Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
Home Fan Mail Hank Cleaned Tommy's Clock for a Reason
Menu
Skeptic Forums
Skeptic Summary
The Kil Report
Skeptillaneous
Creation/Evolution
About Skepticism
Fan Mail
Skepticality
Rationally Speaking
Claims List
Skeptic Links
Book Reviews
Gift Shop
Staff


Server Time: 14:13:14
Your Local Time:



Fan Mail
skeptic,fan mail,letters to editor,correspondence
Printer Friendly Printer Friendly Version of this Article... Bookmark Bookmark This Article...

Hank Cleaned Tommy's Clock for a Reason

By Gary Ike
Posted on: 3/4/2005

All correspondence received by Skeptic Friends Network or its staff becomes the property of Skeptic Friends Network, and may be printed without the consent of the author.

Well, somebody's clock is getting cleaned, but it doesn't look like it's Tommy's.


Re: SFN Article “Tommy Debates the Bible Answer man

From: Gary Ike
Date: February 10, 2005

That had nothing to do with a shouting match. The simple fact is that
evolutionary theory as an explanation of origins is inherently racist, sexist,
and defeatist. If I am nothing but the result of a series of trillions and
trillions of cosmic accidents over billions of years, how is it that the word
"respect" should have any meaning what so ever? If I am stronger or cleverer
and possess the means, according to evolution, I should kill you and plunder
your estate in order that the survival of the fittest is perpetuated. It is
practically demanded.

If you buy into Darwinian Theory and were consistent, you would be advocating
the destruction of the entire third world at the hand of the Western
democracies. They are weak and a drain on scarce resources after all.

Get a clue. Hank is justifiably annoyed at being attacked by someone
operating from ground resembling a swamp. You are not consistent with your own
worldview and in an attempt to make it politically correct have denied the most
basic logical conclusions it supports.

The crux of the biscuit:
Hank: If you had a Christian worldview, you wouldn't ever... you wouldn't ever have to worry about that. The fact of the matter is, there are those who take the sacred name of Christ upon their lips that embrace theistic evolution There are those who take the sacred name of Christ upon their lips, who are inconsistent with their own theology. The fact of the matter is this. And this is where you're missing, and making, simple categorical mistakes. The Christian worldview very clearly is not a racist worldview. There are Christians who unfortunately are benighted, and have fallen into the horrible worldview of racism. But that is not commensurate with Christianity. That is AGAINST the very profession they hold. What I'm saying with evolution is that it's quite the opposite. If you are a racist, you are simply being consistent with the worldview of Darwinian Evolution! Does that make SENSE to you? I mean, you should be able to understand that. That's not real complicated.
Unless you insist on denying the existence of a Creator, and then as with all lies, it becomes complicated indeed. Sincerely, An Average Joe with a High School Education, Gary Ike


To:   Gary Ike
From: Dave W.
Date: February 10, 2005
Thank you for writing to the Skeptic Friends Network. Tommy Huxley isn’t available for comment, so I’ll be answering your email.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that Darwin’s theory was inherently racist, sexist and all the rest. Fortunately, nobody has had to “buy into” a strictly Darwinian theory of evolution for many decades, now. It’s nearly 150 years old, and scientific knowledge of evolution has moved far beyond what Darwin laid out.

The study of genetics, for example, shows us that helping out complete strangers helps out our own genes to some extent. Yes, it may be a very small amount, but it’s not zero. With that in mind, it is clear that anyone who claims that evolutionary theory states we should all be entirely selfish is speaking without full knowledge of what we do, in fact, now know (and what Darwin did not then know). Heck, there are many examples of altruism among animals, why shouldn’t the same be true of human beings?

Being consistent with a 150-year-old idea is rather silly, don’t you think? Instead, the people who understand evolutionary theory as it is today, being consistent with it, argue against sexism and racism. And I have yet to see any evidence that more of them are “defeatist” than the average Joe with a high-school education.

Both you and Mr. Hanegraaff don’t appear to understand modern evolutionary theory, and so your “logical conclusions” aren’t at all consistent with our current knowledge about the natural world. If that makes others appear to you to be inconsistent, it certainly isn’t the fault of those you judge.

For just three examples of areas in which your knowledge could improve, “Social Darwinism,” which you imply we should be practicing if Darwin was correct, was never proposed by Darwin at all. Darwin’s theory also made no argument regarding the existence or non-existence of any “creator.” Nor did he coin the phrase “survival of the fittest” (though he did complain about it). That uninformed people attribute these ideas to Darwin (and subsequently to all of modern evolutionary theory) does not make them “logical conclusions” of evolution.


Back to Fan Mail



The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.05 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000