Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland

Churches urged to back evolution By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, St Louis

US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri.

Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said.

Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.

As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.

It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other Gilbert Omenn AAAS president

There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.

At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves.

"Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and tax payers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn.

"It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other.

"They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."

'Who's kidding whom?'

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Some have already heeded the warning.

"The intelligent design movement belittles evolution. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.

"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"

Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact.

Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way.

Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.

These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.

I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design Teacher Mark Gihring "The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.

Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."

However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design.

"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."

Economic risk

The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case.

"I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."

Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.

"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm

Published: 2006/02/20 10:54:16 GMT

© BBC MMVI


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bearingfalsewitness; crevolist; darwin; evolution; freeperclaimstobegod; goddooditamen; godknowsthatiderslie; idoogabooga; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; liarsforthelord; ludditesimpletons; monkeygod; scienceeducation; soupmyth; superstitiousnuts; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,281-2,3002,301-2,3202,321-2,3402,341 next last
To: kittymyrib

"We are in the position of little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Albert Einstein - 1929


2,321 posted on 03/05/2006 5:44:32 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #2,322 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
" But you have only given a handful of truly fabricated/misquoted/misattributed quotes. "

No, every one I critiqued was either wrong or was from somebody who shouldn't be on the list.

"The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character."

No, I called a creationist a creationist. That's not ad hominem.

"IE, “who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.” Perhaps you don’t. I would say that any physicist good enough to work at the AEC must have a solid head on his shoulders. But since he doesn’t actively run in evolutionary circles, you do not care to hear what he has to say."

But he's not a scientist working in biology. The eco-nuts do the same thing with their list of *scientists* who say that global warming is all our fault. They pad their lists with people who have no training in climate science, just like creationists pad their lists with people who have no training in biology.

" So he’s an evolutionist, but just not in a form that you would deem acceptable. He is still a Cambridge physicist."

My point was, of course he accepts the idea that God created the universe. He also believes he did it through evolution and the Big Bang. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

"Oh, but hold on here, I thought the point was only to contend with the evolutionists’ quotes, since a creationist is, by your definition, not a scientist."

No, I didn't say that. But a list of alleged evolutionists who make statements that are supposed to show doubts about evolution shouldn;t be padded with creationists. You yourself said that Gish didn't belong. The rest of the creationists don't either.

"I’m not contending with you on the merit of quotes by Koestler, but merely serving as a reminder that “rejected by the vast majority of scientists” never really does make a good argument against creationism."

Neither does a list of quotes ripped from their contexts count as an argument against evolution. And you are ignoring my point that Koestler was NOT a scientist. Why is he on the list?

" Precisely my point, old boy. He was a creationist, therefore, to Mordor with him. This is only your personal persuasion."

No, that was your conclusion when you said that Gish should not have been on the list. Try to be consistent.

"Why is it that the evolutionary model is exempted from pertaining to the origin of life? "

Because it just DOESN'T deal with it. Anymore than Germ theory does. You would think this wouldn't be tough to understand...

"Upon what dividing line does evolution end and biogenesis begin?"

When the first imperfectly self replicating organism was formed.

"It is as if evolutionists realized how scientifically impossible living matter arising from non-living matter truly was, and therefore cut off any connection with it at the very beginning. Thus, they can claim “evolution doesn’t address that” and grin smugly, thinking they have disarmed the refutations of neo-Darwinian thinking. (Of course, they still operate believing in the principle of non-living matter giving rise to living matter; they have to.)"

No, it has never been part of the theory, ever since Darwin.

"Curiously, the same exemption is not afforded ID or Creationism. Creationists operate with an assumption about the very beginning, true. But ID does not; it merely says something had to be guiding the process, based on irreducible complexity, etc. So why doesn’t ID get the same luxury? “We don’t know how life actually got started, and we won’t address that.”"

Because neither ID or creationism has offered any way to test their claims. Abiogenesis, while in it's infancy, does.

" If we’re going to allow that convenient cop-out for evolution, let’s be equally fair to both sides, shall we?"

It's not a cop-out, it's the recognition of where the theory's boundaries have always been. Abiogenesis is best left to the chemists.

"You see? Once again, it is only personal bias which is a factor. “I don’t care, because he doesn’t agree with me and my friends.” Do you not see how useless this is in an honest discussion?"

