Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Darwinistas are getting more opponents, according to The Economist. Of course, they don't seem to get the notion that Darwinistas are a small, vocal group of narrow specialty researchers together with a big group of noisy theologians and non-scientific intellectuals. What will be interesting is to see if Islam gets better treatment in the schools than Christianity regarding teaching God's creation.


Marshall Art said...

There is the camp that suggests that God used evolution as His mechanism for bringing about His Creation. But then, how does one explain the Fall of Man and the need it provoked for a Savior? The evidence for the truth of the New Testament is vast and compelling so that would point to a more literal understanding of Genesis. I fear too many Christain theologians view Christ as more of a concept than an actual historical presence and thus hold themselves up as more sophisticated and enlightened in their positions regarding our origins than do the great unwashed. The real problem is whether tools of the natural world can ever prove the supernatural. I think not. So here's my take: Genesis is an exact reporting of events, but God created the world with curveballs to throw us off and test our faith.

Marshall Art said...

I also have an off topic comment: Despite being banished from Levellers, I still check in to see what amusing thoughts are bandied about by Mr. White. In his comments after his post regarding the VA Tech shootings, there is this bit by him:

"Yes, if the churches remember they are to be nonviolent, much of the world will have a BIG recruiting problem for armies and gun shops will go out of business. If the churches pay all their employees, including janitors, living wages, and preach simple living, radical sharing, and economic justice, they will become a powerful example–and their members will be influences in the corporations they work for (or refuse to work for). But, again, I am NOT trying to get laws to do the work of the church–but the evidence is clear. EVERY place where gun laws are strict, violent crime is lower, and shooting sprees like this don’t happen."

Aside from the last sentence being laughably stupid and incorrect (the ONLY place these things are happening is where guns are restricted---how many schools allow weapons---how many schools have had this experience)(also, Chicago prohibits private ownership of handguns and people are still getting shot with regularity), am I off base in seeing his views as a good way to bring about our extinction? No armies? Live with less? Why don't we just nuke ourselves and get it over with? What am I missing with this kook?

Looney said...

The flick that I just posted gives a hint regarding this, but can be generalized. Michael is intelligent and fairly well read, but intelligence and common sense are distinct and frequently not correlated too well.