Evolution vs. Creation - Rehash

As a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with the Turkana Boy. There is a lot about how man came to be that is not explained in either the Bible or in the Theory of Evolution. I tend to see most of science as reinforcing the Bible as opposed to projecting doubt on it.

If the museum wants to display Turkana Boy, then let them. The article notes that the only people who seem to have a problem with it is the one group quoted in the article.
I tend to agree, Andy. Besides, there are differing views on creation, as well. Some believe the earth was created over billions of years, but still by a Creator. Some take the Bible as literal and, like this guy in the article, believe that it took 6,000 years (1 day is as 1000 years). The Bible states that God created everything, but it doesn't say how long it took Him to do it. He spoke and created light. Okay, but how long did He wait before He started creating the specifics on the Earth? Who knows?

I don't believe that we're descended from apes because the Bible says that God created things after their own kind. That means that chickens are chickens are chickens. They're not going to "evolve" into a chimpanzee. While mankind might have alot similar with apes, they are different, just as God intended them to be. My opinion, at any rate.
While religious freedom is a good thing, one of the down sides is it definitely encourages belief (and a general way of thinking) contrary to evidence. I honestly cant understand with the mountain of evidence to support evolution how educated people can continue to disbelieve it completely.

We've witnessed evolution in the lab, we have dinosaur bones, we have DNA evidence of evolution, and on and on and on. While theres always room for a scientific theory to (cough) evolve over time, similar to the theory of gravity we have the basics of evolution down. Disbelieving is just denying the reality in front of you, and not a healthy way to think.
I would have to agree with you framed. But there are still alot of people that will not ever believe in evolution period. I don't really understand that thought because I believe you can accept some of both evolution and the concept of religion and what your personal religious beliefs may be.
Whats odd to me about most of the bible thumping arguments to evolution is the number of things in the bible that most religious people already don't believe. Slavery, ownership of women, a brothers right to his siblings wife, public stoning. If you don't believe those things, why is it necessary to stubbornly stick to creation?

Religion is a good thing for mankind if its used when lacking evidence (eg: what happened before the big bang?) but when you use it to ignore real evidence you're just denying reality. Its the start of the process that leads to hangings over the earth not being flat, killing people over cartoons, jihad, etc. Its just wrong.
Okay, I'll make a brief comment at this point. I wasn't going to (having written long and exasperatedly on this topic before, it's now one of those groantacular affairs, but the opinions expressed here are pretty good):

In modern theology, and in particular apologetics, there is much to be said about the compatibility of evidence-based-beliefs and the Christian faith. The Christian perspective, naturally, tends to argue that the evidence does not point away, but rather, towards the faith. I think that's a load of crock specifically because it assumes a faux-disjunctive: how about neither?

By definition, there is no such thing as proof of a faith. The worrying thing and a claim that theologians also desperately try to refute, is that religion becomes a "filler of the gaps". It's not supposed to be this, because that's how you get the bulk of appeal to divine authority fallacies. It's supposed to be an independent yet encompassing entity- a way one lives, sees one's life and more, but, given the paradoxical nature of this particular strain of theism it is something that most people who purport to do so miserably fail at.
Not being a literalist when is comes to reading scripture, I do not find any reasons to get upset when science uncovers a new detail about how we and our planet has come to be. I don't expect the Bible to have all answers to all things and I don't read it as necessarily literal history either. I do see it as teaching me a great deal about how people have thought and lived at different times and sometimes I find those lessons as being compelling in that they teach me something that I do not need to do or think.

I can understand that some people want and genuinely need a faith that has a definite answer to every question. I just don't happen to be among those, so I tend to find that when more documents related to ancient Christianity come to light, it is a cause for celebration, not fear. Same with any new scientific discovery.
You put that very well, mtatum. I wish more people would accept new discoveries related to both ancient Christianity and science and celebrate them.
While not a Christian, I do have 3 rather significant (if completely undecipherable to most!) volumes to this effect: called A Scientific Theology. It's the most comprehensive account I'm aware of that really acheives this on an empirical, philosophical and theological level. Technically it's part of the apologetics genre but I would...not really want to sully this scholastic publication with such a label.

The downside? You really need to know your philosophy. And it set me back $250AUD.
It's such a pity that the term apologetics has become something less worthy of consideration. It has its place, just like any intellectual exercise, and can be used for good or naught, depending on the agenda of the proponent.
Yes, the pity is that while I think it's a great thing in terms of its intention for reconciliation of sorts, this is rarely what it's used for- it's more the playground of evangelists who wish to "prove" Christianity.
Oh, I don't know that apologetics are such an exclusive province of evangelical or fundamental Christianity or even religionists in general. Seems to me that apologetics are one form of expression that can be used to reconcile just about any ideology or philosophy with a thought process, if one is of a mind to do so.

Perhaps the problem lies not in the expression of apologetics, but in the poles of (a) disregarding it entirely and (b) depending on it completely. Either approach strikes me as limiting the chance to at least learn how part of the populace perceives the subject matter, if not be exposed to al alternative opinion that might inspire further thought and research.
My uncle has written a few books on fundamental christian apologetics, that I've read for no reason other than to know thy family. What I've noticed is that they tend to take a certain set of assumptions as a priori-fact and derive understanding based on those facts.

So in that sense if you take for granted some fundamental axioms then apologetics based on those facts are useful. If they start at a level above what you take for granted they are 100% useless. For most scientists apologetics start above the level you can intelligently take for granted, making them useless.
Mmm...might want to be careful with the phrasing of such: it smacks of valuing philosophy arguments.

What I mean is that calling something useless because it is unintelligible (for the most part) or directly engages with a very exclusive population is dangerously close to saying something like "epistemology is hard. Therefore we should assume things."

To me, some texts in apologetics that do just this- take for granted (a priori) some fundamental axioms, are the ones that end up being less useful on net because in the end it defeats its own purpose.