Re: [asa] UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sun Dec 10 2006 - 22:52:21 EST

At 07:28 PM 12/10/2006, wrote:

>".... It also seems strange that the only alternative suggested is
>no investment, and no precautionary measures of any kind."

@ I have to believe that you're more widely read on this subject
than you're fallacious statement would indicate. If not, I'll be glad
to provide you with copies of other "alternative suggestions" that
have been published.

>For example, SETI. Why stop it? If you are so confident they'll
>never find anything, let them look. Let them come to a conclusion
>based on the evidence. As an aside, this is probably an area where
>serious ID research could even offer a valuable contribution:
>identifying signals generated from an extraterrestrial intelligent agent.

@ Who wants to stop it? It's privately financed - mainly by the
types of people who are regular listeners to the Art Bell radio
show. It's none of my business how individuals want to spend their
own hard-earned dollars.

>What about evolution? The notion is always, "stamp it out!". Why?
>Are we afraid of something? I understand that worshiping the
>creation instead of the creator is an issue. However, if Augustine
>were not to have passed through Manichaeism and Platonism he would
>have hardly become the effective Christian father he became. It was
>by God's Grace that he because a Christian, and it was through the
>work of God's leading that passed him through these periods. We
>must live in this world, therefore we most also engage it. Should
>anyone really find rest in the temple of extremist scientism?

@ Another fallacious statement, "the notion is always.." Which
theory of evolution are you talking about, and whose money do you
want to spend?

As the pope said, there are several theories of evolution:

" A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results
of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of
independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a
unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it
can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever
it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and
unsuitability. It must then be rethought. Furthermore, while the
formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need
for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions
from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we
should speak of several theories of evolution.

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different
explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the
other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the
existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist
interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of
philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the
forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are
incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground
the dignity of the person. ..."

Excerpted from: Theories of Evolution
John Paul II Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997):
28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996

Now, you may think that Christians ought to be willing to have their
tax dollars confiscated and used to teach their children what they
consider to be the atheistic / secular humanist version of the theory
of evolution, but most aren't. Once again, the "funding" is where
the problem comes in.

>Christians seem willing to invest .... Yet somehow, when it comes to
>environment and evolution, they shout "lies!" and "conspiracy!". If
>they are soooooo cock sure that it will all take care of itself with
>noooooo problem, why not let a little public investment find that
>out? What are they afraid of?

@ More fallacious statements. The fact is, they're not afraid of
anything, they're just being realistic about human nature.. In one
of your more unguarded moments, you admit how right they are to be skeptical:

"..Science is dazzling, and you can bamboozle all sorts of smart
people with a few whizz bang proofs and a lot of nonsense
equations. If you have some fancy gadget to show, that's even
better. Pretty soon, people are like a bunch of dumb dogs staring at
flashing lights and loud noises. .." ~ Wayne
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:34:04 EST Re: Self-deception, faith, and

"The problem is that greed, lust of the world with its the trappings
of power and influence, and the ability to find all manner of
specious pretext to exploit and abuse out brothers and sisters in
Christ, all conspire to tempt even those who have some fear of the
Lord to sin." ~ Wayne Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:43:15
EST Re: The Left Hand of God or "is God a [s-word]"

>I appreciate that Pim is taking so much time out to investigate
>these humdrum harangues from Janice. .." ~ by Grace we proceed, Wayne

@ :)

~ Janice .... who couldn't resist offering one last fallacious
humdrum harangue for this post : ) "..What offended me most about
creationists was not so much what they believe (although I confess I
find it strongly disagreeable), rather it was that they insisted that
I must believe it too. .." ~ Wayne Sun, 19 Feb
2006 10:46:47 EST - Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 10 22:53:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 10 2006 - 22:53:03 EST