Creation or Evolution

[beeliner]

1. “anti-intellectuals”? What a strange word. There is no anti-intellectualism in believing in Jesus Christ? There is no anti-intellectualism in believing the host turns into Christ’s body and the wine into His blood during the mass?
2. What you call “anti-intellectualism” and what you call “science” is simply atheism.
3. It is simply atheism that calls upon all Christians to abandon their anti-intellectualism and to replace God with science. That is what this is about. Always has been.

What incredible nonsense.

1. Those are matters of religious faith, having nothing to do with the intellect. They are believed by geniuses and by morons, and they are rejected by geniuses and by morons.

2 & 3. The Catholic school system has been in the forefront of science education for much longer than both our lifetimes put end to end. Are all of their science teachers atheists? Were the priests and religious who taught me biology - orthodox biology, not ‘creationist’ drivel - atheists? Of course we were also taught there that God is the prime mover, but that is religion, that is something on which science is completely silent.

It is teaching religion and calling it science that is anti-intellectual. No Catholic Church and no Catholic school that I have ever attended has done that, and if there are any that do that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

The various so-called fundamentalist Protestant denominations lie to their members and to their students about both science and religion because they have nothing else to offer. That is anti-intellectual and also a perversion of religion.

The list of Catholic colleges and universities in the USA, especially those of the Jesuits, is a veritable who’s who of educational excellence. Can you name one or more of those institutions where ‘creationism’ is taught as science? I certainly can’t.

How long a list of fundamentalist ‘Christian’ schools, where the most outrageous lies about both science and Church history are taught routinely, would you like? Let’s start with Bob Jones University and work down from there.

Take your choice.

 

[beeliner]

This is the very reason I asked that athiests not to take part on this thread, for I knew the topic was going to be hot enough without them making it worse, knowing full well they have a personal agenda against those of faith. If you are athiest and choose to participate, at least make it clear that you are one, just so we know who we are dealing with to avoid confusion.

I have not reviewed the entire thread, but I can remember no one making such a claim, or even anyone whose posts would suggest that.

The question is not faith versus atheism but denying or misstating the laws of nature and of science in order to promote a specific religious agenda, usually an esoteric one, or simply claiming that centuries of scientific study are wrong and that only they have the truth, while providing no documentation or support.

People who do that are generally called cranks. Perhaps it is the cranks who should be discouraged from participation in the thread, as their purpose seems only to block or ‘torpedo’ intelligent discussion.

Surely you’re not suggesting that only those who agree with you, or with some particular thesis, should participate. Are you?

If anything I have posted here has been insufficiently documented, I will gladly provide additional support. Those who have opposed me have provided none whatsoever. Nonsensical blathering is not support.

 

[Brian_Millar]

The purpose of this discussion is entirely to review both sides of the debate without having to guess if a third party, in particular athiests have an ulterior motive. I wanted to see if we could discuss these matters with respect to one another, without bashing each other, and without forcing one side or the other.

It’s when it becomes heated in debate, where one is putting down the other side for their beliefs that shows clearly who is in the wrong. It’s not about the facts, or who agree’s with whom, as much as simple discussion, allowing the reader to make their own decision having seen both sides of the debate in question. You cannot have a discussion if everybody is simply conveying only one side and one perspective.

For the record, I am still a creationist, I used to believe in evolution, so I can see both sides at once and I do not force my perspective onto others. I choose to believe one way, someone else chooses to believe another, no biggie, we are following our own path through our lives, and perhaps we can find some common ground here. What I do not do is put down someone for their beliefs, this is where we must show some restraint no matter how tempting it may be to slam the other side. I have also presented some differing theories which back up my position that the evolutionists should take note of.

 

[edwest2]

To beeliner:

Pope Benedict has made statements that indicate, for Catholics, certain answers to scientific questions must go beyond science. Also, Pope Benedict is concerned about the “many scientists” who say that evolution negates any role for God. This is fact. It is the core of any discussion between Catholics and those who do not believe in God.

It is also fact that the Church does not accept any theory of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance, that deny any truly causal role for God in the creation of life in the universe (see Human Persons Created in the Image of God). Pope John Paul, while calling evolution “more than a hypothesis” made it clear that certain key truths needed to be kept in mind. He rejected an evolutionary theory of life that consisted only of chance (random mutation) and necessity (natural selection), which cannot ground the dignity of the human person. That dignity flows from our relationship to God.

