Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

From: Nucacids <>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 17:20:05 EDT

Hi Cameron,

One caveat. One thing I have learned from my own critics is that they usually do a terrible job at accurately conveying my positions. Thus, we probably should not assume that Krauss's account is accurate or fair. However, since the accusation was made in the widely-read pages of the WSJ, Miller should, at some point, clarify his views.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Cameron Wybrow
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism


  Re Miller: agreed. Not that I am claiming that Christianity is unthinkable without a literal virgin birth, but the virgin birth is (I believe) still a core Catholic doctrine. So if (as is reported) Miller would not defend it, what happened to Miller's claim to be "100% Darwinian and 100% Catholic"? I guess that one of those "hundred per cents" was a rhetorical exaggeration. But then, I suppose that we should not expect theological clarity from a Catholic who claims to believe in Darwin's God, when Darwin was an agnostic.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Nucacids
    To: Nucacids ;
    Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 11:50 AM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

    Two immediate observations:

    1. It is very disappointing to see Miller back away from the virgin birth of Christ. Given his position and status, this will feed into the perception that once Christians accept evolution, it's a slippery slope that leads to rejection of a literal virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG -
  Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.87/2195 - Release Date: 06/22/09 06:54:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 17:20:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 17:20:37 EDT