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 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,301-1,329 next last
To: CE2949BB
Maybe it's too hard for you to understand, but I oppose the promotion of religion - all religion, including Islam and Buddhism - by the government.

No, it's just that you are a dishonest troll. I posted a link in #360 this thread which showed that France was funding Islamic mosques.

When I asked if this bothered you, you said "France is France's problem."

When I reiterated, pointing out that it was a logical inconsistency, you stuck to your guns.

When I repeated again, pointing out the the inconsistency marked you as a troll, and *PING*ing Jim Robinson to the thread, you engaged in ad hominem and contradicted yourself.

You could instead, for example, say that you didn't read the link in post 360 carefully : or that it just dawned on you that a principle is binding throughout the world, but you are only one person, and have to pick your battles carefully.

Don't you have any higher sense of intellectual honor than that?

For someone who is ostensibly acting as a champion of the intellectual approach...!

By the way, you never did answer what your degree was in, nor from which school.

Cheers!

401 posted on 01/28/2009 10:39:49 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Methinks perhaps I should not as 'tis well known that a Seance is both UnGodly and a foul and notorious Refuge of the Pickpocket, the Thief, and the Scoundrel.

Try reading the mystery novel Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The heroine fakes a seance in order to gain the cooperation of a gullible witness.

Cheers!

402 posted on 01/28/2009 10:41:53 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB

Let me help your understanding. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing,.....No Thing. No time, no space, no matter. Nothing. Yet here we are. If natural forces existed, and we have zero (0) evidence of that then why would unknown forces “decide” to create anything? A decision was made to convert ‘nothing’ to something which we know as the universe. Forces don’t ‘decide’. Forces are not a mind. Yet here we are. Something separate and distinct from this time, space, matter, energy continuum made a decision to create a universe from nothing. So my question to you is,....Why is there something at all, rather than nothing?


403 posted on 01/28/2009 10:43:01 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Get it through your head: I don’t care about France.


404 posted on 01/28/2009 10:44:53 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
I expect to be banned shortly. I've learned, sadly, that Free Republic is Fundie Republic and non-believers aren't welcome.

One thing I've found to be true in life is that there is a vast, vast difference between a non-believer and a putz. When the putzes get banned for being putzes, they always figure it's because they're non-believers. If that were true, you all would have been gone years ago.

This ain't Putz Republic. Go back to DC...or better yet, DU.

405 posted on 01/28/2009 10:46:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
That's good. But if Separation of Church and State were a principle as strong as you are pretending when it comes to Christians, you *would* care about France.

Nice try.

And where did you go to school?

What was your major?

406 posted on 01/28/2009 10:46:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
This ain't Putz Republic. Go back to DC...or better yet, DU.

Right. Mark me as a liberal, so you don't have to face the fact that a lot of Republicans are sick and tired of the Christian fringe controlling the party.

I've voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Gov. Palin, but I must be a liberal troll from DU because I want to keep America from becoming a Christian Afghanistan.

407 posted on 01/28/2009 10:48:43 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
DC isn't anti-FR. DC is a forum for pro-science conservatives.

Here are some current stats from your site:

             
           National (US) News
       4429 Topics
        85713 Posts

Science News
      3852 Topics

      38418 Posts
             Freeperama!
        It's Schadenfreudelicious!
                430 Topics
              36540 Posts
 
          Science and Politics
       1220 Topics
       22842 Posts

          Evo News and Views
        556 Topics
        17894 Posts
          

International Affairs

                1782 Topics
               18875 Posts
        

As you see, "Freeperama" is in 3rd place for postings in this sampling.

I've always wondered why, since the vast majority at DC have been banned or left FR in disgust, you continue to browse FR. Narcissistic tendencies perhaps?

If DC is so pro-science, I would think its' members would spend more time responding to scientific inquiries than dispraging FR.

408 posted on 01/28/2009 11:00:25 PM PST by Sarajevo (You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: metmom; CE2949BB
Creationism isn't a religion though, and that's the point I was making.

