Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:21:32 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910152132.1134e18d.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910092057.G62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020909213532.3a804946.yid@softhome.net> <20020910092057.G62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
"Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> > Evolution doesn't have anything to do with "worldly or temporal
> > concerns" and their source. Telihard De Chardin and, to a lesser
> > extent, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook managed to be both
> > evolutionists and"Judeo-christian" theists without much of a
> > contradiction. Of course, Neal Westfall claims that De Chardin,
> > Catholic Church approvals of his writings to the contrary, is "not a
> > xtian" because he doesn't match Mr. Westfall's version of orthodoxy.
>
> 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. :-)
> > Neal Westfall claims of course that evolution is a religion.
>
> 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?
> > Then he goes and claims that without xtianity one cannot properly
> > reason. ;-)
>
> 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?
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?20020910152132.1134e18d.yid>