Using someone who is representative of about 1% of the scientific community as an example of what science claims is dishonest, to say the least. It is also terribly misleading in this case since he DOES accept descent with modification, just not natural selection as the driving force.

" We’ve been over that before. The quote in this case was in reference to Hitler, who meant it in a very literal sense."

And he meant it in a way that Darwin didn't. Using Hitler as a representative evolutionist is a disgustingly dishonest tactic.

"Right. And were someone to go through and highlight flaws in links provided by frevolutionists, an instantaneous divorce would occur and evolutionists (raising their voices to reinforce otherwise weak arguments) would brashly state that they cannot be expected to be held accountable for each inconsistency imbedded in a silly link. I already wrote that I supposed a reposting of the link equivocated an endorsement, but merely wished to clarify that I did not compile the list."

Feel free to highlight the flaws we make or in the links we post. Unlike you, we won't cling to them after they have been shown to be in error.

" Once again, you excuse it because it was typical. Restating your point doesn’t help."

And you condemn him for believing what 99% of his generation believed. I bet you condemn Lincoln for being a racist because he believed, as did just about every body of his time (including abolitionists) that blacks were inferior.

" Who excused it?"

You did by brushing it aside.

"You’re trying to turn the exact same question back on me without answering it yourself, and it won’t work."

I'm exposing your hypocrisy.

" I’m sorry you doubt it, but I cannot help your personal bias."

I frankly don't believe you. They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years.

In conclusion, your list is full of misquotes and people who don;t belong and don't represent evolutionary thought. But, as you say, you stand by it.
2,323 posted on 03/05/2006 9:54:04 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"I do have four other ping lists to maintain."

And some of us appreciate the work, though we may not say so very often.


2,324 posted on 03/06/2006 3:44:39 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
BTTT

// The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character//

And that is a very large piece of the methodology this cult engages all the while calling it science and inferring it is the strength of their ideas.

Wolf
2,325 posted on 03/06/2006 8:50:26 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; DaveLoneRanger
What is this?

//They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years//

I am about 20 years older than you, and you are out to lunch on that one, as with most other things that you insist are irrevocable fact.

By your logic then, I doubt there is very little you can speak on directly yourself.

You seem to think by calling these people 'creationists' and 'cranks' etc you demolish them.

I will say this. There are some 'cranks' alright, and they will be found in the ranks of evo-cultists.

They are seduced by the false sense of intellectual supremacy that seems to be a magnet for the personalities the cult draws in.

Wolf
2,326 posted on 03/06/2006 9:09:39 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2323 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"I am about 20 years older than you, and you are out to lunch on that one, as with most other things that you insist are irrevocable fact."

No, Haeckel's biogenic law has not been taught or accepted for a long, long time.

" By your logic then, I doubt there is very little you can speak on directly yourself."

This is nonsensical. Not out of character for you though. :)

" You seem to think by calling these people 'creationists' and 'cranks' etc you demolish them."

The list was supposed to be evolutionists who made statements that threw doubt on evolution. Instead, it was padded with avowed creationists who never accepted evolution. Or, it included people like Koestler, who was neither a scientist (he was a writer/journalist) nor did his views (neo-lamrakism) reflect what evolutionary biologists think. These people simply don't belong on this list. Period. Why, for instance, is Duane Gish on it?

" I will say this. There are some 'cranks' alright, and they will be found in the ranks of evo-cultists."

You're a one-trick dog. That's all you ever have to say. It's so boorish.
2,327 posted on 03/06/2006 9:19:29 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; metmom; Mamzelle; AndrewC
I'm Nuts About A PHreeper

Post Markian

2,328 posted on 03/06/2006 4:51:03 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba

Careful, I might scoll you.


2,329 posted on 03/06/2006 5:21:44 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2328 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Zounds! Tin foiled again!


2,330 posted on 03/06/2006 5:27:23 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2329 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba

Post Markian evo Crokyadyle style


2,331 posted on 03/06/2006 5:35:35 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2328 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Mamzelle; metmom

DU'ing da crock-O-Dial Rock


2,332 posted on 03/06/2006 5:37:52 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:DUDE--Where's my HomePage?!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2331 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Hey is there a v-list that says we cant talk to each other from she who must not be talked to? LOLOL

Wolf


2,333 posted on 03/06/2006 5:41:42 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2329 | View Replies]

Comment #2,334 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
" According to whose definition?"

