[Sherman Logan]

Panspermia is a giant change the subject gambit.

It just moves the argument about the origin of life and intelligence to another planet. I fail to see how that’s an improvement.

While I’m generally in-line with the “God used evolution” folks, in these various discussions I’ve noticed something that is interesting, at least to me.

The violently anti-God and Stein bunch are appalled that misdeeds of people with a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory are used to discredit their hero Darwin. And have in fact been doing so for decades if not centuries.

Yet as a group Dawkins and others are perfectly happy to use the misdeeds in the past of people with a less than thorough understanding of Christianity to discredit that religion.

This is despite the obvious fact that Darwinism, like all science, is amoral. It may be able to tell us how things happen, but can provide exactly zero insight on whether what an action we are considering is right and wrong. The Nazis may have misunderstood Darwin, but they certainly weren’t violating his teachings. Any moral basis for action or inaction that a scientist might have is imported from somewhere else. It cannot be derived from the pursuit of knowledge.

The Inquisition and other Christian misdeeds, in contrast, are directly in contradiction with the words of Christ himself.

So why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?

---

QUESTION OF THE WEEK!

[Coyoteman]

So why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?

Darwin didn't have as good a press agent?

[Sherman Logan]

Post 30 should read:

The violently anti-God and Stein bunch are appalled that misdeeds of people with a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory are being used to discredit their hero Darwin.

Yet as a group Dawkins and others are perfectly happy to use the misdeeds in the past of people with a less than thorough understanding of Christianity to discredit that religion. And have in fact been doing so for decades if not centuries.

[steve-b]

Christianity claims to provide moral guidance ("ought"). Evolutionary biology claims only to provide descriptions of the world ("is"). Thus, failure to induce morally upright behavior is a failure of the former to achieve its claims, but is irrelevant to the latter.

Next question?