7 Replies to “Barry Blasts Oakes at FT

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    Barry,

    Have your comments been removed from the site? I don’t see them as of 20:46 Eastern Time 6/15/2010.

    Sal

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    This is a very sobering statistic on abortions in America:

    Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woPX4oZM9hA

    “If you were born after 1972, we challenge you to consider yourself a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!
    http://www.survivors.la/

    Lamentations 2:11
    My eyes fail because of tears, My spirit is greatly troubled; My heart is poured out on the earth Because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, When little ones and infants faint In the streets of the city.

    ,,,I really don’t think I had much of anything to do with how I was formed in the womb. And I certainly don’t think random mutations filtered by natural selection had anything to do with it:

    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Glimpses At Development In The Womb – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    Why this little girl right here is proof that children are a gift from God:

    6 Year Old Connie Talbot – I Will Always Love You
    http://www.tangle.com/view_vid.....9286331012

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Sal, here is Barry’s comment if you still can’t read it:

    Fr. Oakes,

    The Darwinism Dawkins promotes with such religious fervor undermines human exceptionalism. No one argues that it is profoundly immoral to kill animals. If a human is just another kind of animal, why is it profoundly immoral to kill an adult human, much less a human fetus? I am an attorney, and I can easily connect the dots from the triumph of Darwinism in the mid-19th century through the rise of the legal realist movement championed by arch-Darwinist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. at the end of the 19th century, straight on through to Roe v. Wade.

    I believe it was Dennett who called Darwinism “universal acid” from a cultural perspective. Theistic Darwinists such as yourself must accept responsibility for your failure to resist the larger cultural forces – including in particular the triumph in the academy of blind watchmaker Darwinism such as that pushed by Dawkins and his ilk — that led ultimately to the unlimited abortion license we now have. Some years ago at a ROFTERs meeting here in Denver you told me that you see no ontological discontinuity between humans and higher animals. I was (and remain) shocked and saddened to hear you say that. I wonder that you fail to see how your position ramifies with respect to the life issue.

  4. 4
    nullasalus says:

    One problem right away:

    “No one argues that it is profoundly immoral to kill animals.”

    But this just strikes me as false. Really, has no one heard of the PETA? Or numerous other (and far less crazy) groups? I’m sure there are many conservative or traditional christians who would also agree that there are at least some situations where it’s “profoundly immoral” to kill animals, depending on which and why.

    I agree with Barry’s general thrust here, mind you. Certainly that the particular ideas of darwinian evolution (complete with all that unscientific “unguided, purposeless” etc baggage) has been used to justify numerous horrible things, abortion included.

  5. 5
    DonaldM says:

    In another comment in the thread at FT Barry said “only a fool believes you can have mud to man Darwinism and human dignity as well.” I could not agree more.

    The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by atheistic Darwinists on points like this never ceases to both amaze and amuse me. Yet, it is us “faith-heads”, as Dawkins so endearingly refers to people who hold theistic beliefs, that are the ones who are anti-science, anti-logic, non-thinking, etc etc, ad nauseum.

    I await the day when Dawkins debates Alvin Plantinga on the subject of Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. Alas, it’ll never come, but one can hope!

  6. 6
    above says:

    Anti-intellectuals like dawkins have nothing to offer to scholarship and everything to offer to fanaticism and fundamentalism.

    I doubt he has the capacity to even bring himself to consider debating Plantinga, William Craig or any other astute Christian philosopher.

  7. 7
    rockyr says:

    Just curious why Fr. Oakes has failed to answer any of the criticism. One would think that it would be a matter of his honor, if not of his intellectual honesty or even his Christian charity to respond and defend the arguments he has raised and presented as Christian and Catholic. Or perhaps the First Things is preparing an article or a special issue where all these concerns will be properly addressed?

    BTW, I agree with “above” above, that Plantinga would only be wasting his time arguing with semi-intellectuals like Dawkins. Besides, any such debates only give credibility and prestige to these dishonest intellectual mudheads.

Leave a Reply