To yours. You agreed that Gish should not be on the list because he was a creationist. There is no reason that ANY of the creationists should be on it. The list is supposed to be evolutionists who are grudgingly admitting that evolution is a theory in crisis and so on. Creationists have no place on the list.

"Since when does the evolutionist decide what quotes a creationist should put on the list?"

When the creationist who made the list pretended that the people on it were evolutionists who were admitting that evolution was bunk.


"Look up ad hominem. It doesn’t just mean calling their mother a sow. It is also “Person A says this-and-such; but this person is a member of the National Association of A’s, which advocate A, which is wrong. Therefore, we discount the opinion of Person A.”

But creationists are not supposed to be on the list; they are, giving the false impression that they are representative of evolutionist thinking. It's not ad hominem to say that.

"Of course, fields such as paleontology, geology, physics, etc. are irrelevant to the study of the evolutionary model, I suppose? Why must it be solely biology?"

Physics isn't.

" In other words, an IDer. His quotes were supportive of ID."

No, a theistic evolutionist.

"Sustained. But so far, you’ve only been able to find a handful of either creationists (with which the only objection is that they are, in fact, creationist under the heading of evolutionist; no other objections)"

Sustained but who cares? They are creationist under the heading of creationism. They don't belong on the list.

"Yet, why are we debating the merits of the individuals and attacking their stance and ability to critique and object? Proper debate would be surrounding the substance, not the author."

But their presence on the list is PART of the argument the listmaker made. The logical error was on the part of the person who assembled the list. A great many of the people just don't belong on the list.

" Just because! I get it. Thanks for clearing that up."

Because it NEVER has dealt with the origins of life. Neither has Germ Theory. Why don't you attack Germ Theory for not dealing with the origin of germs?

"The evolutionary model deals with origins. Not the Origin, the ultimate beginning, but it is a proposed explanation for the current orders of species we see today, reaching back into an alleged millions of years. When does it begin? Am I wrong when I say that the evolutionary model picks up RIGHT after spontaneous generation?"

Yes, you are wrong. It picks up right after abiogenesis. It's not spontaneous generation. The ToE only deals with imperfectly self replicating organisms. It's scope, like all theories, is limited to certain phenomena. Why this is so hard for a creationist to understand is incredibly frustrating.

"Biogenesis certainly is a very short-reaching subject. It takes up right there at the beginning of earth, runs the gamut up to the scientifically impossible spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, and then “evolution” takes over!"

Actually, it had to wait until the earth cooled enough. And there is nothing impossible about abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation as attacked by Pasteur. It has nothing at all to do with that.

"It’s like a committee which doesn’t want to deal with all the hard stuff, so it forms a sub-committee and then divorces itself from that, and whenever questions are asked, merely respond “that’s not in our job description.” ‘Tis remarkably convenient."

Again, ALL theories have limits. Why doesn't the theory of gravity get attacked for not addressing where matter comes from? Your insistence on singling out evolution just shows your bias, nothing else.

" Each one has to rely upon some remarkable, if not supernatural, explanation."

Yes, creationism and ID make untestable claims (though creationism has made a number of testable ones, which have been falsified, like a young earth.)


" Don’t tell me; the Miller experiements?"

Hate to tell you, but there has been a lot more work done than just that. You need to keep up. :)

"That’s convenient. Leave the study of life (and its ultimate origin) not to the “BIOLOGISTS” (first thing anyone ever tells you in bio class, biology is the study of life) but to those who study chemicals."

Would it make any difference if I clarified that and said biochemists?

" I never said “this is what science claims.” "

That's the whole point of the list, to allegedly show what scientists who study evolution are really saying.

"I’m showing that not everyone agrees with you, and that some of the admissions of some of the evolutionary scientists conflict with current interpretations and beliefs."

But when 99% of evolutionists disagree with the person quoted, it means that the person quoted is not representative of evolutionary biologists.

"This whole dialogue has been bickering about whether or not we should include this scientist or that, all the while completely ignoring the substance of what they have said."

