Replies

The bashing of militant creationists in general is not Christian-bashing, even if we ignore the existence of Muslim and Hindu creationists. There are just too many people who think they are Christians who don't attack evolution.

I see...if the Christian is meek, acquiescent, and obsequious, THAT sort of Christian is acceptable. But the Christian who is uppity, i.e. assertive, outspoken, probing, and challenging, SHOULD BE bashed. Somehow that doesn't sound ethically equitable...

I see...if the Christian is meek, acquiescent, and obsequious, THAT sort of Christian is acceptable.

That's pretty much what Jesus said, anyway.

From #783:

Returning to the topic of the proposed agreement: We can tone down the rhetoric and remove name-calling from the threads, but we are not going to eliminate the friction caused by questioning each others sources and witnesses.

I have been for some time hopeful that we could stop the name calling. I have no hope that we can stop the heat caused by disagreements over ideas.

When I look back over the last 50 posts I recognise what is behind the anger on "my side". It is the assertion that science is inherently anti-Christian, anti-conservative. One of your guys said it best: evolution IS a personal assault.

The notion that you can defeat ideas by associating them with criminals is anti-logical. It is simply unacceptable in any civilized debate. And it is a form of name-calling.