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

Skip to comments.

Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,329 next last
To: wendy1946
I call it devil worship or idolatry; that okay??

I don't care what you do ... unless you're falsely attributing quotes to me I never said.

That would be lying.

Are you a liar?

101 posted on 01/28/2009 4:51:35 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
You’ll be even more boring than usual, if that’s even possible.

Well then you'll just have to go see if you can irritate somebody else into an intermperate reaction.

102 posted on 01/28/2009 4:52:15 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

What’s that have to do with my post? I didn’t personalize it to anyone. What I said is just what happen: stuffing everyone who disagrees with the ToE into a one size fits all box.


103 posted on 01/28/2009 4:53:17 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
But sorry, no primordial soup for you, go to the back door and beg for scraps.

That's right. Cause anything a creationist has to say isn't science, dontcha know?

/roll eyes

104 posted on 01/28/2009 4:55:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: metmom
To think I just happened to check in for a quick glance at the news. Some news this thread brings!
105 posted on 01/28/2009 4:56:11 PM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Scott is fairly sure it seems, that you just don’t understand the ingredients of evolutionary soupe de joure.

“What usually happens in these debates? (with creationists) Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That’s the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don’t be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came? “ (Debates and the Globetrotters
Copyright © 1994-1997 by Eugenie Scott - Talk Origins Archive
[Last Update: July 7, 1994]

There you have it! It just ain’t fair that so many creationists show up for a debate! And the religious influence? Oh my!!!!


106 posted on 01/28/2009 5:02:48 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; wintertime
The atheist Darwinists LOVE to talk about science, because this diverts attention from their real agenda, which is eugenics.

It's more than about eugenics. Did you ever see the way they advocate government control of education in the name of science? And keeping religion out of the public arena but only in the home or church, as if any one with any faith is a second class citizen?

107 posted on 01/28/2009 5:06:34 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What’s that have to do with my post? I didn’t personalize it to anyone. What I said is just what happen: stuffing everyone who disagrees with the ToE into a one size fits all box.

Just so. It not about the issue it's about the people. The issue is just the common denominator.

108 posted on 01/28/2009 5:07:02 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom
"Personalize, polarize, and try to provoke a reaction."

You recognize the tactic. So, you understand coyotman's behavior. In the months to come, I'm sure we will hear all about how he was banned for 'defending' science. He provoked the banishment. Kinda like "suicide by cop." I hope you'll have the honor to not pretend it was anything else.

109 posted on 01/28/2009 5:15:50 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: metmom; wintertime
It's more than about eugenics. Did you ever see the way they advocate government control of education in the name of science? And keeping religion out of the public arena but only in the home or church, as if any one with any faith is a second class citizen?

You're right, but they believe that if they kill off everyone who might disagree with them they will have created a "super race." They not only worship junk science, they believe they can manipulate it.

"The Descent of Man" was published about a decade after "The Communist Manifesto." Darwin was trying to accomplish the same thing as Marx, just from a slightly different angle. Marx sought to destroy capitalism to create a form of atheism where the state was god, Darwin sought to destroy Christianity to create a form of atheism where the elite who ran the state were gods.

110 posted on 01/28/2009 5:17:08 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
You recognize the tactic. So, you understand coyotman's behavior.

I recognize the implication.

111 posted on 01/28/2009 5:19:39 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; wagglebee; metmom; Jim Robinson; tpanther; little jeremiah; Sam's Army; ...
Is the author of this piece an atheist, a Satanist, anti-god, or in some other way unfit to associate with the posters at FR?

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

[Bolding mine]

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

[Bolding mine].

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."

It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

Excerpted from the October 30 issue of the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano.

For those of you who will go out of your way to distort the meaning of this post, here it is: The above essay demonstrates that Theory of Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you want to try and assert that Pope John Paul II was an atheist.

Again, for the bloody-minded: This is not an endorsement of the Catholic religion. I merely point out that religious believe and the Theory of Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

112 posted on 01/28/2009 5:20:20 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; wendy1946
"Are you a liar?"

In the months to come I sure hope we don't hear any lies about the cause of coyoteman's banishment. Don't you?

113 posted on 01/28/2009 5:23:24 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Too late.


114 posted on 01/28/2009 5:26:20 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Is the author of this piece an atheist, a Satanist, anti-god, or in some other way unfit to associate with the posters at FR?

Is the author of your quote a "Creationist," and therefore unfit to comment upon "science?"

