(snip)
> It seems to me that all of my
> >statements 1 through 5 are true. I know that some Christians deny the
> >truth of one or more of them. But so what? They are wrong to do so. No
> >useful discussion can occur between groups if one group denies obvious
> >facts. In that sense, some Christians cannot participate in a useful
> >discussion of this issue, and they fully deserve the contempt and
> >dismissal of proponents of evolution. Do you and I disagree on that point?
> >It seems to me that we are saying the same thing in different terminology.
>
> We might be saying some of the same things. But I disagree that they
> deserve contempt and dismissal. Don't get me wrong, I disagree strongly
> with their view but they ARE brothers in Christ, misguided though they be.
> And they control much of the agenda among the laity. And from a practical
> point of view, there are too many of them to ignore.
Yes, you make good points here, but I think the problem is more serious
than you seem to admit. The denial of points 1 thorugh 5 by Christians is
intellectually shoddy and ethically reprehensible, just as evangelical
Christians would find it intellectually shoddy and ethically
reprehensible if someone were to try to claim that the New Testament does
not say that Jesus was the Son of God or that the resurrection did not
occur. Useful debate requires honesty and intellectual integrity. Whoever
does not have those does deserve contempt and dismissal, at least within
the realm of that debate, it seems to me.
Thank you for your responses to what I wrote. I think that these
interchanges do move the debate forward.
Lloyd Eby