Article <8bycnZ1bA68i4cn7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<8bycnZ1bA68i4cn7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 12:29:51 +0000
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 339
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <8bycnZ1bA68i4cn7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <v2b9e7$fjup$1@solani.org>
 <nfbj4jp58kimo8mlub8ideucnhn16etc7k@4ax.com>
 <v2d4g9$gh73$1@solani.org>
 <a0cm4j1gr1lfvcrs79r7ra5mi1olf1iotj@4ax.com>
 <v2j4qr$jnk2$1@solani.org>
 <kdut4j12tvsak4c31i85frse4vu1d2cb9o@4ax.com>
 <MYycnZ8_YauYidL7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <bdeu4jpadu1v3ju9cbludgmf14jg7tn16e@4ax.com>
 <MY2cnWxAeZJ58NL7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <np5v4jlj3k1gbaqph75volnbhjaqsge5b3@4ax.com>
 <BFadndZVZL3MVNL7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <o9m85j5ckntj9kb19vb1l175d8tf4rrpbn@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="28775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Bytes: 18856

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
>>>>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did ask about
>>>>>> what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
>>>>>> quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
>>>>>> to that. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>> Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
>>>> ?I wonder what is ?the physiology of nations and races??as would I suppose
>>>> my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
>>>> because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the
>>>> topics at hand.?
>>>> 
>>>> Which was my query about what ?the physiology of nations and races? might
>>>> mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where I?m
>>>> seancing with Nyikos since you?re fixated on comparing me to him.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess you would rather stonewall on this ?the physiology of nations and
>>>> races? point too.
>>> 
>>> You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of
>>> sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
>>> 
>>> ==============================
>>> [You asked:]
>>>> First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's?
>>>> Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean? 
>>> 
>>> [I answered:]
>>> When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
>>> into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
>>> they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
>>> Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
>>> our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
>>> and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
>>> automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
>>> come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an
>>> objectionable form of "credentialism".
>>> 
>> "John P. Slattery is the Director of the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for
>> Ethics in Science, Technology, and Law at Duquesne University. From
>> 2018-2022, he served as a Senior Program Officer with the Dialogue on
>> Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program of the American Association
>> for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC. An ethicist,
>> theologian, and historian of science, Slattery works at the intersection of
>> technology, science, religion, and racism. He is the author of the 2019
>> Faith and Science at Notre Dame, the editor of the 2020 Christian Theology
>> and the Modern Sciences, and a contributing author to the open access 2023
>> book, Encountering Artificial Intelligence. His essays have appeared online
>> in Commonweal Magazine, America, Science, Religion Dispatches, Daily
>> Theology, and other outlets. The tiles below represent a selection of his
>> recent writings and lectures."
>> https://johnslattery.com
> 
> I was more interested in his qualifications at the time he wrote the
> article (2017/2018), not what he achieved later. 
> 
>> 
>> "Slattery earned a B.S. in computer science from Georgetown University, a
>> master's degree in theology from Saint Paul School of Theology, and an
>> interdisciplinary PhD in the history and philosophy of science and
>> systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame."
>> https://www.duq.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-slattery.php
> 
> Which ties in with my description of him as "a recent doctoral
> graduate" which I took straight from the description of him
> accompanying the article in Religious Dispatches.
> 
> For the record, here are the qualifications of John F. Haught who
> contradicted Slattery's claims but whom you prefer to ignore:
> 
> <quote>
> John F. Haught is an American theologian. He is a Distinguished
> Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman
> Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues
> pertaining to physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and
> Christianity.
> 
> He has authored numerous books and articles, including Science and
> Faith: A New Introduction (2012), Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin,
> God, and The Drama of Life ( 2010), God and the New Atheism: A
> Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008),
> Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature (2007), Is
> Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (2006),
> Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life (2004), God After Darwin: A
> Theology of Evolution (2000, 2nd ed. 2007), Science and Religion: From
> Conflict to Conversation (1995), The Promise of Nature: Ecology and
> Cosmic Purpose (1993, 2nd ed. 2004), What is Religion? (1990), What is
> God? (1986), and The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest
> for Purpose (1984).
> 
> In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and
> Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in
> 2008 a "Friend of Darwin Award" from the National Center for Science
> Education. He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA
> "Intelligent Design Trial"(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of
> Education).
> </quote>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught
> 
> I leave it to readers to decide for themselves what weight to give to
> each writer.
> 
Qualifications are not arguments made.
>> 
>> Notre Dame? Never heard of it. Guess you're right then. He's on the level
>> of Ron Dean?
> 
> Yet again you try to cover up your failure to address the points I
> made by making up something I didn't say.
> 
You were diminishing Slattery’s stature, something you gravitate toward. I
was using sarcasm to pop that stature bubble. Shouldn’t it be Slattery’s
arguments not his accolades or lack of such?
>>> ==============================
>>> [You asked:]
>>>> And what two
>>>> aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.
>>> 
>>> [I answered:]
>>> When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
>>> asked you:
>>> 
>>> <quote>
>>> OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
>>> you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
>>> methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
>>> exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========