smart and educated are two differt things Terry. I think there is this tendancy to talk oneself into conflating the two.
EDIT
another way of putting it is…
one can be knowledgable but unwise
1 Corinthians 3:18 appears to me to have some relevance here
Stop deceiving yourselves. If you think you are wise by this world’s standards, you need to become a fool to be truly wise. (NLT)
Now if i were a redneck YEC…i could herald this text on the big screen (but i dont)
You attempted ro lead the reader into the claim that B’s educated opinion is incorrect. Thats bull.
Have you ever watched “yes Minister”…Humphrey plays that game with public polls throughout the series.
hence my quoting of
1 Corinthians 3.18.
Paul tells us quite clearly that if the wise atheist calls the Christian a fool, then in order to be truly wise, we need ro become fools. The point is, this text specifically dissagrees with the claim that science interpretes the bible…it does not. Where science dissagrees with the bible, we must become the fool and instead follow a Gods word.
A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends agree on which facts are disputed and which are not.
But A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends disagree on the interpretation of the undisputed facts.
Therefore A’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation is correct, in A’s opinion, and B’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation is incorrect.
. A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends agree on which facts are disputed and which are not.
But A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends disagree on the interpretation of the undisputed facts.
Therefore B’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation is correct, in B’s opinion, and A’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation is incorrect.
. A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends agree on which facts are disputed and which are not.
But A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends disagree on the interpretation of the undisputed facts.
Therefore A’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation and and B’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation are correct.
A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends agree on which facts are disputed and which are not.
But A’s educated, Christian friends and B’s educated, Christian friends disagree on the interpretation of the undisputed facts.
Therefore A’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation and B’s educated, Christian friends’ interpretation are both incorrect.
I’ll make the issue simpler:
it is your opinion that both may not be correct…and thats exactly why you dont understand this properly.
BOTH are interpretations of the same science utilised in order to support a belief (whether creationism or evolutionism/naturalism whatever you wish to call it).
Anyone here who has done any academic study will attest that it is not necesary in academia to be right to gain a high distinction for work such as a written paper. One is simply required to present an argument with supporting evidence…its not relevant whether or not someone else agrees with it.
Obviously the aim is for a variety of studies to come up with the same conclusions, however, relying on the claim that the conclusion with the most scientists in its group is the correct one? Sorry but that simply doesnt gell with me…this isnt politics.
You can attempt to claim the naturalist view is not a belief, however, i will challenge that by saying …do you know anyone who was there and recorded data those assumptions are based on from a million years ago? No you do not…therefore you must have an element of faith that those assumptions are accurate. Given the number of alterrations that are made regularly to what were once considered rock solid naturalist claims, thats clearly problematic.
A simple illustration that shows how easily even modern assumptions can go pear shaped…
Lindy Chamberlain “dingo took my baby” case. Joy Cool was absolutely adament her science was right. Eventually the missing jumpsuit, critical to the defense, was found showing categorically, Azaria Chamerlain was killed by a dingo! At around the same time, the testing equipment Joy Cool used was found to be extremely deficient and that only added to the prosecutions catastophical stuffup of a case based on so many assumptions that turned out to be completely wrong under the test of time.
Look, in any case, none of this even matters…earbashing that YEC must be un-educated dummies is not at all in the spirit of the aim of this topic.
Adam, I agree with you that education does not guarantee you are correct.
The main advantage of theological education is that you learn why interpretations differ and where most Christians agree. If you learn to look through the worldviews, assumptions and traditions, and learn the basic rules of credible exegesis, you have much better abilities to judge which of the interpretations is supported by the scriptures and the general facts.
For example, one of my teachers studied some years in an institute where every member of the staff had to sign the Chicago statement. He has specialized on exegesis of the NT and knows the Greek scriptures and language well. Although he studied and worked in an institute that teaches a particular kind of interpretation, the education he got gave him an ability to judge the teachings he received - he was quite critical about some interpretations favored by groups supporting the Chigaco statement. Instead, he has demanded from his students higher standards of thinking and exegesis - the most demanding teacher I have had. He helped me to see some weaknesses and prejudices in the way how I had previously interpreted the Bible. I hope that has given me an ability to better respect and evaluate interpretations other than those I support at the moment.
Terry you introduced the Christian friends fallacy not me. It is your claim that the fallacy exists and even within your own claim about that you intentionally made two misleading statements and then used those as supporting evidence to reach the conclusion that its a fallacy. Im not so stupid that i did not notice what you did there…hence my point that your claim A and Bs science cannot both be right, is false! You used that as evidence to support a bollocks conclusion. Hence my mention of the TV series “yes minister” and sir Humphries polling ideas. People are easily lead to opposite conclusions when white lies covertly lead them down rabit warrens (as you tried to do).