This knowledge of God, the Church tells us, can be aquired by each of us through natural human reason.

So the Church tells Catholics that random mutation and natural selection, by themselves, cannot lead to human beings without divine providence. However, this can never be the case with the “keep your religion out of my public school” crowd.

You can say “they” are lying as often as you like. I hope you realize that “they” are either incredibly stupid or have some unknown secret agenda by indoctrinating children into thinking the earth is 6-8,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs lived together. I don’t buy that. I think they sincerely believe what they are teaching in their Protestant and other Christian denomination schools. From that standpoint, it should be no one’s concern. I’m certain they have to answer all the questions correctly in order to go on to college biology courses. And I’m also certain that “those people” go on to become productive members of society.

God bless,
Ed

 

[milde]

Athiests, agnostics, etc. should not be involved with this thread in my opinion, that would throw off the unity, but if you insist, be very clear about that matter from the get go, just so we have a better understanding and point of reference from the poster.

ok, I’ll be clear. You are searching for truth by stating up front that you don’t want to hear certain opinions for the purpose of “unity”. I can’t imagine you actually need to do much searching to find unity, nor can I believe that you are really seeking truth by not listening to information you don’t want to hear.

 

[beeliner]

The purpose of this discussion is entirely to review both sides of the debate without having to guess if a third party, in particular athiests have an ulterior motive. I wanted to see if we could discuss these matters with respect to one another, without bashing each other, and without forcing one side or the other.

It’s when it becomes heated in debate, where one is putting down the other side for their beliefs that shows clearly who is in the wrong. It’s not about the facts, or who agree’s with whom, as much as simple discussion, allowing the reader to make their own decision having seen both sides of the debate in question. You cannot have a discussion if everybody is simply conveying only one side and one perspective.

For the record, I am still a creationist, I used to believe in evolution, so I can see both sides at once and I do not force my perspective onto others. I choose to believe one way, someone else chooses to believe another, no biggie, we are following our own path through our lives, and perhaps we can find some common ground here. What I do not do is put down someone for their beliefs, this is where we must show some restraint no matter how tempting it may be to slam the other side. I have also presented some differing theories which back up my position that the evolutionists should take note of.

Fair enough, and very well put.

My own position is this: I believe in a divine creator, but that in itself requires belief in the laws of nature which are, of course, an integral part of the creation. Science is on a completely different level than faith. In order for me to believe that a divine creator can be proven scientifically, you will have to show me evidence. So far no one has done that. My personal feeling is that IF any such evidence is eventually discovered, it will be within the field of quantum physics rather than biology, but that is just a hunch, and that ‘IF’ is a big one.

The ‘creationists’, within which you include yourself, simply want me to ‘take their word for it’ that God works, not just within the Genesis timeframe, but throughout all time, contrary to His very own laws of nature. That is not logical. If all the physical evidence indicates that species evolve, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they do not, then a reasonable person must conclude that they evolve, at least until future discoveries nullify such a belief. That is not likely to happen any time soon.

This is a Catholic forum. I have asked for the name of any Catholic school, at any level, that officially denies, as part of its curriculum, the evolution of species through natural selection and other processes, and so far no one has provided that information. I attended Catholic schools for eleven years; I regard my education there in ALL fields of science as top notch. I contrast that with the so-called ‘Christian’ schools of ‘fundamentalist’ Protestantism, where outrageous lies are taught as fact, both regarding science and the history of the Church.

I would ask only one question of you personally: Did your ‘conversion’ from believer in the evolution of species to non-believer come as a result of religious faith or empirical evidence? If the former, I have no argument with you whatever. If the latter, I would ask that you share the evidence with me so that I might investigate it for myself. I know of no such evidence.

As I keep repeating here, which I should not have to do, ALL of modern biology depends on evolution as its cornerstone, and it ALL fits together nicely, and even where there are uncertainties, these are resolved one by one as time and science advance. To get rid of evolution you would have to reorganize the entire science of biology from the most basic fundamentals. How would you suggest that that be done? Who would peer-review any such attempt? How would you deal with all of the errors and inconsistancies that would arise? These are not intended as rude or flippant questions.

I suggest that any impartial review of the entire thread will indicate that the scientific approach which I, and previously others, have tried to provide has been fairly and factually presented and documented, and that the science deniers have provided nothing but vacuous claims, pious prattle, and begging the question. That is not very convincing. I ask only that they support their claims as I have supported mine - but I know that’s not going to happen.

