Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: "Tracy P. Hamilton" <t_p_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Mar 2006 12:44:13 -0800
diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, neverbetter.
Thank you for answering.
You gave me a lot to think about.
First, you say that there is, for some, a kind of "all or nothing"
problem with the truthfulness of Bible.
From where did this problem came? I mean, the "if something's wrong,
then everything's wrong" reasoning it's not obvious. Here in Italy we
have a "something's fiction, something's faith matter" reasoning for
what's in the Bible.
You, too, talk about "Christians who accept evolution", so there are
people who don't have the "all or nothing" problem.
Why is that? It's something of a "first contact" situation, in which
people stuck with what interpretation they learn first? It has
something to do with television evangelist?
What I'm interested here is the "why your choose interpretation A
instead of interpretation B?"
You are correct again in the main. The main determinant in
whether ID is accepted, or creationism, results in what religious
ideas they were exposed to. The key word here is "apologetics".
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: apol·o·get·ics
Pronunciation: -tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin
and authority of Christianity
These ideas are made to be made APPARENTLY self-consistent, if
not examined too closely. It is a human characteristic to avoid
thinking very much.
The reason it is a particularly US problem is the particular religious
beliefs held from indigenous religious movements. These churches arose
in
areas where educational institutions were rare and intellectualism
is not valued still.
Second, politics matter.
The Dover affaire tell us that creationism doesn't pay very much. All
the school board member who advocades ID where not re-elected, so I'm
not sure how much politics is involved. Many bill was proposted on the
ID teaching matter, and almost all were struck down (as far as I know).
So, does ID/creationism play a real role in politics or it's just a
apparent role?
The main role of ID in politics is irrelevant posturing to "solidify
their base",
i.e. get people to react based on emotion rather than reason. ID is
not
the only example, nor is it confined to the right wing.
Third, on the dangers of Darwinism.
I read a lot on this. Sometimes nonsense, sometimes interesting
argument.
Here I'm interested in a particolar subject: social darwinism.
S.D. tells us that, in the society, the strongest deserve to survive
while the weakest deserve to die.
Many religious people say "this is what we are going to have if we
teach evolution".
But in USA there's already S.D., in the form of healt insurance. If you
strong (wealth) enough, you deserve to live. If you poor, you deserve
to die.
Why this is not considered S.D.?
Note, I'm not making criticism here. I'm interested in knowing the whys
and hows.
It doesn't matter what you said. Darwinism leads to evil! Take a
stand
against evil - put God back in schools!
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- References:
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Marc
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: neverbetter
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Prev by Date: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by Date: Re: Big Bang, Red Shift and Distance - Q
- Previous by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