We can both take a bowl of water and time how long it takes for that water to boil with a given amount of heat energy. However, what if the ambient water temperature is different? What if the water is not pure? Wouldnt that change the time it takes to boil? Of course. People like you scoff at such a simple example, however, if that water took thousands of years to boil, then a very small change in ambient temperature or chemical composition would make a huge difference to the time it takes to “boil our respective bowls of water”!
The science for both conclusions in the water boiling experient tells us both are right…its simply that they are not necessarily absolutely identical. There are always some things that are not repeatable…especially when recorded history does not date back 4.54 million years! One must therefore assume that the bowls of water are exactly the same despite knowing they are not! (that is the entire problem with uniformatarianism in these discussions). I do not agree that non observable may be turned into fact in order to promote the idea that evolutionary THEORY is science fact. It is not nor will it ever be!
So if YOU wish to bridge the gap, perhaps you need to make an attempt to accept the failings of your own belief and meet in the middle. That would be achieved by first accepting that you are not more intelligent than those who do not agree with your world view, and that in fact some of those people are far more educated and intelligent than you are. Then, you may at least be able to sit down as equals in each others company enjoying the world around us.
I know two guys who fly paragliders. These guys are in their 50’s and are best mates… One is Jewish and the other German. The most unlikely pair of buddies but buddies nevertheless (true story)
If one was to transpose the German and the Jew into this forum…that would be YEC and TEist.
There is a great bridge already there in Christianity as long as they haven’t made their anti-science conspiracy theory nonsense into their real religion. Otherwise they should see plenty of common cause in the real teachings of Christianity – about JESUS.
I just read this article with my breakfast and thought the concluding paragraph was relevant to this discussion.
Roughly a third of Nebraskans believe that living things were created as they are now. Another third think that evolution occurs, but through God’s design. Given those beliefs, I asked Barrett whether he ever encountered resistance when talking to his new friends about his work. “In the early trips, when first meeting people, I would talk generally about genetics and natural selection. I wouldn’t use the E word,” he said. “It’s one of those trigger words where, in certain parts of the U.S., people just stop listening to you.”
But he added that all of them comprehended the essence of evolution, even if they explicitly rejected it. “A lot of them are farmers, who have a very good understanding of inheritance, and genetics,” he said. “A lot of them hunt, so they’ve got the survival-of-the-fittest thing down. They understand variation, and they know that a slow deer is easier to shoot than a fast deer. Inheritance, variation, fitness … all the pieces are there.”
“I’d never push too hard. I never explicitly said, ‘Do you believe in it or not? Have I now convinced you?’” he told me. “I just had some long conversations over beers at BBQs and high-school football games. And I found that in subsequent trips, I could use the E word and not get the flinch.”
The longest bridge in the world has tolls and consistent delays and major traffic jams all caused and built by YECs. In my experience with the 6000- to 10000-year-old earth people I rather not bother with a debate or even a talk. They (THE YUCKS I mean YECs) walked with the dinosaurs - slept with Homo Erectus-compilated with the Denisovans-left the garden of Eden with a poor attitude wearing an animal skin to block their shame and fast forward invented the computer-built skyscrapers learned higher math discovered modern medicine destructive weapons - Supersonic aur travel - envisioned the light bulb all in 6000 years. Now you talk about progress man oh man that’s amazing. Not worth the effort I’d rather talk with my cat it makes more sense.
I just try to never bring it up unless I’m feeling like it would be safe and the other person wouldn’t want to end the friendship over it. Or, if someone talks to me as if I agree with them then I will usually say that I disagree (unless it’s a stranger). My rule is that I never lie about my beliefs, but I’m happy to keep them quiet for the sake of a comfortable room.
I have taken some friends to BioLogos events and so far it just makes them a little quieter on the ride home than normal. 
I don’t try to rehash what’s been talked about because it usually just pushes them to come up with weird arguments for why the science isn’t true and those arguments become their bedrock.
In the end, this isn’t a “salvation” issue, so I try to tread lightly with it, except when I want to express my frustration with how it has so often lead people away from Christ when they are told they aren’t allowed to explore it.
So, to answer the question, I build the bridges on different shores.
A reasonable path, it seems to me. Despite the low key approach, I often find the “quiet on the way home” seems to last awhile unfortunately. you may not be kicked out of the tribe, but you reside on the outskirts.
Usually, when I invite someone they already know my feelings and what they are getting themselves into so luckily the silence doesn’t last that long. 
They were already expecting to disagree going in!
We’ve gone from learning to plant corn to planting a flag on the moon in only 12,000 years. Getting from the earliest human to planting corn took quite a bit longer.
Could one or both of you explain the “Smart, Christian Friends” fallacy? Sorry, I’m new and it’s not one that I’ve heard before. 
And how does apply here again?
…so if Adam can’t (sorry Adam, under the bus with you), could you explain it?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.