115 posted on 01/28/2009 5:27:11 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I recognize the implication."

Nonresponsive. Unbecoming a scientist.

116 posted on 01/28/2009 5:27:17 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"The above essay demonstrates that Theory of Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive."

Try telling that to your buddies over there at Clown Poss---er, I mean, Darwin Central.

117 posted on 01/28/2009 5:28:20 PM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Nonresponsive. Unbecoming a scientist.

It wasn't a scientific proposition.

118 posted on 01/28/2009 5:28:38 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The author of the piece has clearly gone to some effort to understand science.


119 posted on 01/28/2009 5:28:52 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
Gumlegs: "The above essay demonstrates that Theory of Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive."

Try telling that to your buddies over there at Clown Poss---er, I mean, Darwin Central.

No need; it's understood there.

120 posted on 01/28/2009 5:30:09 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim -

Unless you want Free Republic to become a fringe site, please do something about the posters that are claiming the theory of evolution is “Satanism” (#21) and “devil worship” (#91).

Posts such as those aren’t helping Free Republic or the Republican Party.


121 posted on 01/28/2009 5:30:52 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Is he a “Creationist,” Gumlegs?


122 posted on 01/28/2009 5:31:33 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"It wasn't a scientific proposition."

Nonresponsive (again). Custard Pie - wall - nail

123 posted on 01/28/2009 5:31:39 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Daddy Darwin may be turning into a stuffy embarrassment to evolutionists but one look at the child tells us who the father is. And like it or not the dogma learned at Father Darwin’s knee is the Veritas of evolution today.


124 posted on 01/28/2009 5:33:03 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want.


125 posted on 01/28/2009 5:33:46 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Anatheme; metmom
If we wish to distinguish arguments based upon faith and idolatory from those based upon evidence and rational thought then invoking the name of a single gifted scientist who died a long time ago and is therefore no longer around to defend or refine his position is self defeating. Darwin proposed a theory that explained a great deal about the origins and diversity of life but did so before there was much understanding of the mechanism by which this could occur - genetics. That he was so correct is a credit to his thinking and especially the parsimony of that thought.

Single gifted scientist? If he were around today, given his theory, which has "evolved" into a cult, he'd be shouted down, ironically, as a religious kook injecting religion into science if he submitted anything that remotely challenged evolution instead of supported it. In other words, if he were to write a paper about his own theory's flaws, how do you think it would be accepted? (By that I mean rejected.) I wonder how he would feel about that.

Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.

If he did indeed anticipate this, it's not very apparent that he anticipated his work being hijacked by an anti-God cult that responds to each and every challenge the way it obviously does today.

In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.

I can't think of anything that is so insecure surrounding gravity (etc.) today, that when a concerned group of parents places a sticker on a textbook reminding students as in the example in evolution is mere theory, and not fact, they get sued, can you?

126 posted on 01/28/2009 5:34:28 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want."

That's where you're wrong. Since I can't get honesty from you, I've gotten exactly what I want.

127 posted on 01/28/2009 5:36:54 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that.

My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.

The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.

I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.


128 posted on 01/28/2009 5:37:46 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
That depends on one's definition of "creationist," doesn't it?

Judging from this piece, John Paul II may well have been banned from FR as a "Satanist" or "Liberal Troll," but he would have been welcomed at a site that several here have spent several posts sneering at.

I find that more than a little ironic.

129 posted on 01/28/2009 5:38:04 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

There’s blood in the water, and you want your share. Not happening here.


130 posted on 01/28/2009 5:38:24 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
That depends on one's definition of "creationist," doesn't it?

Slippery Clintonian parsing aside, please refine your reply to highlight just how Pope John Paul II is not a "Creationist," Gumlegs.

131 posted on 01/28/2009 5:42:30 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; Jim Robinson
Posts such as those aren’t helping Free Republic

And I suppose you think your anti-FReeper site is?

132 posted on 01/28/2009 5:45:28 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; metmom
"No need; it's understood there."

Oh, of course!!

Just like how it's understood here, yet it didn't stop many evo's from accusing anyone who disagreed with them of thinking that dinosaurs rode on the ark.

133 posted on 01/28/2009 5:46:13 PM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Primordial soup Nazis? cool! Made with goose steps and spills on brown shirts! But a person can get heil! on it!


134 posted on 01/28/2009 5:47:30 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
There’s blood in the water, and you want your share. Not happening here.

