.

ANOTHER BASH AT THE NAIL !

.

Please excuse me for having another bash at the nail. As George might rightly suggest, it is an add-on that disserves my cause:

I, nevertheless, beg to plead that simplicity is not facility.

It takes an enormous amount of time and energy to be complete, and it is only once this is done that the additional time and energy consuming work of simplicity can commence.

It was General Bigeard, the commanding officer of the French colonial armed forces during the Indochina war, who died in his home town of Toul in France, just one week ago, at the ripe old age of 94, who pronounced those famous words when reporting back to the Commander-in-chief of the National armed forces at head office in Paris:

"Excusez-nous, mon Général, nous n'avons pas eu le temps de faire simple". (Excuse us, my General, we did not have time to make it simple).

.

Bugsy,
If you suggest it, we could discuss the levels of acceptance of evolution amongst religious leaders, religious communities, scientific circles, and the population at large.

“’It is just a matter of time,’ one biologist wrote recently, ‘before this fruitful concept comes to be accepted by the public as wholeheartedly as it has accepted the spherical earth and the sun-centred solar system.’ Time, however, is what evolutionary biologists have long had, and if general acceptance has not come by now, it is hard to know when it ever will.” - Berlinski.

Have I found that research program yet? No, not yet. Has advancing your theory helped us out with anything fruitful yet?

You say belief in evolution doesn’t cause atheism. Yet it sure doesn’t hurt.

What you said after that, I had trouble understanding. ‘A miracle cannot be touched by science’. Could you explain further? Jesus changed water into wine. People not only touched it, they tasted it and drank it.

Dear Oliver,

Let me repeat, we all can learn from external, even if unsympathetic, looks at our convictions making up our world-view, so I am grateful to you for providing these. One only has to be careful how one formulates this criticism, and the same is true about formulating the response to it. This is how we can mutually enrich our perspectives without converting to the other side.

Dear Banjo,

In my dictionary a sweeping statement means “taking no account of particular cases or exceptions; too general”. I am sorry I did not make this more explicit.

Try “atheists are arrogant (or some other negative adjective)” and see the reaction (since it will be understood that you claim this about ALL atheists). On the other hand, “SOME atheists are (whatever)“ is almost always an empty information. Similarly, e.g. “blacks are stupid” is a racist statement, whereas “some blacks are stupid” says nothing.

Of course, you could replace “some” by “the majority of”, which turns your statement into an opinion that one might or might not agree with, not a sweeping one.

Also, there is a difference between simple and simplistic, although I am not sure what you wanted to say with your last post.

Dan,
The only person who seems to have written that 'biologist' quote within the Berlinski quote was Berlinksi himself.

Did Jesus turn water in to wine? Really? How many times? Who else could do it? Oh once, only Him and we can't see it, it just written down in your book.

Untouched and untouchable by science, Dan. I can certainly see why you have trouble understanding things about science.

Keep looking for that research program Dan, it's bound the be the Next Big Thing. Isn't it?

Dan,

I thought you might be interested in this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/can-a-darwinian-be-a-chri_b_618758.html.

Christians and Jews both share the Jewish Bible. However, they take very different things from it in some respects. It seems to me that the main argument on this string is between those who take scripture literally and those who don’t whether they are believers or non-believers.

To many bible literalists humans are the culmination of creation. Moses Maimonides (died 1204) is considered by believing Jews as their greatest philosopher. He did not take scripture literally. Here is what he writes in the “Guide for the Perplexed”:

“The major source of confusion in the search for the purpose of the universe as a whole, or even its parts, is rooted in man’s error about himself and his supposing that all of existence is for his sake alone. Every fool supposes that existence is for his sake ... but if man examines the universe and understands it, he knows how small a part of it he is.”

I am both amazed and amused that some Christians take Genesis literally when almost none of the descendents of those who wrote it take it literally.