Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Re: Moderator: Religious war

Expand Messages
  • LAlbert
    ... From: Paul Andrew King To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Re:
    Message 1 of 117 , Feb 1, 2002
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:39 PM
      Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Re: Moderator: Religious war

      >   [About time.  In both cases.
      >   Personally I would have preferred it if the moderators had acted
      >   earlier and insisted on moving the argument to a more appropriate
      >   forum.]
      >
      >   Leon: Of course. We must all keep our heads firmly buried in the
      >sand with respect to the fact that the creation side of the
      >creation-evolution debate has anything to do with religion.

      [That is a silly statement.  My point is that we should stick to the
      aspects of religion relevant to the matter in hand.  Arguing over
      whether there was a historical individual underlying the Jesus
      stories in the Bible is hardly relevant - as well as being impossible
      to prove.  (Personally I see nothing inherently improbable in the
      idea that a Galilean would-be messiah named Jesus was crucified by
      the Romans).]

      >  Thus we may go off on all concevable tangents with respect to the
      >evolution side, but "God" forbid that the religionist, from Tim
      >through Mike to Paul, have their delicate sensitivities and "sacred"
      >beliefs threatened in any way. That could obviously ONLY be
      >motivated by "bias," and "condescension" toward religion, right?

      [The amusing thing about this is that I am not a religionist.  I am
      simply fed up with pointless and silly threads which are not even
      on-topic.]
      Leon: Excuse me, Paul if I am in turn amused by your naiveté in contending that it is "silly" to hold that the creation side of this debate has something to do with religious beliefs regarding the historicity of Jesus. In fact this is one of the core beliefs that motivates every fundamentalist-creationists in their vehement opposition to the theory of evolution! In their literalist mythology:
      1) Evolution = No Adam and Eve   =  No Original Sin;
      2) Divine Redemption = Forgiveness of Original Sin;
      3) No Original Sin = No need for Divine Redemption =  No need for a Divine/Historical Jesus.
      4) No historical Jesus = No Divine Jesus; 
      Thus the non-existence of a historical Jesus (or the existence of a historical Jesus who was merely human) destroys the core belief of the fundamentalist-creationist, and IT IS THIS CORE BELIEF that drives his fervent, often irrational, denial of both evolution and the science behind it.  So, contrary to your contention, Paul, this "pointless and silly" thread is VERY much "on-topic."
      Leon Albert
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Most professional evolutionists are debating their theories daily in peer reviewed journals. And many of them DO participate in venues like this one. ...
      Message 117 of 117 , Feb 7, 2002
        On 6 Feb 2002 at 12:13, LAlbert wrote:

        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Dave Oldridge
        > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:37 PM
        > Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Re: Moderator: Religious
        > war
        >
        > <skip>
        >
        > > [Wrong. You are missing the point again. They are deceiving
        > > themselves and others about matters of fact, not opinion.]
        > >
        > >
        > > Leon: You vacillate Dave. First you argue that their "problem" is
        > > "heterodoxy," an obvious matter of opinion. Now you argue that their
        > > "problem" lies in "matters of fact, not opinion."
        >
        > [No vacillation at all. Just the facts, Jack.]
        >
        > Leon: Hmmm, sounds amazingly similar to vacillation. I guess you
        > meant to say that they have more than one problem, from your
        > perspective.
        >
        > > [It doesn't
        > > matter whether they find the cure for that in psychiatry or the
        > > confessional. Both offer a cure.] > > Leon: How is a "cure"
        > regarding "matters of fact" going to be > resolved in either a
        > confessional or a psychiatric session?
        >
        > [Because the self-deception that underlies the whole morass is
        > psychological (or spiritual) pathology, not the fact that their
        > opinion of events in the first century differs from yours.]
        >
        > Leon: You greatly misunderstand my position, Dave, if you think I
        > contend that the problem with creationists lies in "nothing but"a mere
        > difference between us regarding our respective "opinions" about what
        > happened in the 1st century. You and I also have such a difference of
        > "opinion," with yours being much more similar to that of the
        > creationists. Yet, you and I are both evolutionists!
        >
        >
        > > Moreover, youabove indicated that the former will provide a sure
        > > "cure/reformation," while the latter onlyMIGHT provide such a
        > > "cure/reformation."
        >
        > [That's right. I did.]
        >
        > > > [Their REALLY evil mentors--those who do creationism for
        > > profit-- > will, of course discourage both eventualities.]
        > >
        > > > Leon: I would suggest that "their REALLY evil mentors," Dave,
        > > are > REALLY con-men who have simply "bought into"their own con. The
        > > > "profits" are just a happy "side benefit," although certainly an >
        > > unconscious motivator.
        > >
        > > [I don't think so, Leon. I have yet to meet a really SINCERE
        > > professional creationist. When you scratch them deeply enough
        > you
        > > find a con man. A real TRUE believer is rare. Perhaps Gentry is one-
        > > -or was. At least he does TRY to put his voodoo physics
        > into
        > > the peer-reviewed literature (and regular sees it shredded
        > > there).]
        >
        > > Leon: An interesting contention, Dave. I might give some
        > > consideration to it IF you could tell me exactly HOW MANY and WHICH
        > > specific "professional creationists" you have ACTUALLY MET face-to-
        > > face, and what SPECIFIC CRITERIA you used to JUDGE their
        > "SINCERITY."
        > > I personally have interacted face-to-face with Duane Gish, Henry
        > > Morris, and Phillip Johnson. They all struck me as beingVERY
        > sincere,
        > > although totally self-deceived "con men." Precisely what is your
        > > METHOD of "scratching them deeply enough" to reveal their
        > insincerity?
        >
        > [Offer them a venue where they can't sell books or get lecture fees.
        > The sincerity vanishes pretty quickly.]
        >
        >
        > Leon: Make the same offer to most "professional" evolutionists, Dave.
        > Does a similar turn down ALSO mean that they are not "sincere?"

        Most professional evolutionists are debating their theories daily in peer reviewed journals. And many of them DO participate in
        venues like this one.

        > [Most of my interaction with them, with the exception of a couple of
        > public lectures has been over the internet. But it's very clear from
        > that perspective that they are more interested in venues where there
        > is money to be had than in convincing people....]

        > Leon: Ditto my last comment. Who wouldn't be more interested in a
        > venue where "convincing people" can be COMBINED with making money?


        > [There are already enough convinced people to keep them in
        > Oldsmobiles and even Cadillacs (though a canny creationist will not go
        > in for really ostentatious displays of wealth).]
        >
        > [Several of the more notorious figures in the movement were, at one
        > time, offered the chance of a controlled internet debate with similar
        > rules to a courtroom. They unanimously turned it down. Why? It won't
        > sell books or videotapes and they will get their holy little clocks
        > cleaned and know it.]

        > Leon: I suspect that while both factors were operating, another
        > consideration, maybe even the primary one, would have been that they
        > prefer "preaching to the choir," their usual venue.

        Sure. The choir can be counted on to ante up when they pass the plate. And that's the main reason why the do it.


        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.