Ethics of Creationist Writings ...

... for instance mine.

		1 Lent and Genesis Reading Time Approach 2 Hitchens and Blair, what are you up to? 3 Ethics of Creationist Writings
	Now to this essay:

A Creationist may be a Priest, like the Italian Padre Giuseppe Sarto, a k a Pope Pius X (later: "Pope" was not what he signed up for when becoming a priest, he only became that later, because he was a good priest - like so many other Popes and like most Bishops not from Aristocratic families).

A Creationist may also be a Protestant Preacher or Pastor. Kent Hovind, who talked not just to convince people there is a Creator, but also that His Only Begotten Son died for our sins and that you should therefore serve him happens to be a Protestant or Evangelical of some sort. He also happens to be in prison.

A Creationist may also be a layman. I already mentioned the Creationist whom I read avidly for his critique of several Darwinist points when I was young was and is still a Scientist, though not in biology. Why not in biology? Probably because of the heavy Darwinist domination of such institutions as Science Institutions of Biology. Edgar H. Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials, in engineering sciences.

But on the other hand a Darwinist who is a scientist need not be a biologist either. "AronRa's" Darwinist Apologetics, which I am on the way of answering, says he is majoring in, not biology, but Geosciences.

And, like H. G. Wells was a Darwinist neither priest nor scientist but just writer, H. G. Lundahl is neither priest nor natural scientist (I am linguist and historian mainly and without a real degree), and Creationist.

Now, the thing about Darwinism and Creationism is that there is an argument. There may be Darwinists who say there is no such argument, but that is only a way of denying that Creationists do have arguments.

And the thing about arguments is that they make for essay writing that has some kind excitement because there is something at stake. Even a dedicated Darwinist who would never look at a Creationist writer (believe me, that occurs), would at least prefer his Darwinist writers to write well, that is in such a case, to argue well and state their arguments clearly and not too drily. And the same is about what a Creationist can expect from me.

He cannot expect me to get his soul clean from sin, that is for Christ, that is for his priests (for instance, St Pius X), but he might hope I get his mind cleared from some reminiscent Darwinist nonsense. And maybe the minds also, if not of most dedicated Darwinists, at least of some previously undecided.

But in order to do so, these undecided, who may not be searching out Creationist pages by themselves, might want to have the Creationist writings presented to them by someone they know, and maybe in some readable format, such as text printed on a paper.

And in doing their undecided, maybe even Darwinist friends the favour of providing that, they might also be making money themselves, as printers and booksellers, and if so they might also possibly send me some money.

It is a bit useless to argue about how disgusted some people are with Evangelical Pastors whose wives and children have swimming pools in the villa because they are well paid, when I am simply not a pastor at all, and when I am simply trying to earn some money for what is anyway a hobby: arguing against Darwinists, when- and whereever I think they are wrong.

It is also useless to say I should be a monk rather than a Creationist writer. If I were a monk or monastic vocation, this were like saying "this monk should be a monk and not a book copier" or "this monk sould be a monk and not a baker" or whatever, but since I am not a monk, nor a monastic vocation, it involves saying "this man should be a monk instead of preparing for family life", and I happen to find that somewhat hard. Giuseppe Sarto, as mentioned, signed up for living without a wife or children, I have not done so finally, and the preparatory moves in such direction, half hearted as they mostly were, came to and end in 5th of February 1998. I was put in a position of either turning the other cheek or legitimate self defense, and I did chose legitimate self defense, which is not what a monk should do.

There is another part of ethics involved: arguments should be honest. In my case they are so. If you want to check that out, argue. Comment case is free, except to spammers. And I am not considering someone a spammer because of disagreeing with me. Just as atheists should not consider me a spammer for writing disagreeing comments on their blogs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou,
Beaubourg of Paris
17-II-2012

Some PS like stuff:

• Who is "AronRa"?

  Not the shaved man with a guitar but his friend big picture left, long hair, goaty, drooping moustaches

• Is it true that his "videos focus on the scientific evidence for evolution, normally avoiding the theological discussion"?

  I have made three answers centered on theology and philosophy, from his Foundational Falsehoods 1-6 (might be coming back to unanswered parts) and part of 11. My scientific evidence only begins in the third of them. And there I am linking back to answers made in general or to others. Of course he might say philosophy does not count as theology if he likes.

• What are the conditions for commercial use of your writings?

  Stated here:
  Be My Unwin or Hooper if you Like
  http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html
  
  (This applies to my other writings too, unless otherwise stated, not just creationism).

• Has any atheist treated your creationist blog as spam?

  Andrew Copson, British Humanist Society, Chief Director, has so on his blog.

• Which messages on his blog?

  I detail the messages in my letter to them:

  Here I commented, here too, not here (so far), but here, and here, and here.
  
  Comments include links to my blogs, notably the creationist one, in my signature,
  
  Hans-Georg Lundahl
  
  PS: while looking at the messages where I commented, I no longer see my comments. Does Andrew Copson somehow not believe in freedom of comment?

• If E H Andrews wrote so well, why do you write?

  In part to restate some of his points on the internet, in part to make a few others, including especially Patristics and Chromosome numbers.