Re: ICR and its slurs
Rich Knopp (rknopp@prairienet.org)
Wed, 21 May 1997 16:38:23 -0500 (CDT)At 12:11 PM 5/21/97 -0600, you wrote:
>> First, I doubt that anyone at ICR would dispute that "sin" is the
>>root of all evil. Exposing this point as a major blow to their claim must,
>>therefore, miss the point somehow. The more specific question is how is
>>that "sin" expressed? Would we say in principle, for example, that the
>>breakdown in a marriage rests MORE on sexual infidelity (a sin) or cheating
>>on taxes (also a sin). I don't think so. Although sin might be behind it
>>all, it still seems quite legitimate to identify some more specific
>>"culprit" as contributing more prominently to the outcome. Maybe the
>>terminology and emphasis of the ICR are misleading, but I don't know why a
>>more moderate interpretation can't be given: "sin is the underlying root,
>>but evolution is a main trunk that has granted justification for racism."
>
>But it's not. That was the whole point of the last few posts. Evolution has
>not "granted justification for racism", at least not any more than has
>Christianity. There have been some people who have twisted evolutionary theory
>to support their preexisting racist beliefs, but would they be any less likely
>to hold those beliefs if there was no evolutionary theory? I don't think so.
>If anything (as others have pointed out), modern evolutionary theory does more
>to counter racism than support it. The whole concept of "race" is turning out
>to be bogus, thanks to scientific investigation of the facts.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>| Russell Stewart |
>| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
>|_____________________________________________________________|
>| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
>|_____________________________|_______________________________|
>
> If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.
>
>
**************
The above response to [only the first part of] my original post
mischaracterizes (and even ignores) what I said in the entire post. I would
like to suggest, minimally, that when material is deleted from someone's
post that it be so indicated. My very next sentence in the original post
(which was deleted) said that "ICR may be completely off base even with this
more modest interpretation."
I concede that "evolution" does not literally "grant" anything to
anyone, the ostensible grammar of my original sentence notwithstanding.
PEOPLE "infer" or claim theoretical connections between e.g. concepts and
consequences. I only suggested that inferring a logical connection between
purely naturalistic evolution and racism is not so easily dismissible.
Personally, I still understand how some people WITHOUT racist
predispositions can plausibly correlate a naturalistic and non-theistic
"survival of the fittest" mentality with racism. Philosophically, the
problem is how one can ever justify ANY transcending value that would
condemn a racist attitude.
Claiming that "modern [non-theistic] evolutionary theory does more
to counter racism than support it" seems astounding to me. And I certainly
need more than an assertion that "modern evolutionary theory" leads to the
conclusion that "race" is a "bogus concept." If organisms can evolve
non-theistically into different "species," then they can certainly so evolve
into "races" with differing strengths and weaknesses that could eventually
serve as prototypes for an emerging superior strain (and even specie). And
based on naturalistic and nontheistic presuppositions, I would contend that
"there ain't nothing one can legitimately do about it."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656
"If God didn't exist, He would want us not to believe in Him."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *