The bible

[foal]

What's "EC"?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
What's "EC"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evangelical Christianity. NR seems quite convinced that his Christianity is something esoteric and sacred and nonbelievers must be intentionally "missing the point" because of some ulterior motive.

But I happen to know differently from firsthand experience, so from time to time I call him out on it. He never really acknowledges my contention. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someday you'll grasp this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he won't. He has invested 30+ years of his life in becoming the fundamentalist Christian that he is today. Nothing you post will ever change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. NR's claim that all of those who accept evolution must have a nefarious, ulterior motive to promote atheism because they don't want to obey God, beautifully demonstrates a common tactic when one has no good argument: when all else fails, psychologize.

So rather than admit that 99% (or whatever) of scientists accept evolution because that's where the evidence leads according to their best expert opinion, he instead calls into question the scientists' (sinful) motives.

[jogsxyz]

It's arrogant of religions to think all of existence centers around man. Only 500 or 600 years ago they thought the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong then and probably wrong now.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]

OK we are back on the same page again. And I am no expert in the subject. But what about (and I'll be even more specific this time) those scientists who are in the combined category of

1. Biologist, Microbiologist, or Anthropologist.

2. Phds in those subjects from an Ivy League university or Stanford, Rice, Berkeley, CalTech, MIT, or Chicago

3. Do NOT depend on the truth of evolution to make their living

AND

4. Are serious practitioners of Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

David:

I think you overestimate the number of people who fall into category 3. Almost anyone who is a member of 1 and 2 would be jeopardizing their career by publicly denouncing evolution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you overestimate the number of people who fall into category 3. Almost anyone who is a member of 1 and 2 would be jeopardizing their career by publicly denouncing evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You just called down the wrath of the blowhards agin you. How dast ye question the pure motives of the godlike science community?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can god make so many mistakes?


[/ QUOTE ]

I give up. How?

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the only being that doesn't need to exist in order to rule.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
How dast ye question the pure motives of the godlike science community?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning their motives. Whether the scientific community is dastardly or sincere is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that there is a disdain for anything smacking of tolerance for ID.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How dast ye question the pure motives of the godlike science community?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning their motives. Whether the scientific community is dastardly or sincere is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that there is a disdain for anything smacking of tolerance for ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

or Alchemy, witchcraft, etc.

luckyme

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
or Alchemy, witchcraft, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not whether or not they should look askance at ID. Of course they should. But the fact that it is unfashionable as well as wrong mitigates David's argument.