Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910134238.T35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020910152132.1134e18d.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote:
> > Since you like Teilhard De Chardin so much, do you agree with the
> > statement of his that defenders of evolution "must never let
> > themselves be deflected into secondary discussions of the scientific
> > 'hows' and the metaphysical 'whys.'" Sounds like dogmatism to me.
>
> Yes, but De Chardin was as well as being a paleologist a theologian; who
> did let the two mix. Don't ask me to defend all of his theology, I don't
> agree with all of what little I know of it and I'm more familiar with
> Rav Kook, whom I'm also not a follower of (mostly due to his stances on
> Zionism) but I've studied his works; than De Chardin. However, your
> claim that he's "not a xtian" seems specious because the Pope, a bit of
> an authority on the subject, seemed to think he was. :-)
What would make you think that the pope is an authority to anyone who
is not Roman Catholic?
> > W.T. Jones, who is certainly no Christian, noticed that scientists had
> > "elevated Darwinism to the level of a religious dogma." (from his "A
> > History of Western Philosophy") Theodosius Dobzhansky claims to be
> > able to explain evolution "if the assumption is made that life arose
> > from matter only once." ("Species after Darwin," A Century of Darwin
> > (London: 1958), p. 22.) W.R. Thompson says in his Introduction to a
> > current edition of Origin of Species "Personal convictions... are
> > presented as if they were proofs." Paul Westmeyer declares:
> > "Evolution is useful but it is a myth." ("Twentieth Century
> > Mythology," Chemistry, January, 1965, p. 17) Need I say more?
>
> Neal, be honest for a change, have you actually read these sources?
I never claimed to have read all those sources. How is that relevent?
I was just demonstrating that I'm not the only one who thinks that
evolution takes on a religious persona by those who espouse it. Oh,
and by the way, there you go again. 8-)
> > Uh, no. Never said non-christians cannot reason. I said that if they
> > were consistent with their professed beliefs, they would not *in
> > principle* be able to reason at all. The fact that they *do* reason
> > is what makes them accountable to God.
>
> OK then, why would G-d give an ability to someone if it automatically
> damns most human beings to eternal torture with the measure, rather than
> how good the person is, to be where he happens to sit in the most
> segregated hour of the week?
Reason does not damn them, their sinful use of it without acknowledging
it as a gift from God is what damns them. They claim not to know God,
but their reasoning ability is evidence to them that he does exist.
Neal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910134238.T35938-100000>