>
> Tom,
>
> One final note, which I'll develop when I return:
>
> If you really CARE whether or not evangelical Christendom accepts the
> correctness of anything other than YEC, the burden of proof and the
> responsibility for making it comprehensible to the masses is on YOU (the
> Christian scientific "establishment". YOU must convince the rest of us!
YECs can believe anything they darn well want - it's a free country.
However, if you want to learn and study science, you better get off your
duff and learn and study science.
>
> What would be your opinion of a missionary who after presenting the gospel,
> simply directed illiterate natives to the bible, with the stern admonition:
> "Don't dare question what I say until you learn to read. Then let the bible
> answer your silly questions."
>
I guess that's why christianity is religion and science is not.
> Or a theologian who will not defend his theories at the popular level,
> referring questioners to the Church Fathers. That's why the Catholics
> holding mass in Latin for all those years was such a joke.
Science does describe itself at the popular level. If all you want is
pop science, you had better understand you are not getting all of the
story. Indeed, if you try to be critical of pop science, you're not
really being critical of science because you frankly do not have the
facts. Others on this reflector accused me of attacking a point in
christianity that they claimed was a "sunday school" version, not the
real thing. Regardless if their point was true, is shows that Christians
have the exact same attitude - if you're going to attack Christianity,
attack what christians really believe and not a simplified form.
>
> If you're going to claim the intellectual high ground, and keep it, you're
> going to have to do a better job of defending it than referring challengers
> to your own sacred literature. If you can't convince the Chuck Warmans and
> Steve Jones and Jim Bells of the world, or more importantly, the Joe
> Sixpacks of the world, AT THEIR LEVEL, then no matter how right you may
> be, you'll never attract much of a following. Unless you resort to
> ACLU-type coercion, that is.
So, if I don't bow to the intellectual dishonesty of your argument, I'll
have to bow to the coercion of the ACLJ? You'll have to do better to
convince me that it's okay to be lazy.
Tom