 

[Brian_Millar]

ok, I’ll be clear. You are searching for truth by stating up front that you don’t want to hear certain opinions for the purpose of “unity”. I can’t imagine you actually need to do much searching to find unity, nor can I believe that you are really seeking truth by not listening to information you don’t want to hear.

I guess I must be more clear and state my perspective along athiests in general, this is going into an area I care not to, but obviously you want to press the issue.

I have no interest in discussing anything with these matters with an athiest, I have no interest at all to learn anything from them on these boards ever. I do not come here to talk to athiests, I do not agree with most of what they say here, I don’t like the lack of tact most use, I don’t like the condensending nature of their dialog here, I don’t like it when they put us down because we have faith, thinking their towering intellect is vastly superior to ours simply because we have faith in God. I don’t like it when they turn the discussion into a pro/anti science debate, they raise that argument every single time, much of the time putting words in our mouths, much of the time, misconstruding what is being discussed and much of the time, turning the thread off topic.

Is this clear enough for you? Can we get back on topic on this matter and continue the dialog?

 

[milde]

I guess I must be more clear and state my perspective along athiests in general, this is going into an area I care not to, but obviously you want to press the issue.

I have no interest in discussing anything with these matters with an athiest, I have no interest at all to learn anything from them on these boards ever. I do not come here to talk to athiests, I do not agree with most of what they say here, I don’t like the lack of tact most use, I don’t like the condensending nature of their dialog here, I don’t like it when they put us down because we have faith, thinking their towering intellect is vastly superior to ours simply because we have faith in God. I don’t like it when they turn the discussion into a pro/anti science debate, they raise that argument every single time, much of the time putting words in our mouths, much of the time, misconstruding what is being discussed and much of the time, turning the thread off topic.

Is this clear enough for you? Can we get back on topic on this matter and continue the dialog?

I could argue just as you are and say that Christians have nothing to say that I want to hear. But I won’t.

Enjoy your “unity”.

 

[reggieM]

1. That may be ‘all one has to do’, but no one has done it. If such evidence is found, there is no question that the scientific community will assess it. Unfounded and unsupportable claims are not evidence…

No one has ever shown any weaknesses in evolutionary theory? Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part but I never saw any response from you whatsoever on these posts that I just got started with …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3767885&postcount=36
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3767924&postcount=37
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3767956&postcount=39

I think that’s pretty easy to simply observe how often evolutionary theory has changed in radical ways and how its “facts” have been proven false. Apparently, you’ve never seen this happen in the history of Darwinian thought. For you, it seems, evolution has always been 2+2=4, and this is impossible to challenge or doubt.

So when it was claimed as a fact that evolution occurs only by slow, gradual changes, that was a “fact”. Then Stephen J. Gould claimed that evolution occurs rapidly after periods of stasis. So, 2+2 was challenged and Gould said that actually 2+3=4. There was then a debate between gradualists and punctualists. Now they’re saying that evolution happens by both means.

But apparently, you find no weakness in the theory. Additionally, I imagine, you will assert that “now” the theory is right (although it was wrong in the past). We are not permitted to question if there is something more than punctuated equilibrium or that Gould’s idea is completely wrong (has any one explained how or why evolution supposedly created a large number of species in a short period of time and then created nothing thereafter to the present day?). But when this theory is challenged and proven wrong, as has happened previously – we are not permitted to say that the arrogant scientists who claimed that they had “facts” are not worthy of trust, and that the authorities and experts were completely wrong in the past.

Again, you’re apparently claiming that there is nil evidence to suggest that today’s version of evolution is incorrect.

1. You are taking that out of context. Firstly, the Holy See has no authority, God-given or otherwise, to rule on matters outside the realm of faith and morals, though, like anyone else, it can certainly state its opinions - on anything at all.

Given the fact that evolutionary philosophy touches on faith and morals, then the Holy See has full authority to warn and command the faithful – has it has done. We are taught by the Magisterium that several theories of evolution are “incompatible with the Catholic Faith”.

You have claimed that there is “nil” evidence against evolution. This conflicts with what the Magisterium has taught.

Secondly, the condemnation referred specifically to claims couched in the language of atheism. The principles of modern biology, of which the evolution of species is the cornerstone, make no such assertion.

That’s an interesting philosophical opinion. It cannot be proven scientifically, and it cannot even be supported by the text. The Holy See did not use the phrase “couched in the language of atheism” – that is your addition.

You know that I have made no such claim, and your dishonesty in implying that I have simply denegrates your own position further.

My position was that you claimed that there was “nil” evidence against “evolution”. Apparently, you’re now denying that you made that claim? I could quote you your own post, but perhaps you’ve changed your mind. I merely pointed out that since, as the Magisterium has taught (although you appear to deny that text) that there are “several theories of evolution”. I can’t find any other conclusion than to accept that you think that there is no evidence against all of those theories – even the contradictory ones.

You’ve offered no other clarification except to say that I am “dishonest”. I can’t see how that’s a very strong position at all.

If you are so convinced that your position has merit, submit your assertions to the scientific community for review. If you are unwilling to do so, then give solid reasons, not empty rhetoric, why you are right and science is wrong, and let the reader make his/her choice.
Seems fair to me

Most of what I have learned and what I post (I can’t claim to be original) on this topic already comes from “the scientific community”. I see significant evidence to show that ID theory is gaining more acceptance (I posted the Oxford Conference notes earlier). I find that there are some groundbreaking books coming from the ID world.

Here’s a peer-reviewed, scientific publication written by a molecular biologist and a software engineer of The Biologic Institute, an Intelligent Design organization.

plosone.org/article/fetch…l.pone.0002246

While Intelligent Design theory (the teleological argument) is as old as Western Civilization itself, there are some very new advances being made. The Stylus program mentioned above is a good example. It will take time for that to show results.

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics -

Please be aware of the false claim that “science” is silent about God. Pope Benedict has stated “many” scientists are using evolution to say God had no causal role in your being here today.

An illustration:

“Hey, Mr. Christian. Science can say nothing about God. Absolutely nothing. It’s science ya know.”

“OK. Then I guess I can believe in evolution and that God was involved.”

“Sure. Of course you can.”

Later, after intellectuals petition the government to kick religion out of public debate …

“Hey, I thought you told me I could believe in God and evolution?”

“I did? Did I say that?”

“Yes. Yes, you did.”

“Prove it.”

In the courtroom…

“You see judge, he said I could believe in God and evolution.”

Judge: “Listen mister. I only rule on the facts in evidence. It’s your word against his. You should’ve gotten it in writing.”

My fellow Christians - we will never get it in writing. It’s all about promoting an anti-God agenda.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

It’s all about promoting an anti-God agenda.

How true and how sad! Too many insist on the evolution-theory, even as it’s merely a theory. Science admits it’s a theory by excusing itself with the
MISSING LINK
As long as this link is missing (and it never will be found) the theory will remain an anti-God agenda.
Whatever God does is done right and good in the first place. Souls didn’t have to evolute. They where there or not. Adam was human without being ape before. Who do we think God is!? A tinkerer? In that case heaven too would have been subject to evoulution.

 

[beeliner]

Here’s a peer-reviewed, scientific publication written by a molecular biologist and a software engineer of The Biologic Institute, an Intelligent Design organization.

plosone.org/article/fetch…l.pone.0002246

While Intelligent Design theory (the teleological argument) is as old as Western Civilization itself, there are some very new advances being made. The Stylus program mentioned above is a good example. It will take time for that to show results.

The link brings up nothing but a blank screen. How appropriate!

If you can provide a working link, I will gladly check it out.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

I very much wonder, if it makes sense to argue about the theme.
To those who believe in God, the answers are clear; to those who don’t believe in God, it’s just as clearly the very opposite. That will stay such, until we all see. So, it just doesn’t make sense so argue – for this dispute is not really one about creation, but questioning God’s existence.
I must admit, that when I was around 40 or 50, I believed in evolution. The more I get into things, it’s perfectly clear, that a YES to evolution, as far as humans are concerned, denies not just Gods creation, but denies God himself. It was totally wrong and sinful of me to allow such thinking in my mind. I very much regret this.

 

[reggieM]

The link brings up nothing but a blank screen. How appropriate!

If you can provide a working link, I will gladly check it out.

You can use this link (found by searching “Stylus” on the same site):

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002246;jsessionid=7F06FEF082DDB2D7F24554E81A12F92B

Again, a peer-reviewed scientific paper on a new program developed by an Intelligent Design organization.

Apparently, your contention is that Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science, is not involved in science, has had no peer-reviewed work and creates nothing new.

That’s the standard Darwinist rhetoric.

