'm agnostic) do not contradict each other.
Reply
:iconmesozoical:
Mesozoical Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2010
Definitely good for this group to remain neutral. Thank you. This is, after all, a group about evolution, not religion. Plus, as you stated, most Christians do believe in evolution. If you started favoring atheism, many people, myself included, would feel unwelcome and leave.

Also, anyone looking for a religious internet argument will not find one with me, so please do not even attempt to start one.
Reply
:iconhull612:
hull612 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Nice Quote form Jurassic Park!
Reply
:iconmesozoical:
Mesozoical Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
Heh, thank you!
Reply
:iconeshva:
Eshva Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think neutrality is the best, and in effect the only way to go. You have to meet in the middle, after all.

I don't see a problem with theistic evolution. Since I'm an atheist I don't believe in a shred of Christian doctrine, but as you say, I don't put much emphasis in hoping that others completely change their faith just because of my persuasion. That being said, I see theistic evolution as the lesser evil... in fact it's a giant step forward for religion in general. It's the first step in rational thought and examining physical surroundings, comparing them with long-held assumptions, and questioning; "is this really true?". Someone that has the brain to think, "I am being told something but I see something else," is still an improvement over creationism. Therefore I don't understand why others despise the stamp - yes, it makes little difference when you look at the whole picture, because it still accepts (for the most part) unrealistic views of the universe. But it's leaning in the right direction.
Reply
:iconkiyarasabel:
KiyaraSabel Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Lots of people have found the 'first step in rational thought'. There are numerous and documented instances of this throughout history. Many of science's great advances came from the mind of religious men. Theologians of many backgrounds go through this process every day.

And most if not all of that came forward completely free of atheists trying to 'correct' them.
Reply
:iconeshva:
Eshva Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes, that's true as well. I never thought of it that way.
Reply
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2010
It's just fair
Despite being an atheist I have some knowledge of religious texts, and the similarities between Genesis and the actual evolutionary process is one of the first things I noticed

The only reason why I oppose religion is that it tries to control the lives of those who don't follow it
Without this there wouldn't be any reason for enmity
Reply
:iconhull612:
hull612 Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Which Genesis are you talking about? You do know that there are 2, count them, one, two creation stories in Genesis.
Reply
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
I'm mostly talking about the general order in which things were created
Reply
:iconhull612:
hull612 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Do you mean something like "Ear of Planetary Accretion 4.6 to ?? billion year ago, First Evidence of Life 3 Billion years ago", or do you mean "Day 1 - God Created, Day 2...?"
Reply
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
I mean the first
Each day of the genesis seems to have it's corresponding scientific counterpart.
While the Bible didn't get all the facts straight, they got the basic order down

"Let there be light!" - The Big Bang

Day 2, the sea and the skies - Earth begins to build it's own atmosphere and water forms

Day 3, land and plants - while dry land existed before water, it took some time before the waters of the world ocean gave place to dry land, also primitive plants were ammongst the first forms of life to evolve

Day 4, days, weeks, months and years - ok, they've got this one completely wrong since Earth rotated even before any atmosphere existed

Day 5, animals - complex lifeforms evolve from their primitive single-cell predecessors

Day 6, humanity and livestock - yup, we are a rather young species, and those other species are a result of our existence


So yes, Genesis may in fact be a very old (and slightly misinformed) interpretation on the big-bang theory, formation of planets and evolution
Reply
:iconwethrildae:
Wethrildae Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
Saying that the bible got the basics down is still a gross exaggeration. There are many finer points to each of those 'days' that in fact occur out of biblical order. Even loosely taking the creation story as a guideline immediately falls apart. It takes some 200-300 million years from the 'big bang' for light to even form in cool enough temperatures. Animals of all sorts are around before plants...etc etc

These are my biggest concerns. You cannot mix/match this. One is completely illogical and based on private revelation while the other is based on evidence tested...tried and tried again. Religion and Science are incompatible. At their very roots their are set against one another...where one is contingent on 'truth', the other is contingent on 'fact'.
Reply
:iconsekele:
Sekele Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
Hm, depends
When did the first photosynthesis occur in microscopic lifeforms?
Or when did the first fungus appear compared to more complex animalia?
I studied sociology, not biology, that one is only a minor hobby of my.

And while I do consider my self an atheist (or at least agnostic depending on ones criteria), I don't wish to have all the religious people killed or forcibly re-educated (as previous regimes in my country attempted), because that would make us just as bad as the extremists we are trying to oppose.
Therefore I wish for peaceful co-existence.
And honestly, I appreciate the gesture made by Vatican by approving Evolution as being compatible with Genesis.
Seeing how stubborn they can be, this deserves respect (and is also the reason why I have allot more respect for Catholics than American Protestants)

Of course, if you so much desire a bloody conflict, you can have it
As long as it does not cross the confines of the United States
Reply
:iconwethrildae:
Wethrildae Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2010
As much as I may appreciate the gesture from those with already blood soaked hands...I'll pass as I don't think science in general needs the validation of religion to exist or to happen. I will point out the Vatican's response to Hawking's book, "...the role of science is to reveal God in the universe."

Some 2.5-2 billion years ago would be a good starting point for the oxidation event we'd be talking about for photosynthesis to begin wholesale. However, they weren't plants. They were bacteria.

I won't even comment beyond this upon the prospect of bloody conflict...
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconsinande:
Sinande Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2010
I totally support your policy of neutrality, although as you say, the group isn't fully neutral in practice due to the nature of submissions you receive. I guess that can't be helped.

I'm a bit puzzled by the mindset that would make someone quit this group because of that stamp. Seriously? I don't even interpret the stamp as a pro-religion statement so much as one that says "creationism isn't the only way to be a Christian", and I'm quite allergic to proselytising. The artist's description is very sensible, too. So... I'm sorry to sound rude, but if you quit the group because of that stamp, you're just an oversensitive twit.

This post made me wonder, though, if there's any way an atheist *could* convince a creationist that s/he's not trying to take away their faith. At CF, I sometimes had the feeling that if I have an atheist icon, it doesn't matter if I explicitly state that I'm *not* trying to do that, they're just not going to believe me anyway.
Reply
:iconviergacht:
Viergacht Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2010  Professional General Artist
It's a completely retarded stamp. There's enough other stuff that I wouldn't ragequit the group over one thing, but if this sort of gobbledgook becomes common, I probably would. Evolution is science. Saying any kind of magic (no matter how many people believe in it) is involved is like taking seriously the idea that cars are moved by magical elves on hamster wheels under the hood.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2010
I’m hoping that it will become more common, although Ferahgo and I don’t really have control over that, since it depends on what people submit here. That stamp isn’t our only submission here with a theistic evolution theme, but we have a lot more of them with an atheistic theme, which creates the false impression that this is an atheism-oriented group. I think it would be better represent this group’s position if there were more of a balance between the two.

Our personal feelings about religion shouldn’t matter here. What matters is from a pragmatic point of view, what sort of policy is going to be most effective for an anti-creationism group. Taking an entirely anti-Christian attitude would mean losing the support and cooperation of Christians who oppose creationism, and also expecting that creationists whom we try to convince of evolution abandon Christianity entirely, rather than just change their interpretation of one part of the Bible. Do you think that would be more effective?
Reply
:icongodofwarlover:
godofwarlover Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2010
I'm okay with Theistic Evolution
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:icondomain-of-darwin: More from Domain-of-Darwin



More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
October 31, 2010
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,131
Favourites
0
Comments
64
×