Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:02:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1086 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Steve: You seem to be set on directing your posts only toward a single
> > recipient rather than answering questions and rebuttals from the readership
> > at large. If this is the case, I urge you to pursue your discussion via
> > email, or at the very least to answer some of the refutations of your claims
> > here on LUGNET. Otherwise, you seem to be taking a head-in-the-sand
> > approach to debate, and nothing constructive can come of that.
>
> Just to jump in for Steve on this one, I think the present course was
> somewhat diverted from Steve's original intent. I think (correct me if I'm
> wrong Steve) that Steve's intent has been to dispute the moral theory I
> presented. In so doing, he made the fatal mistake of unearthing the buzzword
> of 'evolution' and 'Darwinism'.
But wait there's more!! Not only did Steve unearth those buzzwords, he
attempted to base his arguments on his Creationist philosophy, a philosophy
that is 100% incompatible with evolutionary biology (sort of like Lego and
Knex, only more serious). Now he is free to do that, but if he does he
_must_ be prepared to defend his beliefs. I would rather he did this in a
public forum, where <flame on> his misguided concept of science in general,
natural history in particular and the relationship between God and the
physical universe can be exposed for the reactionary propaganda it
is.</flame off> (This stuff is pretty important to me.)
> It honestly doesn't relate (I don't think) to my moral theory, and as such, I
> don't think Steve's under any obligation to continue down that already
> trodden path if he doesn't want to-- sorry if you're feeling left out
> though...
I'm fairly interested in your (DavidE and Steve's) argument over moral
theory: I totally disagree with Steve's theology, but his version of God is
his business, and it takes him some interesting places. Obviously he is
entitled to ultra-conservative beliefs which are totally out of step with
any modern understanding of the world, but he shouldn't expect them to pass
without comment. We all have our quirks: I happen to think that Castro has
done an amazing job in Cuba, all things considered, but since I don't
consider that to be a useful, widely accepted or even particularly
defensible hypothesis, I don't try to make it a debating point.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Just to jump in for Steve on this one, I think the present course was somewhat diverted from Steve's original intent. I think (correct me if I'm wrong Steve) that Steve's intent has been to dispute the moral theory I presented. In so doing, he (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
