Did I ever say it was not bogus?
No, but you were pretending that it isn't. Much worse.
In fact, most theists have no problem with evolution or science in general.
I'm not sure this is true, for practicing theists in the US.
Many of the religions that accept this view have officially gone on record as opposing creationism.
But among the faithful, how many reject creationism?
I think a lot of this is wishful thinking about the socio-political views of christians.
The reason this is so important is that it takes away the gut-level terror of the indoctrinated, that to consider evolution will forever damn them. Unless we get them past this terror, they won't even consider looking at the evidence.
That's valid, as far as it goes. But it is a step that the religions have to take. The problem is that I don't think they'll look at the evidence in any case. The instant they see something that conflicts with their doctrine they'll shut it down. In practical terms you'll make no progress at all.
But as I noted above, most denominations aren't so dogmatic, and don't insist that to be True Believers, we must live as they did 2000 years ago (but with modern conveniences).
I don't think it is the official doctrine of a church that is the problem. It's the social pressure exerted within individual communities. I think the individuals in many chruches use evolution as a test for apostacy. Holier-than-thou-ism seems to be a major facet of many churches. It's not the officials, but the "leading" members of the congregation.
My point, albeit poorly made, is that we shoot ourselves in the foot if we insist that science forbids god--because then we alienate even our allies, who end up having to side with the fundamentalists.
Actually here is a difference between us. It's the fundementalists I want to persuade (possibly because it is mainly fundementalists that I have had access to). Fundementalists make a big deal about "truth". When I say "why would you want to believe a religion that is wrong?" they don't waffle about the nature of truth but agree that they will reject a false religion. Then we are off to the races.
since I know we agree wholly on this point. Let me rephrase it as "scientific evidence," and try to conjure up the image of a scientific test for god. There ain't none.
I think you perhaps misunderstand my beliefs. It's one of my key points that if god existed then the evidence in support of this (scientific and otherwise) would be ample.
I'm trying to describe the difference between things we can measure by some physical method (scientific data), and things that are inherently unmeasurable by the methods of science.
I don't accept this either. I think the groups of things that are "inherently unmeasureable" is the group of things that do not exist. Everything that is real is inherently measureable (or at least observable) even if we are not currently in a position to do it.
There are masses of things claimed to be "unmeasureable". But these are all the scams and fantasies of supernaturalists. TV psychics, astrologers, dowsers, etc etc.
Their evidence for god is not in the physical world where science works.
But it would be if god was real. All the major religions have god-concepts that would leave copious, not to say comprehensive, evidence of his/hers/it's/their existance.
They may use "evidence" such as answered prayers, or surviving a tornado, or scripture. Fine. Those are not scientific measurements.
But they would be if there really was any such evidence. The faithful typically believe that prayer "works" directly and consistently. We could easily study this if it were real.
And, in science we will always follow this rule. Outside of science, in the privacy of our own thoughts, or in discussion of philosophical complexities, we may bring in any gods we like, and imagine them in any roles we like.
This I accept, of course. As long as theists keep their thoughts hidden in the shameful darkness of their churches or cellars, I have no problem with it.
Now this moves beyond science and religion and into politics.
And it's why I have become more active in the last few years. For decades I was merely an atheist to myself. But there is a coming crisis relating to science and religion.
Again, I argue that we shoot ourselves in the foot by insisting that science excludes god. We need to get these religious activists to recognize that science shows serious problems with our so-called stewardship of god's creation.
But it puts us into the false position of trying to teach religion to the theists. To me, the fact that moderate religion seems to have disappeared is a sign of the crisis.
In other words, the general public is being snockered, using a religion or science game plan. We need to get the message out that this is a false dichotomy. Maybe there are purists like Dawkins who don't like that idea, but by insisting that the dichotomy is real, they drive people away from science. I think that's a bad idea.
I think that by this you end up arguing
for the side you oppose. You're making the fundementalist position seem more palatable by opposing it with only a more moderate version of their own view. The zealot always has a great advantage.
DanZ
