Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Second paragraph in post 18 was intended to refer to a white guy in a suit.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept.
Darwin came up with certain ideas.
Others later distorted and misused his ideas. One group that did this was the Nazis.
This does not make Darwin a proto-Nazi, but it is not possible to disclaim the intellectual line of descent.
I have pointed out in other posts that Marxism and Communism are in a very real sense Christian heresies. IOW, misuses of the teachings of Christ and his followers. This doesn't seem to have upset any of the Christians on this thread. It is generally recognized as true.
Why cannot believers in evolution recognize that this theory was misused by the Nazis and as a result some very bad things happened? If this it true it provides no evidence one way or the other as to the truth of the theory, it is only another example of the human ability to misuse anything.
Actually, this is kind of funny.
Biology teachers in most areas are prohibited from teaching anything other than evolution. It is your side that is imposing restrictions on how they do their job.
False. In every single case, it was SCHOOL BOARDS and STATE LEGISLATURES who were attempting to FORCE biology teachers to either undermine evolution or talk about intelligent design.
In Dover, PA, where the latest case was fought, the school board instructed the teachers to read a statement before class about intelligent design. The teachers, all of them, REFUSED.
The Dhimicrats would never win another election if they got rid of their creationists (mainly black churchgoers)
post 118 "Evolution's core argument is that life was created from raw natural process. This is against the Christian philosophy that life was generated from a Superior Being."
Here you create a sharp division between Evolution and Christianity.
post 142: "A more accurate statistic would be Protestant Christian pastors who support evolution, but not ID or Creationism."
In this post you develop two groups, those that are protestant Christians and all others.
post 182: "You can call yourself "Christian" because you have a family that may have attended a Church once, as many people do, but this does not imply those statistics are Christian."
When taken in context of your previous posts, this casts doubts on the Christian status of those that support Evolution.
"Evolution has not implemented a protective layer for religion. "
Why should it?
Okay, okay, we get it. Put down the kilts and slowly back away from the thread!
For whatever reason, leftists clearly were uncomfortable with pure Darwinism almost from the start. Most of the left finally seems to have given up on the issue, but for most of the last 150 years they strongly preferred, and sometimes stubbornly clung to, Lamarckian as opposed to Darwinian versions of evolution.
The last anti-Darwinian broadside I can think of from a Leftist was Jeremy Rifkin's Algeny. That was from the 70's IIRC. There are probably more recent examples. I haven't followed the antievolution literature closely in recent years, but leftist anti-Darwinism seems to have subsided.
There also has been, and may well still be, strong anti-Darwinian sentiments among many "newage" religion types, which might be considered part of the left. Examples are Rupert Sheldrake with his theory of "morphic resonance," Francis Hitching (The Neck of the Giraffe) and William Fix (The Bone Peddlers). Some "newage" religions are explicitly antievolutionary (not just anti-Darwinist) e.g. "Krishna Consciousness" and the Raelians; and many others, while not explicitly antievolution, insist on lurid scenarios of earth history and the genealogy of the human race that are wildly contradictory to any and every scientific account, e.g. Madam Blavatsky's Theosophy.
Try not to go any farther down this line of argument. Before you know it you're into multi-cornered arguments as to whether Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and others are really Christians.
(trivial way to do so is via the logic in The Wisdom of Crowds, btw)
Cheers!
We'll settle this in the traditional Scottish fashion - alcohol, followed by violence, followed by more alcohol :)
But haven't had a chance to talk about my maternal grandfather.....
For many years he was a lumberjack in the Canadian North...
Who doesn't recognize it? I don't know a single evo freeper who denies it. We're just very sick of people brining it up, because it's not a valid argument against evolution. It's a classic example of the guilt by association fallacy.
If Darwin is somehow responsible for Hitler, then Jesus is also responsible for those who have murdered in his name. Both assertions are stupid.
"Dr Wise believes that most of us have been trained to be biased towards thinking in an evolutionary way, which unfortunately is not along the lines of God's thinking. So he encourages his students to look at their starting assumptions, and to think about whether those assumptions are correct, or whether there are other options they need to consider. "...
"'Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theoryit's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issuessuch as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earthare determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.'" ...
"'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory. "
I agree with you Matchett, that Creationists should not fear science. As far as I know most of us don't. Out of all the sciences, there is this one small field of evolution that creationists find unconvincing, but we look at the starting assumptions, and aren't convinced that evolution is the correct explanation for the associated observations. I'm confident that the more science advances, the less palatable evolution theory will become.
I would welcome black churchgoers into the republican party. There are some outstanding citizens in that group.
Probably many do so implicitly, that is along the line the author suggests: arguing that collectivism is inconsonant with human nature, and its imposition destroys invaluable human institutions (socially) evolved over hundreds and thousands of years.
But probably few would employ "Darwinism" explicitly. Most on the pro-Darwin side would see employing scientific theories in ethical or political arguments as invalid.
Was he okay? More importantly, did he sleep all night and work all day?
Are you sure you want to go there?
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.