| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Quoting Michael Kishel <mike@houseofshred.net>: >the Catholic position is much different than these Evangelicals.< Evangelical needs defined, as it has multiple uses. It is sometimes used as a perjorative, similar to "fundamentalist", "liberal", "conservative", or other labels for people you disagree with. Etymologically and originally, the term referred to Christians with a commitment to the importance of the central message of Christianity, the gospel. As such, it does not require any particular views on evolution nor on the age of the earth, and many evangelicals accept evolution, though probably the majority have been taken in by antievolutionary propaganda. Most U.S. antievolutionists would probably identify themselves as evangelical, though there are representatives of several religions and of disparate branches of Christianity that do not necessarily identify themselves as evangelical. However, to the extent that antievolutionists claim that opposing evolution is essential to the gospel or of similar importance to it, they are technically rejecting it, as the New Testament asserts that it is essential that the gospel be the only essential. Antievolutionism can perhaps best be regarded as a heretical approach that has unfortunately gained popularity among evangelicals, among others. The practical issue, for those who don't want to try to sort out various religious views, is to be careful to distinguish between attacking antievolutionism and wholesale dismissal of a particular religion. (Of course, the original post did not claim that all evangelicals are antievolutionists; I just thought the use of the term should be clarified). -- Dr. David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections Building Department of Biological Sciences Biodiversity and Systematics University of Alabama, Box 870345 Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345 USA
Partial index: