>Stephen:
>I am trying to wind down this thread too. This will be my last post on
>it unless Susan comes up with anything new.
In that case I'll trim my replies to just a few things.
>SB>Theism:
> >Someone once asked H.L. Menken what he would do if he died and woke
> >up in heaven and saw Jesus surrounded by the apostles. He said he
> >would walk up to Jesus and say "Sir, I was wrong."
>
>If Jesus is who the Bible says he is, then it will be too late. One of the
>most
>devastating things that Jesus said was that He won't judge us by God's
>standards, he will judge us by our *own* standards:
>
> Mt 7:2 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
> and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
>
>And *no one* could claim that was unfair!
and no one is.
An entity that would condemn someone to eternal torture for mere unbelief
isn't worth worship.
>SB> afraid it
> >would take a similar level of evidence for me to admit the same thing.
>
>The problem is not "evidence" but *attitude* to the "evidence". As Pascal
>pointed out there is enough evidence for those who are willing to accept it,
>but not enough evidence to force those who are unwilling to accept it:
Isn't he the guy who recommended lying about belief in God just to appease
God just in case he existed so you wouldn't go to hell? And it would work,
too, except you would be a life-long liar--lying to an omniscient being, no
less, who has habit of burning people in Hell forever for lying.
>" There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
> humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate
> and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
> (Pascal B., "Pensees," 1966, p.73)
exactly the same thing could be said about Hinduism or any of the other
hundreds of human religions. All of them have "evidence" that the Sky
Lizard really, truly (no *really*) exists.
>SB>Darwinism:
> >The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. I'll probably believe it
> >until the Theory of Gravity is proved untrue and things start
> >floating up off the ground.
>
>Even some biologists don't find "The evidence supporting it is
>overwhelming":
>
> "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman
> that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
> nineteenth- century religion has virtually become a religion itself
> and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are
> certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious
> fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral
> reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science
> itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a potential revolt
> from within rather than a siege from without. What is even more
> surprising is that these doubts are arising simultaneously from
> several independent branches of science. With a growth in the
> appreciation of the philosophy of science-largely due to the
> influence of the philosopher Karl Popper-has come a doubt about
> whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking, scientific. Is the theory
> actually testable-as good theories must be? Is the idea of natural
> selection based on a tautology, a simple restatement of some initial
> assumptions? From within biology the doubts have come from
> scientists in half a dozen separate fields. Many palaeontologists
> are
> unconvinced by the supposed gradualness of Darwinian evolution;
> they feel that the evidence points to abrupt change-or else to no
> change at all. Some geneticists question Darwin's explanation for
> the 'origin of species', feeling that natural selection may have
> virtually nothing to do with the events that lead to the appearance
> of new species. Among other scientists, for example among
> immunologists, embryologists and taxonomists, the same feeling
> seems to be growing: there is a lot more to evolution than Charles
> Darwin envisaged, and even the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
> (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
> Darwinism," 1982, p.10)
Interesting. I did searches with several search engines and found literally
*dozens* of pages of creationist sites stuffed with the usual out of
context quotes including this one, but no hint of who this guy is. From
Amazon.com I got his first name ("B." is all the creationists ever used).
Stephen's quote is the longest I could find but every one starts at exactly
the same point and is attributed in exactly the same way. Since Stephen
always reads at least portions of the books he quotes, I'd like for Stephen
to provide us with a few paragraphs above the one presented and a few
paragraphs below and the title of the Chapter.
>SB>Christianity:
> >Christian morality with its Middle Eastern emphasis on blame/shame
> >and its neurotic dualism will probably always turn me off.
>
>Is Susan suggesting that feeling "blame" and "shame" is not *real*? There
>is a name for those who feel no "blame" or "shame" - psychopaths.
And people who feel illegitimate shame and who must fix blame at all costs
are . . . neurotic. It would be just as easy to teach that morality flows
from compassion (which it does) and that people naturally wish to be good
(which they do) than to use shame and blame as a way to force morality.
>The democracy that Susan enjoys in America owes itself to the
>congregational democracy of its founding *Christian* Pilgrim Fathers.
about 60% of them were Deists, not Christians (have you ever heard of the
Jefferson Bible?). And they had seen the horror of what could happen when
Christians had control of the government. They wrote the 1st Amendment very
deliberately.
>SB>Creationism:
> >An attempt to use the force of the Federal government to require
> >teaching the mythology of one of the many religions practiced in the
> >US in public schools. No thanks!
>
>I doubt that any major creationist organisation wants "to use the force of
>the Federal government to require teaching" of "creationism" (in an overtly
>Christian Biblical sense) "in the US ... public schools."
You must have missed The Wedge document posted here a while back. It's the
consuming passion of most creationists. What do you think all those Supreme
Court decisions were about?
>The ID Movement's position is to "teach the controversy", i.e what the
>dissenting views about evolution and its evidentiary problems *actually
>are*:
I would nave no problem with that if it was not the same tired creationist
nonsense supported by the standard out of context quotes harvested from
hither and yon. Most of the "problems" that Johnson cites are phony.
Neither Creationists nor IDists want to teach evolutionary controversies
like "did birds evolve directly from a dinosaur?" or "Is Homo Habilis
actually a separate species?"
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 22:26:12 EST