You think it’s “appropriate!” that the link I provided was blank - exposing your opinion that what I said was false and does not exist.

I’ll accept that your opinion and attitude has been contradicted by the facts here. I hope this will help to change your attitude against Intelligent Design theory. I think yours is one of the most extreme and biased that I’ve found yet – certainly filled with ridicule for things you don’t know about.

But I want to pursue more on what you believe on this topic – I think that is more valuable in learning about what your position is and why it is so rigidly closed to anything but Darwinian orthodoxy (to the point that you can see no evidence to question “evolution”).

 

[reggieM]

I don’t consider myself a scientist, but I see God’s hand more clearly in one page of Darwin (who was also religious, though perhaps less so later in life) than in all the volumes of nonsense that the so-called "Creationists’ have produced.

Here’s what I mean by an extreme view. I’m sorry but it cannot be taken seriously – you’re exaggerating the point to create an emotional effect.

You’re claiming that Darwin provides more in one page than all the works written by creationists – making it appear like you’re familiar with all the volumes ever written by creationists.

 

[reggieM]

My own position is this: I believe in a divine creator, but that in itself requires belief in the laws of nature which are, of course, an integral part of the creation. Science is on a completely different level than faith. In order for me to believe that a divine creator can be proven scientifically, you will have to show me evidence. So far no one has done that. My personal feeling is that IF any such evidence is eventually discovered, it will be within the field of quantum physics rather than biology, but that is just a hunch, and that ‘IF’ is a big one.

The ‘creationists’, within which you include yourself, simply want me to ‘take their word for it’ that God works, not just within the Genesis timeframe, but throughout all time, contrary to His very own laws of nature. That is not logical. If all the physical evidence indicates that species evolve, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they do not, then a reasonable person must conclude that they evolve, at least until future discoveries nullify such a belief. That is not likely to happen any time soon.

Aside from all the other points that we’ve argued, I find these paragraphs to be the most valuable elements that you’ve contributed to the topic.

I would really like to understand your view with more detail.

For the first sentence, you believe in divine creator and that requires belief in the laws of nature. I don’t follow that. I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t know that belief in God requires belief in scientific formulas (the “laws of nature” as defined by man).

Additionally, why is science on a completely different level than faith? Does that mean the two are entirely separate with no shared components, no overlaps?

 

[beeliner]

Aside from all the other points that we’ve argued, I find these paragraphs to be the most valuable elements that you’ve contributed to the topic.

I would really like to understand your view with more detail.

For the first sentence, you believe in divine creator and that requires belief in the laws of nature. I don’t follow that. I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t know that belief in God requires belief in scientific formulas (the “laws of nature” as defined by man).

Additionally, why is science on a completely different level than faith? Does that mean the two are entirely separate with no shared components, no overlaps?

Well, I am somewhat short of time today but should have more tomorrow, so very briefly…

I looked at the link; since I am not an organic chemist, I have no idea what they’re talking about, nor how it relates to intelligent design.

If you have followed my posts here, you know that I believe in intelligent design - as a matter of religious faith. I do not believe that intelligent design has been proven as science - not even close.

Regarding the paragraphs you quoted, I will be happy to discuss them in more detail as time permits. What I will not tolerate, however, is your habit of misquoting me and attributing to me statements that I never made. Disagree with me all you like, but don’t bear false witness - that’s not nice; furthermore, anyone else following the thread can go back and see what I said and then, a couple of posts later what you falsely claim that I said. You should have more regard for your own integrity.

I really must go now but will gladly continue the exchange later, possibly tonight but more likely tomorrow.

 

[ricmat]

Regarding the paragraphs you quoted, I will be happy to discuss them in more detail as time permits. What I will not tolerate, however, is your habit of misquoting me and attributing to me statements that I never made. Disagree with me all you like, but don’t bear false witness - that’s not nice; furthermore, anyone else following the thread can go back and see what I said and then, a couple of posts later what you falsely claim that I said. You should have more regard for your own integrity.

I’m not involved in the above controversy (yet), and lately I’ve been only an observer to these threads, but there seems to be a lack of communication between the Darwinist side and the non-Darwinists.

I’ll take a shot at explaining what I see as a few of the difficulties.

1. It is a common technique in “effective listening” to attempt to repeat in your own words what the other person said, thus giving them the opportunity to clarify, correct, or elaborate. Written communication is very inefficient, and lacks body language cues that sometimes help clarify things. Genuine misunderstandings occur.