Creationism: beliefs affirmed conforming to

The ICR Statement has been removed from the internets, but it was similar to the CSR and CMI/AiG beliefs. Which would be expected as the ICR is the transitional form between the CSR and the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) (the "missing link" between CMI and AiG)

While not having the antiquity is the Nicene Creed, there seems to be sufficient similarity to define a religion.

All are similar with belief in a recent world wide Noahian Flood. The core is the Flood Geology of George MacReady Price which affirmed the Young Earth Noachian Flood doctrine of Adventist prophetess Ellen G White.

Although adopted by some Evangelical Christians in the last century, the tenets of Creationism (as identified by the statements of beliefs of Creationists) are held by less than 25% of Christians within the Untied States, and maybe 5-10% outside it.

409 posted on 01/28/2009 11:07:46 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel - Horace Walpole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
If there were no chimps or rhesus monkeys around, and someone found a fossil of a rhesus and a fossil of a chimp, couldn't they conclude that the chimp was a transitional form between the rhesus and man?

If the fossils of a rhesus were older than the fossils of the chimp, and there were no human or chimp fossils as old as the rhesus fossils, why would that be an invalid conclusion?

410 posted on 01/28/2009 11:17:47 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Not even France? The home of Voltaire and Gibbon?

Gibbon was a cheese eating surrender monkey! Did the South Hampshire Militia (in which he served during the Seven Year War with France) know that?

411 posted on 01/28/2009 11:18:33 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel - Horace Walpole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; All
You're a liberal troll if you want to keep spewing divisive insults over scientific views when conservatives need to be united. You're a moron if you think that fundamenatalists are running the party, because the fundies sure didn't nominate McCain! And you're a baby if you go whining to JimRob about some guy calling something Satanism when an adult would just ignore the dude.

Oh...and this sure sounds like something that would appear on a thread at DU...those of you who want to read the last line will have to highlight it; it's too foul to print in the open:

Don't you love it when the cretards and IDiots ping Daddy Jimmy?

"Daddy Jimmy, Daddy Jimmy! One of those evos is here! Let's lynch 'em, Daddy Jimmy!"

Twats.

Source

The whole "I have to save the GOP and FR from people who disagree with me" routine would be tiresome enough from someone who actually showed a little loyalty and courtesy to this site, but coming from two-faced sort like yourself it's really puketastic. I particularly like the bit where you mock people for pinging JimRob (even though you have no evidence that occurred) to beat up on people and then turn around and do the exact same thing yourself: "Daddy Jimmy, Daddy Jimmy! One of those fundies called me a bad name! You better lynch 'em, Daddy Jimmy!"

If you aren't a lib you might as well be one, because have the Olbermannesque bearing in spades. So cram your offended tone into your sigmoid colon and go back to that rock you belong under. Say "Hi" to Coyoteman for me. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from me.

412 posted on 01/28/2009 11:22:13 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Mayhap that has something to do with where the term came from.

Gibbon, Monkey, get it?

(Yawns.)

Way past my bedtime, need to go to sleep.

413 posted on 01/28/2009 11:31:33 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; CE2949BB
I suspected he was merely trolling. Looking at your link, it appears they were posting contemporaneously on TOS about their misadventures on this thread, to see what kind of response they could get.

This merely confirms it. They want attention, not reasoned discourse. And laying aside the obvious cheap shot, they have what Artemis Fowl would call 'finally, an intelligent conversation' with their compatriots on TOS. So they can't be coming here in search of intelligent conversation in the first place -- since their appetites have already been satiated elsewhere.

Disappointingly childish, for those who claim the banner of "reason uber alles".

/no, get your own umlaut!>

Cheers! ...good night morning.

414 posted on 01/28/2009 11:37:55 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"I'll stop using the term Darwinist or Darwinism when the Darwinists stop referring to me as a creationist and/or a fundamentalist, etc."

The problem is that the term "Darwinism" was coined by creationists to bash the theory of evolution. This is just like the term "pro-choice" was invented by abortionists to bash people against killing babies. One has to look at the origin to see the background meaning.

