Re: More about teaching the controversy

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 11 2000 - 10:57:05 EDT

  • Next message: Susan Brassfield Cogan: "Re: ID unfalsifiable? (was Designed Designers?)"

    >Bertvan:
    >I was skeptical of Darwinism before I encountered you, Susan, but you are
    >one of the causes of my distaste for "evolutionists". Many are as intolerant
    >as you. (I know, you claim it is admirable to be intolerant of liars, which
    >appears to include anyone who disagrees with you.)

    (You should work on your reading comprehension. I only object to people who
    are uttering things that are not just untrue, but it is fairly obvious that
    the person speaking *knows* that what they are saying is untrue. Lies
    should bother you. I have a feeling they do--when you are the one being
    harmed.)

    Lies are not an acceptable debate technique. The creationists lie because
    they think they are saving souls from Satan. They have this twisted notion
    that their lies will preserve morality, etc. from evil atheist idea of
    evolution. You are an agnostic. What your excuse for tolerating lies?

    >I have stated repeatedly
    >that I do not object to anyone believing in Darwinism, atheism, materialism,
    >Marxism, Freud, YEC, racism, or whatever. I don't even try to change their
    >beliefs.

    That is certainly no virtue. You should object to and fight against
    anything you find objectionable. Otherwise you are complicit. "Live and let
    live" has its limits.

    >I respect Chris's right to be a materialist. I don't usually
    >express objection to your anti-religion paranoia. I merely insist on the
    >right of everyone to express disagreement without being attacked or called
    >names.

    Again you should work on your reading comprehension. I only attack liars
    when I am certain that *they know* what they are saying is untrue. I never
    attack someone who I'm fairly sure is merely repeating an untruth that has
    been told to them by someone else. You will notice, if you read more
    carefully, that I very seldom attack people. I only attack their ideas. (In
    order to stick as close to this ideal as possible I very seldom debate
    holocaust denyers or racists. I simply find them too vile *as people* and
    end up wanting to merely rip them to shreds. I'm an old lady. It's not good
    for my blood pressure.)

    >Bertvan:
    >>>People with scientific degrees express differences
    >>>of opinion, and I tend to trust those scientists who are civil, are tolerant
    >>>of differences of opinion, and don't misrepresent those who disagree with
    >>>them.
    >
    >Susan:
    >>unless they come to a conclusion that you don't like
    >snip
    >>the attachment to RM&NS is based upon observations and the attachment to ID
    >>is based on religion.
    >
    >Bertvan:
    >I'm sure many people feel the same way, Susan. Our own beliefs are supported
    >by evidence, but dissenting views are the result of superstition. I don't
    >feel that way, myself. I defend *everyone's* right to dissent.

    I also defend everyone's right to dissent. Rights are not under
    disscussion here. The dissenting views themselves are the topic. If your
    beliefs are supported by evidence, please trot it out. No? You never do
    that. The evidence doesn't support you so the evidence simply doesn't
    matter. If your arguments get shredded or merely shown to be untrue, you
    retreat to pontificating about your right to your opinion. You have a
    right to your opinion. No one denies that. I have a right to show you where
    and how your opinion is wrong. You have that same right also. If you think
    I'm wrong, don't just say it, show it.

    >Bertvan:
    >You fear someone *might* find a way to stuff their religion down your throat.
    > (It hasn't happened yet.)

    it happens all the time. I have Christianity shoved in my face about every
    five minutes as I drive down just about every road in the state of
    Oklahoma.

    >Well, Darwinists have *already* found ways to try
    >to stuff "random mutation and natural selectin" down the throats of
    >everyone, with the backing of the ACLU.

    no, the ACLU merely makes sure that religion stays out of it. If you want
    your religious idea of ID to be science, then find the evidence to make it
    science. Otherwise stop whining about the ACLU.

    Susan

    ----------

    The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
    actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
    morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
    --Albert Einstein

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 11 2000 - 10:59:44 EDT