Because, again, the composition of the list is crucial to the argument it is trying to make. If the people on the list don't represent the vast majority of what evolutionists think, their inclusion on it deeply weakens the argument the list maker was attempting.

"How long will you continue to recast my words to make them appear as something they were not? I never said he was a representative evolutionist. I don’t think the fool was even scientifically-inclined. The point is, he was acting based on Darwinist principles."

His inclusion on this list is an abomination. There is no justification for it. And, as was pointed out, he believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God. He wasn't using Darwinian principles. He never believed that the Aryan race evolved.

" And you don’t? Since when did majority opinion dictate morality?"

I can disagree with him and still understand that his opinions were a product of his times. Do you agree with those who condemn Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves? Should they still be honored for their achievements? Darwin's views on women were mild in comparison to the general view of his time, as were his ideas on race. You attack him with 21st century standards and you ignore the fact that almost everybody held similar views then. Why single him out?

"Depends on what you mean. Speaking in terms of social aptitude and skills, they were, simply because they had been suppressed for so long, had little training, and little to no chance."

And women were not given nearly as many opportunities to educate themselves and compete freely with men. That's why it is more forgivable for someone in the 1860's to think that women were not as capable as men, but it is not as understandable now. Now we have far too many examples of women who have achieved great things to honestly conclude they are inferior. The same can be said with race.

"By the way, remind me again what the justification was for believing that blacks were inferior. I seem to recall something about being lower-evolved…"

Well, if you asked Henry Morris he would have said the curse of Ham.

"Ah, I get it. If I don’t directly address your specific point, then it constitutes excusing it. Fascinating bias you have there."

Amazing rationalization you have there.

"As one of the proofs for evolution, however, another book I have not sold yet talks about comparative embryology; “One sign that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor is that all of them have an embryonic stage in which structures called pharyngeal slits appear on the sides of the throat. At this stage, the embryos of fishes, frogs, snakes, birds, apes – indeed, all vertebrates look more alike than different.”"

This is correct. It is also not Haeckel's biogenic law.

" Like structural homology, it predates DNA, which shows that there is no genetic relation."

Nonsense.

" If you were the one who decided who belonged and who didn’t, then your phrase “people who don’t belong” might be relevant."

So a list of alleged evolutionists who are saying evolution is bunk and admitting it's a theory in crisis can have people on it who never accepted evolution, or people on it who have never represented a tiny fraction of what evolutionary biologists believe? Fascinating.

" As for not representing evolutionary thought….that is the point! Um…duh?"

Duh is right. If it doesn't represent what the vast majority of evolutionists think, the list is a strawman created to attack positions that have no relevance to the ToE.
2,335 posted on 03/08/2006 10:36:07 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2334 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It is rediculous for compromisers and evolutionsists to claim that the Church must accept evolution:

It is a compromise (non-acceptance of truth/reality) to say that it is OK for a Christian to believe most of the Bible, but to ignore Genesis. They cannot say that the Bible is TRUTH and a GOOD BOOK and then say that God (God's word through man) LIED in Genesis and other miraculous stories in the Bible! How can someone claim to be a ~Christian~, and that Jesus is the Savior of the World (that he died for man's sin; rose again from the dead), and then deny The Father's power in the Creation!!_!

Plus (becuase God did create the World, natural (real science-not rhetoric such as when some equate evolution or non-supernatual to science ;)!)Is in line emperically with The EXact "Word of God"!!!


2,336 posted on 03/09/2006 2:19:20 PM PST by JSDude1 (If we are not governed by God, we WILL be governed by Tyrants-William Penn..founder of Pennsylvania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2335 | View Replies]

Comment #2,337 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
"I said he didn’t belong under the heading of “evolutionists.” We already established that the title issued a blanket title of “evolutionists” which was a misnomer. Beyond that, their words are still worth reading."

Why? The list was designed as an argument; it's supposed to be evolutionists who are admitting that evolution is deeply flawed. Having creationists on the list does absolutely nothing to further that claim.

"I already sustained your objection about the title. We get it about the title. Let’s get past the title now. Moving on from the title. Title discussion over. (The word “title” sounds weird now.)"

But that destroys the argument the list is trying to make.