If there is blood in the water, it happened when coyotemen opened his own veins. Otherwise our little exchange has also revealed that unless it’s in ‘science,’ honesty is a virtue you don’t value. But, keep talking. Maybe more will come out.

135 posted on 01/28/2009 5:48:54 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; YHAOS; metmom
I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want.

Evidence be damned.

Followed no doubt by the obligatory lecture about evidence!

Sheesh, in the dictionary next to "dead end" you find a picture of tacticalogic!

136 posted on 01/28/2009 5:49:11 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
And I suppose you think your anti-FReeper site is?

Which "anti-FReeper site" would that be?

137 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:50 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that.

My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.

“… their anti-God agenda” is unsupported. There are some who accept the Theory of Evolution who are atheist, and some who are not. Eugenics has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You blithely assign all those unnecessary deaths to “Darwinism,” but the logic appears to be of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety.

The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.

Read what he wrote. He accepts the Theory of Evolution as legitimate science. Your attributing every mass murder since 1859 is duly noted and dismissed. Shall we share the credit for the Holocost with Martin Luther?

I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.

Fallacy of adverse consequences. The Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. If some jackass misuses it and twists it, that in no way affects the validity of the observation or the theory.

138 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:52 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

You had your chance to have my account.


139 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:57 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Coyoteman
"Go to hell troll."

This is a very sad day for what was once a premier conservative website.

Unfortunately, it is not the first of such. You are banning Coyoteman because he was trying to gently remind someone that discussion forums have consistent and non-arbitrary rules for civil discourse.

At least, successful ones do.

.

I feel compelled to defend the posting of science information here. It is essential for people who will need to make decisions regarding their future, and their children's prospects.

140 posted on 01/28/2009 5:51:38 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB

I was referring to the Darwinist site that Coyoteman, et al started. Are there others?


141 posted on 01/28/2009 5:54:02 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I didn't say the Pope wasn't a Creationist. I merely said that there are Creationists and there are Creationists.

And I said that I suspected that the Pope's variety of Creationist -- the kind that accepts modern science -- wouldn't be terribly welcomed here.

Is the case otherwise?

142 posted on 01/28/2009 5:55:03 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Are there others?

Banned, former FReepers share a lasting obsession with this place. There are quite a few.

143 posted on 01/28/2009 5:56:28 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; metmom; tacticalogic
Sheesh, in the dictionary next to "dead end" you find a picture of tacticalogic!

That’s alright. Let him keep talking. It’s in little crises like this that some people demonstrate they have character. Other people just wet their pants.

144 posted on 01/28/2009 5:57:12 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The only scientists that have ever posted here are all creationists.

Give science enough time and it will prove creation.
145 posted on 01/28/2009 5:58:05 PM PST by SisterK (building an underground economy one brick at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Pre-emptive damage control? Why are you so worried about what people will say about what happened here? The thread will still be here for everyone to see and they can make up their own minds.


146 posted on 01/28/2009 5:58:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Anatheme; tpanther

Welcome to FR.


147 posted on 01/28/2009 5:59:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Eugenics has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You blithely assign all those unnecessary deaths to “Darwinism,” but the logic appears to be of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety.

No, if you read my post carefully, you will see that I am speaking of Darwinists and not just evolutionists. Saying that eugenicists aren't Darwinists is like saying that the Nazis weren't socialists.

Your attributing every mass murder since 1859 is duly noted and dismissed. Shall we share the credit for the Holocost with Martin Luther?

Really, they were all faithful Darwinists.

Fallacy of adverse consequences. The Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. If some jackass misuses it and twists it, that in no way affects the validity of the observation or the theory.

Go back and read what I wrote, I wasn't speaking about evolutionary theory. Darwinists use the theory of evolution as a diversion the same way 20th century communists used Marxism as a diversion.

148 posted on 01/28/2009 5:59:31 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
didn't say the Pope wasn't a Creationist. I merely said that there are Creationists and there are Creationists.

So, you're quoting a "Creationist," in defense of "science," Gumlegs?

Also, are you implying that there are no points of contention or areas of disagreement, between adherents of the modern ToE and the Catholic Church?

149 posted on 01/28/2009 6:00:10 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In the end, [the theory of evolution] is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that....I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil.

So what's the conclusion? Let's just suppose the theory is true, but also that people have used the theory to justify evil. What do we do with those facts?

150 posted on 01/28/2009 6:01:06 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,329 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