My dearest creationist friend

[Alexis1983]

My question is this: should I bother try to convert my best friend from creationism to evolution?

Of course, they're her beliefs, which she is entitled to have - but when the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it has to be true.
Evolution is proven through fossils and on a DNA/genetic level, that's enough evidence for me, and most people, they teach it in biology lessons at school these days.
However, for my creationist friend, evolution counters her precious religion, so much so that she tells her ds and dd that evolution is a lie. I worry for her kids, it's not my place, but is it worth trying to explain to someone the evidence for the sake of her children, or merely the proposition futile as talking to an evangelical about science is like talking to a brick wall. What would you do?

Nobody knows for sure what brought the world into existence

So you are agnostic?

Cailleach666
No. I'm religious and believe God was the force behind the big bang.

I also feel strongly that a bit of humility on big questions goes a long way. I can't state for certain it's God because that's a big inductive leap. In the same way, it's a big leap to say it came from nothing.

To me, faith is important and faith involves and element of doubt.

Religious people or atheists who preach certainty worry me.

I would rather not be preached to about " having humility".

I take an evidence and probability based approach.

The evolutionary mechanism is at odds with having something "steer" the process.

And quite ironic to criticise atheists for " preaching".

Don't be ridiculous Ambition. Einstein's theories were an alternative interpretation of the existing evidence, they weren't contradicted by it at all. The difference between the two models was only visible in certain extreme circumstances, some of which we only went looking for after Einstein's theory was put forward and some which (the precession of Mercury) we already knew was an anomaly with the existing model.

Interesting thread. My church going Christian parents just made the decision to leave their church (evangelical) because they couldn't agree with the church's creationist views. They had been going for some years but say that these views only gradually came to light, which I find very odd. They were very upset but realised they couldn't keep attending when the church's beliefs were so at odds with their own.

Maisy- I don't see any atheists "preaching" certainty.

I am a scientist and an atheist. I am comfortable with gaps in my knowledge.

You are the one trying to plug the holes of ignorance with god.

I would rather not be preached to about " having humility
Ironic? For explaining my views on a thread about views.
Bottom line is that nobody knows what came before the big bang. I don't see why accepting that stating God/no God involve an inductive leap is a problem.
I believe it is God. I'm open to the fact that I could be wrong.

I don't see any atheists "preaching" certainty
I lost a friend over it. We were good friends in college. We had a good mix of faiths and no faith in our group. Then they turned into the kind of person who wanted to prove how ignorant anyone with faith is. Any mention of going to church or mosque at etc would lead to them trying to correct our thinking. I've met quite a few who are like that. I don't like it.
If a friend decided it was their place to start critiquing my views without being asked then I consider it unsolicited preaching.

I dislike it. It is as arrogant as religious people pushing their views without anyone asking for it.

You are the one trying to plug the holes of ignorance with god

Thank you for being insulting. That's just the kind of comment from atheists that I find as obnoxious as religious people going around demanding people repent and be saved.

Personally, I'm a bit more live and let live.

PosiePootlePerkins
I also changed churches many years ago because of a theological issue like your parents.

I'd tried a new church and very quickly I found their message was "we are right. Bible is the literal word of God. Go and convert others to our ways".

So I left.

That's not being insulting, that's being factually correct.

You are the one talking about living with uncertainty, yet you are the one needing to know the answers, not me.

Personally, I'm a bit more live and let live.

Pity the church doesn't see it that way.

If the church stopped interfering in everyone;s business than I would be a bit more understanding.

I don't see atheists controlling any agenda.

What I've said is that I believe the cause behind it all was God. I am open to being wrong through.

For me, though not for others, it is logical based on what's in front of me.

You clearly have an issue with the institution of the church, and that's fine. I think some have more influence than they should.

On a personal level, I've met religious people and atheists who seem very proud of having the answers and feel the need to to and persuade others to follow their way. I don't like it from any side.

Fine Maisie, if it is "logical" for you then knock yourself out. For me the god explanation is as probable as having a donkey rocker on a motorbike creating our universe.

It's not to do with "some" churches having more influence than they should- it's to do with christianity ( in this country) and the influence it has.

Church schools ( state funded) are able to operate widespread admission discrimination. So much so that parents will lie about their religion ( or lack of) to gain a school place. These discrimination policies deepen cultural and ethnic divisions in our society.
Children are required by law in all state school to receive religious indoctrination, be having " active worship" as part of their school life.

We have unelected church members sitting in parliament making laws for everyone, they are their neither by merit nor any democratic process.
The church was the main force behind homosexuality being a criminal offence, and supported castration of offenders until relatively recently.
We still suffer the hostilities of this pernicious view.