For example, a particular Darwinist continues time and time again to insist, imply, or via innuendo contend that I’m a young earth creationist (which I’m not), I merely repeat that I’m not a young earth creationist, and repeat my position, rather than vent about me being mis-quoted, or that Darwinist being a liar, etc.

It seems that some folks always jump to the nuclear option of “you made that up”, “you misquoted me”, “you are lying”, etc. It seems to me that prior to “going there” it would be the Christian thing to do to assume that the other person merely misunderstood what you said, and then attempt to say it again - perhaps in a different way - since you now know that the original statement was not clear to the other person.

1. Another process issue I’ve seen here is that someone will say what appears to be A=B. Then (perhaps later) the same person will say B=C. At which point someone else will say "Ah…what you’re saying (or what that leads to) is that A=C. At which point the original poster will say “you made that up, I didn’t say that, you are misquoting me, you are putting words in my mouth, you are inventing things that you wished I’d said.” And some follow that up with righteous indignation of the form “the truth matters to me, it should matter to you.” or some such sinful innuendo implying that it actually doesn’t matter to the second person.
2. There are many many posters here, and I think we all tend to get confused at times about what particular people said previously. We should take that into consideration before slamming people.
3. We tend to lump people into “us” and “them”. Unfortunately, there are more than 2 monolithic groups. If I’m arguing with a hard core Darwinist, then they think I must be a young earth creationist. And when I’m arguing with a young earth creationist, then I must be a hard core Darwinist. Obviously, I can’t be both, and in fact I’m neither.

I offer these obsevations merely as observations. Perhaps I’m incorrect.

 

[reggieM]

ricmat – That was an excellent overview of the communication problems that we have at times.

1. It is a common technique in “effective listening” to attempt to repeat in your own words what the other person said, thus giving them the opportunity to clarify, correct, or elaborate.

That’s what happens by rephrasing the point – looking at it from a different point of view. But it can lead to misunderstandings also, and that’s something to try to avoid.

It seems that some folks always jump to the nuclear option of “you made that up”, “you misquoted me”, “you are lying”, etc. It seems to me that prior to “going there” it would be the Christian thing to do to assume that the other person merely misunderstood what you said, and then attempt to say it again - perhaps in a different way - since you now know that the original statement was not clear to the other person.

That’s true. I think another good thing to remember (I need to remind myself) is to try to avoid attempts at “trapping” a person somehow – by trying to make them look bad. Some people can be very arrogant and boastful (ridiculing others) and it is hard to resist arguments that will put them in a corner. But it’s always better to learn more about what the person really believes.

"Ah…what you’re saying (or what that leads to) is that A=C. At which point the original poster will say “you made that up, I didn’t say that, you are misquoting me, you are putting words in my mouth, you are inventing things that you wished I’d said.” And some follow that up with righteous indignation of the form “the truth matters to me, it should matter to you.” or some such sinful innuendo implying that it actually doesn’t matter to the second person.

Again, another excellent point – and very important for us to remember. Sometimes people do try to “put words in our mouth”. But I think we have to understand the motivation for such things and try to have some sympathy especially among fellow Catholics (at least those who embrace the orthodoxy of the Faith).

We tend to lump people into “us” and “them”. Unfortunately, there are more than 2 monolithic groups. If I’m arguing with a hard core Darwinist, then they think I must be a young earth creationist. And when I’m arguing with a young earth creationist, then I must be a hard core Darwinist. Obviously, I can’t be both, and in fact I’m neither.

Another essential point for us to remember. I would add that there are more than 2 opinions and positions. There are combinations of evolution-ID-creationism that people have. Also, very importantly, the terms we use to describe things are very often not well-defined and we attack the wrong points.

 

[reggieM]

Regarding the paragraphs you quoted, I will be happy to discuss them in more detail as time permits. What I will not tolerate, however, is your habit of misquoting me and attributing to me statements that I never made. Disagree with me all you like, but don’t bear false witness - that’s not nice; furthermore, anyone else following the thread can go back and see what I said and then, a couple of posts later what you falsely claim that I said. You should have more regard for your own integrity.

Following my previous post, beeliner – I apologize for giving the impression that I was trying to misquote you or distort what you said. That was not my intention.

I was trying to extend your arguments into new territories – apply them to other situations – for the primary purpose of understanding more about what your opinion is on this topic.