"So other than the title business, you would not reject their words. Because that’s what you said; so-and-so is a creationist, so why should we care what they say?"

No, I said they were creationists and their opinions are irrelevant to the argument being made by the list.

" Depends on which form that takes. Theistic evolution = God caused evolution. ID = a god (or some godlike entity, designer, etc.) caused evolution."

Theistic evolutionists, unlike ID'ers, don't tend to throw up their hands and give up at every point where we don't have a complete answer yet.

" I care. We’re moving past the title. Title is gone. We’re now focusing only on the quotes, and whether or not they are true. "

I refuse to change the goalposts with you.

" But you said biogenesis was in its infancy. What has dealt with the origin of life prior to biogenesis?"

It's abiogenesis; and prior to it there was creationism. Evolution has never dealt with it.

" You have to remember that the term of evolution is slung around quite often, when there are various different definitions."

Clinton had a different definition of *is* too; that doesn't mean he was using it correctly. I am talking about the ToE as formulated by Darwin.

"Then explain to me how living matter can arise from non-living matter. There absolutely had to come a point when things not living first became alive. And that something had to defy currently known rules of science and nature."

It would break no rules. Again, Pasteur overthrew spontaneous generation of germs and insects in rotting food; he did not have anything to say about the formation of life on earth 4 billion years ago.

" Do you have specifics about what claims were falsified?"

Young earth, the Ark, all people from a pair (a genetic impossibility).

" Hey. You’re back to the cheap shots. If not the Miller experiments (most commonly used) then what?"

The miller expirments are over 50 years old. The field hasn't just rested on that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan02.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1025009/posts?page=90#90

"Well duh. We already went through this. If they represented the majority opinion on the current evolutionary ideas, then they wouldn’t be on the list."

No, if they represent but a tiny percentage of the opinion of what evolutionary biologists believe, they don't belong on the list. The entire argument of the list is based on it being the mainstream ideas of evolutionary biologists. If the people on the list don't represent that, then the argument has no weight, and crumbles.

"The only basis for your argument is the title, which I’ve already conceded to be a misnomer. Like the Huxley ordeal, you refuse to let go and move on, even after I agree with you."

Because you refuse to see that if the title isn't correct, the entire point of the list disappears. It was a weak argument to begin with (argument by quote mining); with the sample set so messed up, it becomes laughable.

" I turn again to the words of Sir Arthur Keith:"

He was wrong. I turn you to the words of Hitler himself:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

"I certainly don’t put Darwin on the level of Washington or Jefferson, but I do not find evidence of stringent racism on their part like I do on Darwin’s."

So you excuse the men who actually owned slaves but condemn the man who was virulently antislavery. You can rationalize anything away it appears.

" And again, you’re just trying to come back with a counter-accusation rather than answer it yourself. "

And you refuse to deal with the hypocrisy of your position. Henry Morris had far less of an excuse for what he said than Darwin. Yet you make Darwin the villain, and give Morris a pass.

"Unless you come back with something worth responding to, it seems best to me to be moving on from this thread now, and let it die of lung cancer in this smoky back room."

It IS frustrating to have to go over the same things again and again.
2,338 posted on 03/10/2006 6:46:21 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2337 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

good post elsie....this is the truth of the word...does it hurt? yes...but you can't sugar coat the bible can you? good job


2,339 posted on 06/18/2006 9:49:48 PM PDT by stlouisgirl777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1841 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Pick away my post. I have finished the class. I went in with an open, curious mind. They failed to sway me that evolution is fact...that it is little more than science fiction. Frankly, I'm disappointed this sham of a class is treated seriously by any self respecting scientist. And although it may be a theory it is far from a law. Gravity is a law...etc...evolution is still considered a theory for a reason. You can't deny that there is NO proof of species change. Did Homo Heidlebergensis change into Homo erectus? They don't know, they can't say? The scientists won't say. So pick me apart....but come armed dude...I'm no ignorant fundie. Darwin himself had doubts about his theory...so take you're condenscentious attitude and lay it on some ignorant redneck.


2,340 posted on 06/18/2006 9:59:12 PM PDT by stlouisgirl777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1838 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,281-2,3002,301-2,3202,321-2,3402,341 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson