This week there's a tiresomely long article called "Creationist or Evolutionist, Part 1." Even a quick skim through would raise the hackles of many. Concentrated ignorance in print. Just look at the first paragraph.
First, I don't know anyone who actually calls themselves an "evolutionist." It's usually just a pejorative label used by fundamentalists. There are lots of people who accept the concept of evolution, just like there are lots of people who accept the idea that the earth goes around the sun, but nobody goes around proclaiming themselves a "heliocentrist."
We are going to cover the subject of evolution. First of all, I will read to you what evolution is; then as we follow along, you can see whether or not you are an evolutionist. These statements are all copied from a treatise on evolution written by one of the chief evolutionists; therefore, they are all correct, so far as they go, as definitions.
Second, what the heck is a "chief evolutionist"? Is there some kind of masonic hierarchy?
Third, who is this "chief evolutionist" being quoted? No name, no bibliography, just an anonymous quote. Sloppy.
Finally, just what kind of qualifications does the writer hold in order to lecture readers of the Post? None are provided. In other words... a dilettante.
Anyway, I decided to check out their website to see who exactly these turkeys are. All you find there is two paragraphs of blather. The links page however has lots of Seventh-day Adventist referrals (bibleinfo.com, 3abn.org, sabbathtruth.com and more), a messianic link and - number 4 on the list... wait for it... ucg.org
It figures.
Seems as if one must first diffuse the name-calling and false labels before discussing the actual topic. That is assuming that intelligent discourse is even possible with those who would write such things.
ReplyDeleteBB
Don't think that's going to be possible in this instance!
DeleteSince there is more evidence for evolution than just about every fact and theory that there is...well, all one can say is that some folks just prefer to live in denial. But, the fundamentalists do surmise rightly; that evolution is opposed to their idea of creation and cannot be reconciled with the literal reading of Genesis. However, the new idea of evolutionary creationism doesn't work either because it makes Genesis purely an allegory and Adam a metaphorical first man. There would be no purpose or need for a second Adam because allegorical metaphors can't commit original sin, therefore, Christianity is doomed.
ReplyDelete