Re: ICR and its slurs (summary reflections)

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:10:51 -0600

At 02:29 PM 6/3/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Brian D. Harper writes:
>
><<I am curious how a distortion can be considered logically
>compelling or consistent, or how the science of evolution
>can be held in any way responsible for a connection to
>racism which is based on a distortion.>>
>
>But the point is that it is NOT a distortion.

It is a distortion. Evolution was never meant to provide moral or ethical
codes, and furthermore, there is absolutely NO scientific evidence for the
superiority of any one human ethnic group over another. So to use evolution
to support racism is not only a massive distortion of the scientific evidence
(actually more along the lines of fabrication of scientific evidence), but also
a complete missaplication of science in general.

>It is NOT a distortion to move
>from the premise "all is only material" to the conclusion "power is the only
>rule."

Christian morality claims that "power is the only rule". If it wasn't, why
would anyone care what God said?

>It is NOT a distortion to move from "only the fittest survive" to "I
>define fitness as X, and I am X, therefore I am more fit to survive." Etc.

Of course it is. And the fact that you don't see anything wrong with that is
more than a little disturbing to me.

>So far no one has provided a logical argument, from purely materialistic
>premises, to refute the above.

You didn't read the article about genetics and race, did you?

I'm not surprised.

><< As has already been pointed out, one
>could use this same argument to hold Christianity accountable
>for all manner of evils. Is the justification reasonable?>>
>
>No, one cannot make the same argument to hold Christianity accountable.

As long as one holds to a double standard.

>As
>pointed out above, the materialist cannot claim a "distortion."

And as pointed out right afterwards (backed up by a real argument), he
certainly can.

>He hasn't got
>the objective standard to make that measure.

Neither does the Christian. Unless you can, for once, prove otherwise.

>The Christian CAN claim a
>distortion, can point out where a misplaced justification is unreasonable.
>Yes, there are disagreements, but at least there is a shared moral syntax.

Look at my previous post, concerning quotes from scripture. There are so many
contradictions in the Bible that one cannot even hope to derive a "shared moral
syntax". People can quote passages at will to support almost any belief.

><<Oh, BTW Jim. In the paragraph above you are complaining about
>your ideas being distorted. Perhaps you could explain to me
>exactly why you are complaining about this? I mean, your ideas
>do have consequences don't they?>>
>
>Only the good ones, I hope!

Of course, once again you don't even think to hold yourself and your ideas
to the
same standard that you hold your opponents and their ideas.

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.