My friend, Will Provine, tried that one out on me but he did it more
eloquently. I believe Chrisitanity because I have seen the power of the
resurrected Lord in my own life. Whether you want to believe this or not is
your choice. My interest in the historical and scientific aspects of
Christianity stem from that. I do insist that the Bible have some basis in
historical fact as a requirement for belief.
>
>I don't want to try here to argue you out of your beliefs in this area, but
>you seem so rational (in my view) with respect to scientific issues (at
>least with respect to evolution) that I can't help but wish that you'd apply
>the same fact-oriented intellectual rigor to your religious beliefs (which I
>do not think you have done).
You don't know me that well do you? One of the reasons for the beliefs I
advocate is that they do maintain historicity for the scriptures and that
is important to me.
>
>I am not, as you might guess, a fan of Johnson. I think his distortions of
>evolutionary theory and fact are too great to be honest (or he's a lot
>stupider than he appears), and his pretense that non-naturalist views should
>be put on an equal footing (with respect to Occam's Razor) as naturalism
>appeals to some, but it is *not* rational, despite the title of his book on
>the topic.
Smart comes in more forms than those you allow. THere is intellectual smart
and there is street smart. If you are so naive as to think Johnson is
street stupid you are truly naive. Johnson has had more influence than you
and I put together. That takes more smarts than you might imagine. WHile I
think Johnson is misleading people, you are foolish to think he isn't
smart. He knows what he is doing. I just don't agree with the ethics of it.
>I'm not going to develop much respect for Johnson until he starts dealing
>with such issues honestly, instead of merely trying to convince people that
>individual naturalistic theories (some of which *can* be refuted, of course)
>are false. This tactic, at best, merely disproves individual, specific
>naturalistic theories. It does not prove that *any* form of non-naturalist
>theory must be true; that burden of proof remains right where it started.
As a Christian that is what bothers me most about the way Christians have
dealt with this issue. We haven't been honest. And I say this having done
my share of bad things when I was a YEC. Saying that Well's religion is
widely known is simply another example. Johnson knows it wasn't widely known.
>It's not generally a good idea to try to make facts fit a theory, as you
>(and Johnson) seem to be doing.
I am curious. Tell me where I am making facts fit a theory. And lets stay
with the facts here.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution