Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.
The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

An interview by Jamie Glazov with Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, about his new book Darwinian Conservatism.

Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thanks for taking the time out to talk about your new book.

Arnhart: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.

Glazov: Tell us briefly what your book is about and your main argument.

Arnhart: I am trying to persuade conservatives that they need Charles Darwin. Conservatives need to see that a Darwinian science of human nature supports their realist view of human imperfectability, and it refutes the utopian view of the Left that human nature is so completely malleable that it can be shaped to conform to any program of social engineering.

Glazov: How exactly does Darwinian science of human nature demonstrate the imperfectability of humans?

Arnhart: In Thomas Sowell’s book A Conflict of Visions, he shows that ideological debate has been divided for a long time between what he calls the “constrained vision” and the “unconstrained vision.” I see this as a contrast between the “realist vision” of the political right and the “utopian vision” of the political left.

Those with the realist vision of life believe that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in their unchanging human nature, and so a good social order has to make the best of these natural limitations rather than trying to change them. But those with the utopian vision think that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in social customs and practices that can be changed, and so they believe the best social order arises from rationally planned reforms to perfect human nature.

Those with the realist vision see social processes such as families, markets, morality, and government as evolved rather than designed. Darwinian science is on the side of this realist vision of the conservative tradition. The main idea of the realist vision is evolution—the idea that social order is spontaneously evolved rather than rationally designed. Friedrich Hayek saw this. Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate, shows how modern biological research on human nature supports the insight of the realist vision that there is a universal human nature that cannot be easily changed by social reform.

Glazov: Why do you think so many Conservatives and religious people have always been so afraid and disdainful of Darwinianism?

Arnhart: They associate it with a crudely materialistic and atheistic view of the world—a “survival of the fittest” in which the strong exploit the weak. One of the books promoted by the Discovery Institute is Richard Weikart’s book From Darwin to Hitler. He claims that all the evils of Nazism come from Hitler’s Darwinism. But I show in my book that Weikart’s arguments are weak, because there is no support for Hitler’s ideas in Darwin’s writings. In response to my criticisms, Weikart now says that he cannot show a direct connection “from Darwin to Hitler.”

Glazov: Then what do you think about a book like Ann Coulter’s book Godless?

Arnhart: Coulter’s attack on Darwinism as a threat to conservative values illustrates the sort of mistake that I want to correct. Her arguments against Darwinism as a liberal religion are shallow. It’s clear that she has never read Darwin and doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She has memorized some talking points from the proponents of intelligent design theory at the Discovery Institute—people like Bill Dembski and Mike Behe. But she hasn’t thought through any of this. For example, she assumes that Darwinism promotes an immoral materialism. But she says nothing about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense implanted in human nature. And she doesn’t recognize that conservative thinkers like James Q. Wilson have adopted this Darwinian view of the moral sense.

Glazov: Can you tell us a bit about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense that is implanted in human nature? This in itself is an argument for the existence of a God right?

Arnhart: It could be. If you already believe in God as a moral lawgiver, then you might see the natural moral sense as created by God. In The Descent of Man, Darwin sees morality as a uniquely human trait that is a product of human evolutionary history. We are naturally social animals who care about how we appear to others. This natural human concern for social praise and blame combined with human reason leads us to formulate and obey social norms of good behavior. Darwin drew ideas from Adam Smith’s book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, particularly Smith’s claim that morality depends on “sympathy,” the human capacity for sharing in the experiences of others, so that we feel resentment when others are victims of injustice. Darwin thought these moral emotions of indignation at injustice would have evolved to favor cooperative groups.

Glazov: What do you make of the creation/intelligent design/evolution debate?

Arnhart: In my book, I explain why the arguments of the intelligent design folks are weak. They assume unreasonable standards of proof in dismissing the evidence for Darwin’s theory, and they don’t offer any positive theory of their own as an alternative. But, still, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing public school biology students to read some of the intelligent design writing along with Darwinian biology, and then they can decide for themselves.

The problem, of course, is whether this could be done without introducing Biblical creationism. In the case last year in Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members who wanted to teach a literal 6-days-of-creation story used the idea of intelligent design as a cover for what they were doing. In fact, the Discovery Institute actually opposed the policy of the school board because their motives were purely religious, and they had no interest in the scientific debate. In Ann Coulter’s book, she misses this point entirely.

Glazov: Ok, kindly expand on why you think conservatives should welcome Darwinian science rather than fear it.

Arnhart: Sure. I argue that Darwinism can support some of the fundamental conservative commitments to traditional morality, family life, private property, and limited government. For example, a Darwinian view of human nature would reinforce our commonsense understanding of the importance of parent-child bonding and family life generally as rooted in our evolved nature as human beings. Or a Darwinian view of human imperfection might support the need for limited government with separation of powers as a check on the corrupting effects of political power. Religious conservatives fear Darwinism because they think it has to be atheistic. But that’s not true. There is no reason why God could not have used natural evolution as the way to work out his design for the universe.

Glazov: Can you talk a bit more about on the theory and possibility of how God may have engineered a natural evolution? And why would anyone think this is not a religious concept? Even Pope John Paul accepted the reality of evolution.

Arnhart: Yes, the statement of John Paul II in 1996 assumed that all life could have evolved by natural causes. Traditionally, Catholics have had no objections to Darwinian evolution, because they believe that God works through the laws of nature, which could include the sort of natural evolution identified by Darwin. The religious objections toDarwin come from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who read the opening chapters of Genesis literally, so that God created everything in six days. But very few religious believers take that seriously. Even William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes trial, admitted that the six days of Creation did not have to be 24-hour days.

Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thank you for taking the time out to talk about your book.

Arnhart: Thank you for having me.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: bookreview; conservatism; creationbrownshirts; crevolist; darwin; enoughalready; evolutioniscorrect; fetish; fireproofsuits; gettingold; glazov; noonecares; obsession; onetrickpony; pavlovian; wrongforum; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-678 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
If the age that is demonstrated is nowhere near the actual age . . .

If you had a way to determine geologic ages by direct observation rather than through inferences and guesswork then you might have a case. As it stands, however, you only have foggy notions about the age of the form of those things you have been given to observe. You have no case for intimating God as a prevaricator. The case is much greater when it comes to the possibility that we are the ones inclined to deceive, not God.

Meanwhile, shame on Chrysler for being so deceitful as to build a car with retro design; a car that looks older than it really is. And shame on those deceitful people who apply antique finishes to new furniture for the very purpose of making it look old. Has it ever occurred to you that the appearance of old age might be a matter of aesthetics?

But then it is characteristic of the apostles of evolutionism to get hung up on appearances with little concern for the substance. Thankfully the better part of science is not so lazy and dogmatic at the same time.

601 posted on 07/25/2006 4:20:21 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

If mine is a philosophical question, then yours is a philosophical statement: that if the earth is older than it appears then God is deceitful. You already seem entirely disinclined to believe what He says about Himself. It should come as no surprise you find little problem in setting yourself up as His judge, even though you haven't the faintest notion scientifically how old is the matter that comprises your body.


602 posted on 07/25/2006 4:25:39 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
He says about Himself. It should come as no surprise you find little problem in setting yourself up as His judge, even though you haven't the faintest notion scientifically how old is the matter that comprises your body.

I draw conclusions based on the evidence at hand. If God plants false evidence, then it is trickery of the worst kind.

But I am not judging Him, because He didn't. You need to let go of your sophomoric "what is time" argument. We are starting to be embarrassed for you.

603 posted on 07/25/2006 4:37:43 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Stop evading. You said that it would not be deceitful for God to make the universe look old but be very young.

That's not a loving, honest, God.

Luckily he only exists in your mind.

This is over Fester. Your logical contortions are boring.


604 posted on 07/25/2006 5:18:55 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

The "what is time" question is hardly sophomoric. It happens to have much to do with our interpretation of the evidence. You speak so confidently of your conclusions when in fact the tools of measurement you have are weak. For the most part you parrot what others say, accepting their word by faith and passing it along. Your conclusions about the age of the earth are little more than a wild guess.


605 posted on 07/25/2006 5:29:57 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You said that it would not be deceitful for God . . .

No, I asked how it would be deceitful, and you, as usual, have not answered the question. It is you who are being evasive, not I. Tell me how it is that creating something with the appearance of age is necessarily deceitful, when in fact many people do the same thing just for the sake of aesthetics. Are you somehow privy to the motivations of God? Have you somehow directly observed the age of the earth? I didn't think so.

606 posted on 07/25/2006 5:33:31 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I had to laugh at your last post. No offense, but it is impossible to ignore the irony of your last post.

I think you have been the one who has evaded a question put to you many times. You could answer the simple question that has been put to you many times over. I can't see why you would be so afraid.

Oh, and why do you have to be such a smart aleck all the time. That is what they do at the democrat websites.

Have a good day.

607 posted on 07/25/2006 5:41:39 AM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Bye Fester. You're too boring today.


608 posted on 07/25/2006 5:50:28 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: bwc
"I had to laugh at your last post."

Take your meds and you won't have that problem.

"I think you have been the one who has evaded a question put to you many times."

I think you would love that to be true.

Good day.
609 posted on 07/25/2006 5:52:17 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Very good!

I didn't know you had it in you. (and if I did, I should have moved farther away).

610 posted on 07/25/2006 5:52:52 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
... "Can God make a rock so big even he can't lift it?" "What happens when the Irresistible Force meets the Unmovable Object?"

Remind you of the sophomore college days when we would all get drunk and talk passionately about totally meaningless crap while thinking we were breaking philosophical ground?

Or listen to any George Carlin album. It would've saved a semester's tuition.

611 posted on 07/25/2006 6:08:32 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Not me. THEM. It's always THEM. Since they put the radio chip into my head, I have no choice.
612 posted on 07/25/2006 6:10:59 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Evolution's core argument is that life was created from raw natural process.

Odd statement considering that the title of Darwin's book on the subject is "The Origin of Species."

613 posted on 07/25/2006 6:47:41 AM PDT by Condorman (Prefer infinitely the company of those seeking the truth to those who believe they have found it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Meds?

Again, the irony can't be missed.

You seem to have an anger problem. Get out of the house more, take some long walks and don't forget the meds you mentioned.

Have a day.

614 posted on 07/25/2006 7:09:42 AM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: bwc

Bye troll.


615 posted on 07/25/2006 7:12:44 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The irony of your comments never ceases. You are definitely a troll.

You use the liberal tactic of resorting to insults and namecalling when you are afraid to answer questions.

Your manner and the things you tend to focus your anger on are the same as any average koolaid drinking ACLU member. In fact, there is no discernable difference between you and an extreme secular liberal.

Now, have some guts instead of just tossing around insults as an excuse to hide your cowardice.

Have a day troll.

616 posted on 07/25/2006 7:20:03 AM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: bwc

Bye troll. :)


617 posted on 07/25/2006 7:20:58 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I knew you would not try to defend your indefensible extreme liberal attitude and adolescent insulting style. Liberal trolls all sound alike, they sound like you.

Don't forget to mail your monthly dues to the ACLU since you are one of them.

Now beat it Troll.

618 posted on 07/25/2006 7:29:49 AM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: bwc

Bye Troll. :)


619 posted on 07/25/2006 7:32:01 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: bwc
Just more evidence that you really are a troll. You might need to get that yellow stripe on your back repainted after this thread.

Beat it back to DU, troll, you don't belong on a conservative forum.

620 posted on 07/25/2006 7:40:30 AM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The "what is time" question is hardly sophomoric.

Unless you are intimately involved with quantum physics it is mental masturbation of the lowest order.

It happens to have much to do with our interpretation of the evidence. You speak so confidently of your conclusions when in fact the tools of measurement you have are weak. For the most part you parrot what others say, accepting their word by faith and passing it along. Your conclusions about the age of the earth are little more than a wild guess.

Radiometric aging works just fine. It tells us how many years (within a reasonable tolerance). If you want to say "what's a year?" then I will have to wake up and you will disappear.

621 posted on 07/25/2006 8:05:09 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Ah, yes, according to the article The chip genome "led to literally too many questions; there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees--that's too much to figure out," Jonathan Rothberg, 454's chairman (454 Life Sciences Corp of Branford, CT). Further, the article points out "There are no firm answers yet about how humans picked up key traits such as walking upright and developing complex language."

Yet, humanity is expected to believe that we descended from apes. Believe what you like, but when even scientists can't answer the questions on evolution, however they're using up lots of time and effort and money to try to explain it, it appears that evolution IS NOT the answer.


622 posted on 07/25/2006 8:09:12 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: bwc; CarolinaGuitarman
The irony of your comments never ceases. You are definitely a troll.

The irony is delicious. Since it a Cr/Ider tactic to attack and insult since they have no rational argumentation. CarolinaG is pretty restrained, given the attacks he (and the rest of us who understand TToE) has to endure.

You even insult him IN THE VERY POST WHERE YOU BERATE HIM FOR INSULTING!

To wit: the same as any average koolaid drinking ACLU member. In fact, there is no discernable difference between you and an extreme secular liberal

Willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks are not a Conservative value (although they appear to be Creationist Values).

623 posted on 07/25/2006 8:10:32 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Believe what you like, but when even scientists can't answer the questions on evolution, however they're using up lots of time and effort and money to try to explain it, it appears that evolution IS NOT the answer

First time on a Crevo thread?

624 posted on 07/25/2006 8:11:23 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: bwc

Bye Troll. :)


625 posted on 07/25/2006 8:19:33 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks are not a Conservative value (although they appear to be Creationist Evolutionist Values).

Not that I agree with your attack on bwc, but in any case, WOOPS! ...bwc is an evolutionist.

Now, this is what I call irony.

You attacked an evolutionist, bwc, for exposing Carolina Guitarman as a liberal, and all the while you were thinking bwc was a creationist.

Placemarker

626 posted on 07/25/2006 9:17:55 AM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

There's another sucker born every minute.


627 posted on 07/25/2006 9:30:39 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Unless you are intimately involved with quantum physics . . .

What part of the physical universe is not governed by quantum physics?

Radiometric aging works just fine.

Radiometric dating is no substitute for direct observation, but entails, among other things, the unsubstantiated assumption the decay rate has always been the same. Am I to believe you yourself have applied radiometric dating? I doubt it. And even if/when you did, what was it you were dating? The age of the material, or the age of its form?

Maybe you'd like to settle for radiometric dating and remain satisfied with its answer. Fortunately real science is neither as lazy or dogmatic as you.

628 posted on 07/25/2006 9:39:40 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent; bwc

I stand by my statement. bwc, you are ACTING like a Creationist.

For Shame!


629 posted on 07/25/2006 9:40:28 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Radiometric dating is no substitute for direct observation,

One of the dumbest things ever said on these threads -- and that is saying something. ALL OF SCIENCE is based on theories that tie together information, MOST OF WHICH IS INFERRED. We can't directly see neutrons, gravitons, or a lot of things that science tells us about. Do you think string theory or even the red shift were formulated based on DIRECT OBSERVATION? Even the existence of the planet PLUTO was a result of inference.

If you rely on direct observation, you immediately take yourself out of any scientific discussion. As you have this one.

but entails, among other things, the unsubstantiated assumption the decay rate has always been the same.

No it doesn't. Please, stop. You are really, really embarrassing yourself with your complete lack of knowledge of the topics at hand. If you want to start a sophomore philosophy thread, go ahead. I am sure the other sophomores and a few of the freshmen will get together and talk about the importance of the phonetics of "Jinandtonix." But it is time for you to quit pestering the grown-ups.

630 posted on 07/25/2006 10:09:23 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree; stands2reason
"You are aware, I hope, that if you consider each and every single nucleotide variance between the Chimp genome and the Human genome as a single reason, giving 35,000,000 reasons to doubt the relationship that leaves 3,465,000,000 reasons to believe the relationship?

I also hope you are aware, using the same standards, that the average male Human and the average female Human differ by 45,500,000 base pairs.

That means that you differ more from your spouse than humans do from chimps.

Using your logic it would be difficult to believe a male is related to his mother.

If you are going to play games with numbers at least determine where those numbers are valid before proceeding.

By any measure, chimps are human's closest relatives. The difference between Humans and Chimps is less than the difference between Chimps and their second closest relatives the Gorilla.

Courtesy ping to stands2reason.

631 posted on 07/25/2006 10:56:46 AM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree; stands2reason
Correction to previous post:

"Ah, yes, according to the article The chip genome "led to literally too many questions; there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees--that's too much to figure out," Jonathan Rothberg, 454's chairman (454 Life Sciences Corp of Branford, CT). Further, the article points out "There are no firm answers yet about how humans picked up key traits such as walking upright and developing complex language."

"Yet, humanity is expected to believe that we descended from apes. Believe what you like, but when even scientists can't answer the questions on evolution, however they're using up lots of time and effort and money to try to explain it, it appears that evolution IS NOT the answer.

"You are aware, I hope, that if you consider each and every single nucleotide variance between the Chimp genome and the Human genome as a single reason, giving 35,000,000 reasons to doubt the relationship that leaves 3,465,000,000 reasons to believe the relationship?

I also hope you are aware, using the same standards, that the average male Human and the average female Human differ by 45,500,000 base pairs.

That means that you differ more from your spouse than humans do from chimps.

Using your logic it would be difficult to believe a male is related to his mother.

If you are going to play games with numbers at least determine where those numbers are valid before proceeding.

By any measure, chimps are human's closest relatives. The difference between Humans and Chimps is less than the difference between Chimps and their second closest relatives the Gorilla.

Courtesy ping to stands2reason.

632 posted on 07/25/2006 11:12:23 AM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks

Do you think Adam's resemblance to God was physical?


633 posted on 07/25/2006 11:54:22 AM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
If the Bible is right and God did create a man who is called Adam, how old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?

If you will have the courage to answer, we can test your opinion.

Why don't you go ahead and make your point so we can rip it apart logically. You are not fooling anyone, we know where you are going with this.

634 posted on 07/25/2006 11:56:51 AM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: bwc

He answered the question, if you are talking about how old Adam was.

He doesn't believe Adam existed, that he was allegory.

Now tell me, how old was the tooth fairy when it was created?


635 posted on 07/25/2006 12:01:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: bwc

If you complain about insults while using them, it looks rather hypocritical.


But whatever, right? "An eye for an eye" Jesus said.


636 posted on 07/25/2006 12:03:02 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I tend to consider direct observation to be a fairly reliable means of confirming what is physically true and what is not. This is now science conducts itself: with repeated testing available in such a manner as to be observed and recorded in real time. I appreciate the fact you understand that science relies chiefly upon inferences and not proofs, and are thus willing to allow the presence of organized matter performing specific functions to be inferred scientifically as a product of intelligent design.

If it is philosophy you prefer to indulge, then please partake of that branch of philosophy called the philosophy of history - the discipline that makes guesses as to the age of the earth. If you want to imply God is a liar when your eyes and reason cannot adequately grasp the evidence at hand, then please take your place among the rest of the rabble that has no anchor to prevent wild speculations based upon fantasy.

Otherwise your verbal hyper ventilations have not at all served to answer my questions regarding the age of matter and the nature of time, both of which subjects are essential to science. You also have not explained how it follows, in cases where objects may be older or younger than they appear, that "deceit" is a motive behind the design.
637 posted on 07/25/2006 12:12:13 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
I didn't hear anyone ask a question about a tooth fairy except for you.

And no, he didn't answer the question, he evaded the question and let loose with insults as a justification for dodging.

We can accept evolution without becoming the equivalent of the extreme liberal progressives who betray their anti religious fanaticism.

Don't forget, this is a conservative forum and the fanaticism against conservative christians under the veil of evolution sounds exactly like the fanatics at DU and is unnecessary.

Happy trolling.

638 posted on 07/25/2006 1:47:31 PM PDT by bwc (Big Centralized Government is turning us into just another clone of the European States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: bwc; CarolinaGuitarman
I believe he stated that he thought that the Adam story was allegory, and that Adam himself wasn't real. I may be wrong. But anyway that's why I mentioned the tooth fairy. You can't expect someone to describe who they don't think is real, it's ridiculous.

Don't forget, this is a conservative forum and the fanaticism against conservative christians under the veil of evolution sounds exactly like the fanatics at DU and is unnecessary.

What fanaticism against conservative Christians? I don't see any.

Happy trolling.

Oh, so now I'm a troll?

bwc -- Since Mar 20, 2006

You have some nerve to use the "T" word for a longtimer, Newbie. Or should I say "retread"?

639 posted on 07/25/2006 2:00:27 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; Old Landmarks
Old Landmarks adjusted the question after acknowledging that Guitar did not believe there was a real Adam.
That is hard to miss.

Quoting OL: Since you don't believe God created Adam I will ask the question another way.

OL then asked the question with the acknowledgment that Guitar did not believe there was an Adam. Guitar still would not answer the question.

He wasn't being asked to believe the story, only to answer a question about the story, big diffence. OL can correct me if I am wrong.

640 posted on 07/25/2006 4:19:45 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent
"Old Landmarks adjusted the question after acknowledging that Guitar did not believe there was a real Adam.
That is hard to miss."

When I said that Adam never existed, there was no reason to further deal with the question. The question was just a way to get around the implications of saying that God could make the world APPEAR to be 15 billion years old but actually have it only be 6,000 years. The question lacked any intelligent purpose, beyond distraction. I treated it as such. It deserved to be ignored.

"He wasn't being asked to believe the story, only to answer a question about the story, big diffence."

If I don't believe the story, then there was no point in answering it.
641 posted on 07/25/2006 4:44:55 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Thanks, Fester.

Send me the bill for your Excedrin. It's the least I can do.

642 posted on 07/25/2006 4:46:39 PM PDT by labette (Why stand ye here all the day idle?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The question lacked any intelligent purpose, beyond distraction.

He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong.

You should have taken the challenge to answer the question and then point out the flaws in his arguments as he presented them. It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling.

It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate.

643 posted on 07/25/2006 5:36:30 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent
"He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong."

No, it was to distract. It didn't work.

"You should have taken the challenge to answer the question..."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved to be answered. I said I don't believe there ever was an Adam. There was no point taking the silly hypothetical any further. It was obvious where he was going with the question, and there was no way to answer it as stated without having him be able to say, *But God could have just made him APPEAR to be in his 20's!* That means we can't trust anything we see around us, because it could all be a trick.

My point is valid; any *God* that makes the universe APPEAR to be 15 billion years old but really is only 6,000 years old is a lying trickster God. I do not say that such a God actually exists, just that there are people who claim such a God exists. The question about Adam would in no way challenge my claim, as there is no way to answer it. It's like asking when I stopped beating my wife.

"It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved.

"It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling."

Then he shouldn't have called me names.
644 posted on 07/25/2006 5:46:49 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Asking about Adam is irrelevant. The argument of Biblical age vs. Scientific age is based on physical evidence. There is no physical evidence of Adam.
645 posted on 07/25/2006 6:08:12 PM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Exactly.


646 posted on 07/25/2006 6:09:22 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Then he shouldn't have called me names.

What? Old Landmarks just kept asking you questions, he didn't call you names.

You repeatedly tried to insult him, but he didn't call you any names that I saw.

647 posted on 07/25/2006 6:16:26 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent

"What? Old Landmarks just kept asking you questions, he didn't call you names."

Um, yes he did.

"You repeatedly tried to insult him."

No, he repeatedly insulted me by implying I was a coward for not directly answering his silly question. When he asks an intelligent question, I will answer it directly.

What bugged him so much was that I saw through his question as being the diversion it was and refused to play along with his game. As many other people tried to answer the question, and he didn't answer them, it was obvious he was trolling me. Let he stew in it. I really don't care.

And now I will do the same with you. The game is over. Good night.


648 posted on 07/25/2006 6:27:22 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Old Landmarks
[Old Landmarks]...didn't call you any names that I saw.

Um, yes he did.

No he did not.

Show me the post and the name he called you. I'll be waiting.

As many other people tried to answer the question, and he didn't answer them...he was trolling me.

No, try again. He went after you because you were the one offering the opinion he wanted to expose, not the others. Oh please, you were obviously trying to offend and he took you up on it and ignored your buddies who tried repeatedly to get you off the hook.

I doubt he is stewing, I know I wouldn't be, especially since he went unchallenged.

649 posted on 07/25/2006 6:50:54 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent

Bye Troll, I'm not playing your game. :)


650 posted on 07/25/2006 6:52:40 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-678 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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