The church has set the bar for ideas about sex outside marriage condemning and resigning many women as sluts- and still this legacy has its repercussions in modern society.
The chuch is obsessed with sex- how that is helpful I have no idea.
Misogyny and patriarchy are at the very core of christianity, how women can find that palatable is beyond me.

Let's shed the light of reason a little here.

A) Church schools. Over half of all Church of England schools are 'voluntary controlled' which means that the admissions criteria are exactly the same as for community schools. Of the rest, many never apply any religious criterion because they are not oversubscribed. Only in a minority's of schools does church attendance have any impact on admissions. The impact of other forms of selection (e.g. House prices or grammar schools) is numerically greater.

B) Compulsory worship. The law states that there should be an act of worship of a 'broadly Christian character' in school each day. In fact, the law is openly ignored. Hardly any schools do this daily and some do it almost never. Also taking part in a 'broadly Christian' (and many of them are very broad indeed) is not indoctrination, which is a very much more intensive and aggressive process, as Wikipedia makes clear.

C) Bishops in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords cannot make legislation, because the HoL is a chamber of review. They can only scrutinise and amend legislation coming from the House of Commons. If you look at the voting record of the bishops they have consistently opposed the government on matters such as environmental protection, welfare, immigration and overseas aid. Furthermore bishop's can claim to have more knowledge of ordinary life than most hereditary peers, since they've been parish priests so they have sat by the bedsides of the dying, had hungry people turn up on their doorstep, seen families devastated by debt, addiction and illness, and heard more stories of human pain and misery than most people. That's not an awful qualification for scrutinising the work of parliament - and certainly better than many who are there for giving money to a party.

D) the church is obsessed with sex. It may be, but not more than the rest of society - if the viewing figures for Love Island are anything to go by. LGBT+ issues are very divisive within the church and there are big differences of opinion. But it really is not all Christians care about. And, of course, Jesus didn't care much about sex either - he was more concerned with justice for the poor. And in the Bible as a whole references to sex are outnumbered by references to gossip (don't do it, folks!) by about four to one.

Plus, it's good to distinguish history from the present, and to note that 'the church' isn't simply a monolith. Which Church was it that supported chemical castration? Was it the Southern Baptists? I'd be very surprised if it were the Church of England. And attitudes in most churches towards sex outside marriage have shifted hugely over the past century, as they have in society as a whole.

It's always good to argue reasonably, not putting 'my best against your worst'. For us Christians that means owning up to the horrible things that have been done by and in the name of the church and resisting the temptation to mention the League of Militant Atheists and their murderous activities every single time (tempting though it is). For atheists it might involve recognising that there have, both historically and in the present, been some good things that Christians and the Church have done.

Do nothing. It is a matter of faith.

When I was a creationist it was hugely an emotional belief. Your chances of getting her to change her beliefs are poor if you approach it as a logical belief. If you were to find yourself chatting with her you'd be better off asking questions rather than presenting any evidence.

Good posts niminy.

Hello headinhands, haven't seen you around for a while now, hope you've been OK?

I have christian friends who are YEC, (not many - most are like me, accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of how things erm... evolved, and how God weaved creative process through the universe. With these lovely friends, I don't think arguing does anything as like hih says they have an emotional attachment, perhaps a feeling that faith would break down if they didn't cling to this. I respect them and simply don't talk about it much (I might pose the odd question but never with any kind of arrogance attached.) I don't think you can 'convert' them out of this position.

Hi mad. All fine here. think I got a bit bored of the sound of my own voice in this area iyswim.

Oh I often do mine hih good to see you.

I’d say that as a general principle you shouldn’t try to meddle with people’s core beliefs: evangelism and counter-evangelism are equally inadvisable.

The only circumstance in which you might justifiably try to influence someone in this way is if you suspect that a particular belief is at the root of attitudes or behaviour that could harm the holder of the belief or others.

There are a number of ideas about the world – creationism, geocentrism and even the idea of a flat earth – for which supportive passages can be found in the Bible. This is hardly surprising given its antiquity.

Unless your friend wants to teach science, or is home-edding her children, I don’t think holding out-of-date views like these is necessarily a problem – just a bit eccentric. (Although it might be argued that an understanding of evolution is likely to engender more of a sense of fellow feeling towards other animals.)

On the other hand, there are a number of ideas about social interactions and morality in the Bible that could be problematic in a more direct way.

For example, a straightforward literal reading of the Bible with no regard for historical context might lead to views about gay people, women’s rights and the chastisement of children that could really be damaging.

So, if I wanted to speak out about anything, it would be about those instances in the Bible in which an obsolete moral perspective is espoused rather than the obsolete science-y ideas.