Think about the possible outcomes here:

1) You prove your point so amazingly that he gives up being a biblical literalist.
2) Anything you do that is remotely convincing is ignored or totally Satan's fault.

Think of the relative odds of each of those two outcomes. Doesn't seem like there's much point making the argument is there?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results."
- Ben Franklin

I actually have the exact opposite problem. Well, not literally. As I think I've pointed out here before, I am a believing, church going Christian. I'm by no means a literalist. As my best friend says "I sort of see Christ as a really cool older brother with superpowers. Everyone listens to him, he gets all the chicks, and ends up being right about everything."

But one of my buddies is a devout, proselytizing atheist. Not only does he quote Dawkins with an accuracy which would stun a monk, he takes every opportunity to try and convince me there's not the slightest chance of anything in the universe beyond that which we can immediately observe and measure, today. Over the years, we've just agreed to disagree, based on these two immobile arguments.

Him: Prove it (well, duh, I can't).
Me: BB-1 (tell me what happened before the big bang, how it happened, why it happened - and, duh, he can't).

Along the way we've had tremendous discussions. We've delved into the pros and cons of inflationary cosmology, string theory, and 100 other tangents. Ultimately, we have different faiths. He has a deep, unprovable belief that the ordered energy state required for the big bang to occur either simply *is*, or happened completely randomly, and ceases to ask questions beyond the boundary condition. My belief, just as unprovable, is that the ordered state implies something beyond our comprehension and implies design.

Does this make me an "intelligent design" nut? Nah. I just happen to think things are way more exciting and complicated than we'll ever be able to explain, and I have my own opinions about how they all might be connected.

So in short, don't run away. Engage. As long as you have a willing partner in the conversation, I imagine you'll both think harder, and that's always a good thing.

Rabbit, while I've been in your same position countless times, and I agree that discussion with those who hold completely opposing viewpoints can be fun and thoughtful, I think when bilbodiaz is already frustrated enough with the conversation to say this:

There's not much of a foundation left on which to build a healthy debate.

And that's the problem with arguing evolution with a creationist. It isn't hard for a single person of average intelligence to understand Creationism; God made everything. Some creationists don't understand that it's much harder for a single person, even if they are brilliant, to understand the whole of evolution. They also don't seem to understand that it's OK for the theory of evolution to change, which is why they so often attack Darwin's mistakes as if they represent the entire theory. The result is that they feel if YOU cannot answer their question, RIGHT NOW, then evolution cannot explain it.

If you personally cannot answer their questions but you continue to believe in evolution because you know the answer is out there, that is what we call "faith." That's not to say that evolution theory itself is a "faith" or a religion, but it does suggest that your belief is partly because someone you respect or trust told you it's true. It's that little problem that lets creationists think of evolution and creationism as scientifically equal.

To bilbodiaz, one way to get an understanding of your colleague or anyone else in a similar situation is to ask a simple but pointed question: "What would it take for you to be convinced of evolution, and to disavow creationism?"
If the answer is "I can't be persuaded" or "a sign from God", then it is truly futile since in that mind reason will always be trumped by faith. Otherwise there is a chance of reaching them on the basis of reason. Whether you want to try or not is a personal matter.

To subscribers of the Argument from Design, aka the Teleological Argument (that the universe is too complex/orderly to be the product of natural causes, therefore a supernatural being must have designed it). This argument has been conclusively debunked despite its popularity. Aside from having both incorrect premises and an invalid inference, it doesn't actually explain anything. Any being who is capable of producing complexity, must be of even greater complexity. So who designed the designer? This continues into an infinite regress of ancestral designers.

Yeah, this is something that I always found interesting. I knew someone that'd I'd sometimes argue this stuff with, and he'd give the typical "science can't explain how the universe was created" and I'd say "religion can't explain how god was created". Arguing that God "just is" sounds exactly the same as arguing that the energy and matter that led to the big bang "just is"

Don't you love that though? Isn't it awesome? All of our conversations are ultimately reduced to a vast unknowable, which we among beasts seem unique in our ability to probe. That just rocks.

The whole issue of ordered states - I'm not talking about evolution or anything like that. I'm talking about the issues with current observations with pencil-beam surveys, and the wall/cluster organization paradox (there's too much structure for the amount of time that has passed since BB-day) - all of these remain great mysteries, and I have no doubts that we will someday have theories and observations that help explain them.

But none of them answer the ultimate questions of "why," nor do I think that "because" is a sufficient answer. My own personal beliefs on the "why" are precisely that, personal, and I wouldn't try to convince someone that my personal experiences extrapolate on someone elses view of the universe, any more than I would try to convince you that my wife is the most perfect woman in the world who should be the object of everyone's passion, even though I know this to be true.

No it isn't. She really is that awesome.

And despite the sometimes very harsh disagreements you get from others, I hope you never give up and stop posting.

I'm interested in all perspectives, whether I end up tossing them out or not, whether they anger me or not. Sometimes I get worked up and upset, but I still try to weigh all statements people make. It's hard to change my mind, but it happens.

You know what? I think you both should read this book. You'll both disagree with it, I bet, but for different reasons. I think you should read it together and discuss it.

Why try and sell him on evolution? Instead, try to sell him on converting to Judaism, with substantial bonus points for not actually being Jewish. If sufficiently annoyed, sue / try to get him fired for making the workplace a hostile environment.

I think religion - at least my version if it - changes every single day. To heck with labels. I belong to the church of Rabbit. I am not accepting new members, but you are welcome to browse the gift shop.

Ha! That is really funny to here those words come out of someone else's mouth.

My church is personal and everyday, day by day. I'm not saying my morals fluctuate every day but my choice to do right by others is an everyday commitment.

At the risk of sounding goofy, when I am in a moral quandary I often step back and say, "What would love do?" I know lots of people replace love with Jesus, but I prefer to think of God as love, a boundless concept. For me personally, when you directly name God, Jesus, Allah, etc. you are ascribing him, her, it human limitations by envisioning a physical being.

I think the defining characteristic here is whether or not you feel the other person is giving your arguments any weight or thought. If they're dismissing your ideas, considering this simply an exercise in evangelism by browbeating you into submission, I'd drop it and move on.

If however he's considering and actually trying to counter your arguments, you may end up with a pretty good discussion. Just my two cents.