Would he be having a happy birthday?

February 12th, 2010 | 10 Comments

Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait until there were 100 results to make a wrap-up post, but I’ve decided that in honor of Charles Darwins’s 201st birthday, I’d go ahead and comment on the 97 votes already in.

Christians, how important is the faith/science debate? Add comments here.

  • Critical: Christians have got to pull their heads out of the sand, for the good of the Kingdom! (41%, 41 Votes)
  • Pressing: This issue has too much visibility among those engaged in the general believer/unbeliever discussion. We need to deal with this head-on. (35%, 35 Votes)
  • Important, but not pressing: I'm sure it's important for some people to address, for certain groups. But just give me the Readers' Digest version. (14%, 14 Votes)
  • Unimportant: Totally a non-issue. Next! (2%, 2 Votes)
  • Worse than unimportant: What a waste of time! An utter distraction from what really matters. (8%, 8 Votes)

Total Voters: 100

Loading ... Loading ...

It should be noted that I actually stopped looking at this poll’s results after around 50-60 votes. Until then, there had been a lead of five or ten votes (varying) in favor of “Pressing”, with “Critical” in second place. So now today when I looked at it, I was surprised to see that “Critical” had finally overtaken “Pressing”. The popularity of both answers could be read as a testament to the impact of Charles Darwin, but I find myself wondering, would he be pleased by this result?

Would Darwin be happy knowing that 128 years after his death, considering the virtually unanimous support his theory has garnered among specialists across the scientific disciplines, that so many of the general populace would still be rigorously debating how important it was to take his theory seriously? How content would he be with the fact that mainstream Christians throughout the world — people like his own wife — would only now (gradually) be coming around to the realization that, “Hey, maybe we should think this common descent stuff through before dismissing it…”?

Oh well. Better late than never, I guess.

FacebookRedditGoogle ReaderDiggStumbleUponPrintFriendlyShare

Related posts:

  1. Evolution and evangel(ical)ism The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time,...
  2. Human interpretations of Scripture and nature This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks,...
  3. Detecting design and declaring independence Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design. And while...
  4. Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!)...
  5. Where do we go once leaving Paul’s Adam? (BioLogos) I have really enjoyed Pete Enns‘s contribution to BioLogos of late. His latest frames the Adam/Eve question in an interesting and honest way. Here’s an excerpt...

February 12th, 2010

Tags: , , , ,

  • http://www.heathershodgepodge.blogspot.com/ Heather

    Considering that there are still people who believe that the earth is flat, I’d say a lot of progress has been made in accepting Darwin’s theory.

  • http://www.heathershodgepodge.blogspot.com Heather

    Considering that there are still people who believe that the earth is flat, I’d say a lot of progress has been made in accepting Darwin’s theory.

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com/ Bjørn Østman

    Would Darwin be happy knowing that 128 years after his death, considering the virtually unanimous support his theory has garnered among specialists across the scientific disciplines, that so many of the general populace would still be rigorously debating how important it was to take his theory seriously?

    I think you must mean vigorously, right? Saying that the public debate the issue rigorously would be inflate the meaning of the term a bit, don’t you think?

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      I actually meant “rigorously”; in English, “vigorously” carries a more pleasant connotation, whereas “rigorous” refers more to something that’s hacked to death.

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com Bjørn Østman

    Would Darwin be happy knowing that 128 years after his death, considering the virtually unanimous support his theory has garnered among specialists across the scientific disciplines, that so many of the general populace would still be rigorously debating how important it was to take his theory seriously?

    I think you must mean vigorously, right? Saying that the public debate the issue rigorously would be inflate the meaning of the term a bit, don’t you think?

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      I actually meant “rigorously”; in English, “vigorously” carries a more pleasant connotation, whereas “rigorous” refers more to something that’s hacked to death.

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com/ Bjørn Østman

    I didn’t know of that meaning. Thanks!

    As long as you didn’t mean it as 2. or 4.:

    1. characterized by rigor; rigidly severe or harsh, as people, rules, or discipline: rigorous laws.
    2. severely exact or accurate; precise: rigorous research.
    3. (of weather or climate) uncomfortably severe or harsh; extremely inclement.
    4. Logic, Mathematics. logically valid.
    .-= Bjørn Østman´s last blog ..Facebook battle over evolution =-.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      Heh…no, I agree that either of those would be giving far too much credit to what creationists have brought to the table.

      My dictionary includes “adhering strictly or inflexibly to a belief, opinion, or way of doing something”, and I guess that’s how I was trying to characterize the debate. I suppose a better word would have been “contentiously” or the like. :)

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com Bjørn Østman

    I didn’t know of that meaning. Thanks!

    As long as you didn’t mean it as 2. or 4.:

    1. characterized by rigor; rigidly severe or harsh, as people, rules, or discipline: rigorous laws.
    2. severely exact or accurate; precise: rigorous research.
    3. (of weather or climate) uncomfortably severe or harsh; extremely inclement.
    4. Logic, Mathematics. logically valid.
    .-= Bjørn Østman´s last blog ..Facebook battle over evolution =-.

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      Heh…no, I agree that either of those would be giving far too much credit to what creationists have brought to the table.

      My dictionary includes “adhering strictly or inflexibly to a belief, opinion, or way of doing something”, and I guess that’s how I was trying to characterize the debate. I suppose a better word would have been “contentiously” or the like. :)