----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Evolution Question
> > > Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > > > If it were too clear, John wouldn't have anything to converse about with his > > creationist friends . . . > > Well, despite what Dan says, the problem with arguing with many of these folks > is that logic isn't necessarily a prerequisite for the discussion. If logic is to be used in any discussion, shared premises are a must. Since I am a Christian, I can find shared premises with fundamentalists. Indeed, since I have studied scripture more deeply then most of them have, and since I can quote it freely to back up my points, they listen to me respectfully...especially when I agree with them on questions that are true fundamental questions of faith. For example, when I argue against the literal interpretation of the Ellonist (sp) creation narritive (the first one), I talk about the brillient theology within the story. They may disagree with my interpretation, but we do have a reasonable discussion on the topic. The folks I cannot at all have a reasonable discussion are the postmodernists...the ones who believe that there is no truth, just competing narritives. Dan M. I'll give an example. In Christianity, there is a call to evangelize.
