Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- From: Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 6, 4:44 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:31 am, Wombat <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is a programme on the BBC Radio 4 called "Sunday".http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday/index.shtml
Today there was a short interview with Dennis Alexander, the editor of
Science and Christian Belief, an Evangelical Christian Organisation.http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/
You may wish to listen to it about 19 minutes and 30 seconds into
"Sunday" - "Listen Again"
He explains that Darwin was never an atheist and also explodes several
other of your pet fantasies re Dawin, Evolution and Victorian England.
BTW, if you try to explain away these uncomfortable facts by your
usual "he's an atheist stooge/in disuise" or some such nonsense
remember he is an Evangelical Christian.
Wombat
Said person *claims* to be an Evangelical Christian (like myself).
Yes, you claim to be an evangelical Christian. Would you abandon this
claim, merely because every other evangelical Christian I know would
regard you as a heretic (and hence a non-evangelical)?
Your acknowledgement of this particular worldview in behalf of
Alexander is made to give credibility to his claim that Darwin was not
and was never an Atheist.
This claim by Alexander tells us that he is an evolutionist----and a
dishonest one at that since we know for a fact that Darwin became an
Atheist the moment he discerned evolution to have occurred in 1837 and
1838. Denying the Atheism of Charles Darwin is one of the five biggest
lies that evolutionists tell. They tell this lie for two reasons:
First, "we" do not know that for a fact. Indeed, "you" do not know
that for a fact.
1. So the Theist dominated world we live in is does not turn off on
evolution.
The "theist-dominated world" has surely noted that most evolutionary
biologists are not Christians. Presumably, they do not hold that
expertise in biology carries over into theology, or that science is
terribly informative about matters of faith.
2. So Christian evolutionists are not seen as fools accepting a
biological origins theory advanced by an Atheist, that is, by a person
whose conclusions were predetermined.
But, of course, an atheist is NOT predetermined to accept common
descent with modification by natural selection. At least the
following options are open to an atheist (if we ignore constraints
from actual data, as you seem to wish to do).
First, an atheist might hold (as Aristotle did) that the universe and
life as we see it have always existed and always will, and that
whatever change occurs is cyclic rather than directional. There is
neither evolution nor creation nor any problem of origins at all.
Second, an atheist might hold to a Lamarckian view: multiple
independent origins of life, with myriad separate lineages climbing
the "evolutionary ladder" to "higher" forms as directed by some
unknown material cause.
Third, an atheist might simply hold, with David Hume, that intelligent
design contradicted too much of the data to be taken seriously, but
that no other theory explained it better, and that the whole matter
was an unsolved mystery.
Other options are probably discoverable.
Note, of course, that telling us that someone is biased (or, as you
would have it, that his conclusions were "predetermined") tells us
nothing about the validity of those conclusions. A person can be
biased in favor of a conclusion that happens to be true, and if the
evidence supports him, there is no reason to reject his theory simply
because he, personally, wants to believe it is true.
[NOTE: But in Darwin's case he was a Christian who converted to
Atheism after deciding the evidence pointed to evolution.]
Doesn't that hurt your argument?
In a quick glance completed without any thought----maybe, but no, not
really. Once Darwin determined that evolution had occurred, or rather
once he decided to interpret the evidence in favor of evolution----
from that moment on----he became an Atheist. This means everything
determined after 1837 was done with an apostate pro-Atheism mind and
agenda.
On your own telling, evolutionary
theory was advanced by a Christian, not an atheist, even if it led
that Christian to reject Christianity. Therefore, a Christian who
accepts evolution is agreeing with a Christian about the best
explanation for the scientific data, even if he subsequently disagrees
about the theological implications of the data.
I didn't say *advanced* by a Christian, but an Atheist. Again, once
Darwin concluded for transmutation everything done or advanced after
this decision was with a mind that connected the alleged fact of
evolution to correspond to the non-existence of the Genesis Deity (=
God).
Evolutionists feel that Atheism must be denied in regards to evolution
for the reasons cited above. A lot of Atheists also propagate this lie
so stupid Christians will do the dirty work against the Bible for
them. The issue of Darwin's Atheism is an easily proveable historical
fact. Anyone who takes the time to read books about Darwin can come to
this conclusion. The founder of modern evolutionary theory became a
closet Atheist in 1837-1838 while feigning Theism for the rest of his
life for the sake of living peaceably in a Christian dominated
Victorian society----a society where he and his Christian wife were
held in high regard.
In other words, every shred of actual evidence about Darwin's beliefs
contradicts you, but that's all a conspiracy of the Evil Darwinists
and doesn't count.
Just the opposite. All the evidence exposes the conspiracy----that is
how we know there is a conspiracy. In fact your rebuttal propagates
the conspiracy in view of what my preceding comment says.
This is an epistemologically ... problematic ...
position. Note that even Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law),
It was Aveling's common law wife that was related to Karl Marx.
who
called himself an atheist (and wanted to dedicate one of his books to
Darwin), praised Darwin for not insisting that God definitely did NOT
exist; he thought that "God-denial" was as mistaken a position as God-
affirmation.
Aveling identified himself as an Atheist but he defined Atheism in a
very unconventional way. I do not recall Aveling praising Darwin "for
not insisting that God definitely did NOT exist." But I do agree that
Aveling basically advanced a nonsensical definition of Atheism similar
to how you relate it when you wrote "he thought that 'God-denial' was
as mistaken a position as God-affirmation." Funny how this view could
easily pass for Agnosticism, which Aveling rejected rather overtly.
Darwin himself, in his autobiography, noted that he was
inclined to credit the laws of the universe to an intelligent Creator,
but did not think that human reason could settle such questions.
There seems excellent reason to accept Darwin's self-description as an
"agnostic."
We have been through this before. Darwin's self-description as an
Agnostic was made in the strict context of First Cause----nothing
else. Like Huxley, he adopted the Agnostic label to evade the dreaded
Atheism stigma since every Atheist in England supported the _Origin_
with sadistic glee. Darwin was very concerned by Atheist support since
he lived a double life. This support threatened to expose or out him.
This is why he denied Aveling's request to dedicate a book to him.
Alexander is just another Ken Miller----brazen liar. They must deny
Darwin's Atheism because they claim to be Christians. In other words
they have a huge motive to lie for the reasons briefly explained.
Again, motive tells us nothing about whether the story they are
motivated to tell is true or not. You yourself agree with many
atheists about many things: that the Earth is older than 6000 years,
that the Earth orbits the sun, even that evolution and Christianity
are incompatible. Why are you not, therefore, a brazen liar in your
own eyes?
Ray
-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ray
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- From: Rolf
- Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- References:
- Paging Ray Martinez
- From: Wombat
- Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- From: Ray Martinez
- Paging Ray Martinez
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Ray's Invulnerable Evidence
- Next by Date: Re: Anti-science creationist posters
- Previous by thread: Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- Next by thread: Re: Paging Ray Martinez
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
