Nancy Pearcey wrote:
>But the main point is still, "Why Stalin?" Of course there have been people who have >been influenced toward materialism & atheism by reading Darwin (or more likely,
>about Darwin). Who doubts it? But Pearcey didn't cite Joe Schmoe or Susie Straw,
>she chose someone who purportedly read Darwin & became a mass murderer.
>Guess why.
>"His atheism, when applied consistently, had negative social consequences." What
>does this mean? That if you're a consistent Darwinian you'll act like Stalin? It sure
>sounds like that.
I think my suspicions (not to mention my predictions) have been well confirmed (see my posts in the previous Stalin thread). She IS saying as I SAID she was saying, that if you become an evolutionist, you risk becoming a mass murderer. Accolades may be sent to my email, but money would be more appreciated if sent to my mailing address! :-)
Nancy, this is utter nonsense. This is an ad hominem of the grossest proportions. It is a logically invalid way to argue against evolution. The reason I picked up on your reasoning for using Stalin, is because I used to be an anti-evolutionist. I know how much anti-evolutionists really do believe that one becomes immoral if one believes in evolution. That IS why you chose Stalin rather than H. G. Wells, a more appropriate and beleiveable example. Apparently, you haven't lived enough in the world with non-christians to know people like my former boss who was an atheist, who was one of the most moral people around, who disdained people who would not keep their marriage vows and in now way would this guy consider mass murder the logical outcome of atheism, much less evolution. He was quite tolerant of my religious views and engaged me several times in deep philosophical discussions.
And it is what the ID and YEC folks do all the time. Instead of arguing the evidence, they argue the dangers of believing this dangerous idea of evolution. Nancy, if you all actually could explain the scientific data within a coherent cogent theory, you wouldn't have to resort to this political/emotional argument that if you believe in evolution you become a REALLY bad person. I must say that I disagree with Ted that this is not a scholarly way to behave.
>Personal Note to Glenn Morton--yes, of course, I remember talking with you at a
>conference. I recently posted something you had written, which I found particularly >insightful, on an ID listserv.
I am always flattered when someone famous remembers me. I don't think I am all that memorable. But, anyway, I am pleased. But Nancy, I should tell you, that being an evolutionist, you are in absolutely no danger of me becoming a mass murderer. If I have dinner with you, I won't kill you. We may disagree a lot, but I won't do you in. I am a christian. Christians love their neighbors. Thus, I find your reasoning so bizarre in this respect that I don't know whether to laugh or to cry for Christianity. One of the things I have learned in my journey in life is that anti-evolutionism may be going against the Word of God. I think the Bible teaches evolution. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gen1-11.htm If I am right, you are kicking against the goads.
I think all this anti-evolutionism ignores the grammar in the Bible. The EARTH brought forth life. God commanded the EARTH to bring forth life. He didn't create it directly. (Of course, most on this list would say that Gen. 1 isn't to be taken seriously as any form of history but needing some form of history in Geneisis is the point on which I feel certain that you and I do probably agree). That is what the Bible says and you and your ID friends (like my friends Paul Nelson and Steve Meyer ignore that. I have known Steve for 20 years and Paul for 19 They are good guys, if terribly misguided. And you too may be misguided. Don't let your son go into science because given the beliefs you are teaching him he is more likely to become an atheist if he goes into science.).
I must add that in addition to learning that the Bible teaches evolution, one other thing I have learned in life, is an appreciation for the difficulty of the Chinese language. :-) That being said, I can now speak with the chinese people in line for a lan che (a cable car) for over a half hour, as I did today. The guy behind me was a doctor who spoke no English, but we communicated for that long. Wo de zhong wen (my chinese) jing(4) bu(4) (improves)
glenn
Beijing, China, July 30, 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 09:00:00 EDT