On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:18:32 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>SJ>..There is a prima facie case that TE/ECs are candidates for Paul's warning
>>because their very name indicates they are trying to combine the opposites
>>of naturalistic evolution with Christian theism. That TE/ECs refuse to even
>>consider it could be true, and react with anger and ad hominems, rather
>>than discussing it calmly and rationally is evidence that they *have* been
>>taken "captive through [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy"!
GM>It seems to me that when they try to talk with you you simply don't believe
>what they say.
This is just another variation on one of Glenn's ad hominem themes of
trying to personally discredit those who disagree with him. It boils down to
that unless someone agrees with whatever Glenn says, then there must be
something wrong with them. It never seems to occur to Glenn that there
might be something wrong with what he says!
>SJ>I agree with Loren that it "ain't a conversation". I am *trying* to make
>>it "a conversation"! It is the *TE/ECs* who are doing everything they can (ie.
>>ad hominems, shoot the messenger, refusal to read my posts, etc) rather
>>than have "a conversation"!
GM>It is difficult to have a conversation with a person like you who "knows"
>what another person means in spite of the words that they use. You have the
>most amazing ability to take the statement "there is a God" and turn it
>into "there is no God.'
I thank Glenn for his high opinion of my abilities, but I don't know what he
is on about here. I *agreed* with Loren!
GM>And as Kevin so aptly put it, you can ignore what anyone says if you judge
>them to be trapped by a deceitful philosophy. Thus there is no way to
>change your mind about anything.
I refer Glenn to my reply to Kevin where I list seven points that if TE/ECs
met, I would be prepared to change my mind about my claim that:
"TE/ECs have" to varying degrees "been taken "captive through [a] hollow
and deceptive philosophy..." (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-
naturalism".
GM>To the anti-evolutionary lurkers here: Is this what you want as your
>ideal position?
What makes Glenn think that I am claiming that mine is the "ideal... anti-
evolutionary...position"? It is a position that seems right to me and in line
with what the Bible teaches about the dangers of trying to mix Christianity
with other philosophies (Col 2:8; Mat 6:24).
But I accept that other anti-evolutionists might not agree with my position
or approach, and I have not sought, nor do I claim to have, anyone else's
support. I take *full* personal responsibility for what I write and I
acknowledge that it is not necessarily the opinions of other anti-
evolutionists. Although I hasten to point out that to date no anti-
evolutionist to date has disagreed with me on this, either publicly or
privately.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite
possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can `explain' why
it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance,
with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low
probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the
available time (as in Boltzmann's `explanation'; see text to note 260 in
section 35), then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to
"explain" almost everything. Even so, we have little enough reason to
conjecture that any explanation of this sort is applicable to the origin of
life." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
[1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p167)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------