415 posted on 01/29/2009 3:48:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
So let’s make sure we stomp that out against the people’s will

Define "the people's will".

416 posted on 01/29/2009 3:48:18 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
"I won’t call Dawinism “Darwinism” when you all stop mis-calling Creation Theory/I.D. “relgion”!"

We call it "religion" because it is. It certainly is not science.

417 posted on 01/29/2009 3:55:06 AM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

The term you’re looking for (for evoloserism) might be “ideological doctrine”.


418 posted on 01/29/2009 4:21:42 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
The big bang idea is bad religion and bad physics rolled into a package; it's based on nothing more than an inability to visualize causes for redshift data other than an expandiung universe.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly determine that it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe (7000 or 17B years ago, it doesn't matter) while the idea had never occurred to him previously in the infinite expanse of time prior to that, is basically nonsensical.

The creation stories we see in the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment and not to the entire universe. The universe, like God, is probably eternal.

That link I provided indicates that the list of physicists and other scientists who do not buy into "big bang" includes some of the people who run Las Alamos and other top physics labs.

419 posted on 01/29/2009 4:31:26 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Elsie! Long time no "Elsie"!

I've been battling the 'evolution' of Christianity!

420 posted on 01/29/2009 4:38:50 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
The culture war is between the ideology that’s hijacked science and Christianity.
 
 

NIV 1 Timothy 6:20-21
 20.  Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
 21.  which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.   Grace be with you.

421 posted on 01/29/2009 4:47:14 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“I knew him well.”


422 posted on 01/29/2009 4:49:36 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
Free Republic could have been a major player in the political world, but JR decided to hand it over to the cretards and IDiots.


423 posted on 01/29/2009 4:52:32 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
It's been great, except the evolution and science threads.

You should sample the MORMON vs Christian threads! ;^)

424 posted on 01/29/2009 4:53:26 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
You have the right to believe anything you desire, but you do not have the right to wall out the Creator from public education.

You mean the one mentioned along with certain inalienable rights?

425 posted on 01/29/2009 4:55:34 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: soroptimist
Evolution is a theory which explains the facts of human existance.

What great faith. I gather that you believe that that elusive transitional fossil will be found some day.

426 posted on 01/29/2009 4:57:38 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: soroptimist; ToGodBeTheGlory
I believe in one less dog than you do. I'm a buddhist. There is no glub, no heaven, no hell. Where does that leave me?

If you're right, no worse than us.

If you're wrong....you might as well enjoy yourself now.

427 posted on 01/29/2009 5:03:50 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
By the way, you never did answer what your degree was in, nor from which school.

Getting educational credentials from evos is like getting water from a rock.

428 posted on 01/29/2009 5:06:46 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I was SHOCKED when my doctor said:

“Open up and show me your uvula.”!


429 posted on 01/29/2009 5:07:12 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Go back to DC...or better yet, DU.

Kind of hard to distinguish sometimes, isn't it?

430 posted on 01/29/2009 5:08:29 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; Mr. Silverback
Right. Mark me as a liberal, so you don't have to face the fact that a lot of Republicans are sick and tired of the Christian fringe controlling the party.

I've voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Gov. Palin, but I must be a liberal troll from DU because I want to keep America from becoming a Christian Afghanistan.

Is paranoia a prerequisite for being an evo?

Is cm's ghost back already?

431 posted on 01/29/2009 5:10:12 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; JSDude1
We call it "religion" because it is. It certainly is not science.

So now what? Everything that's no science is religion by default?

432 posted on 01/29/2009 5:15:38 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

ROTFLMBO!


433 posted on 01/29/2009 5:17:01 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Eugenie C. Scott"

Oh interesting. Eugenie C. Scott was (and maybe still is) a member of the American Eugenics Society.

434 posted on 01/29/2009 5:30:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
We can stop using the term Darwinist and Darwinism when the evos stop calling creationism a religion.

We shouldn't. The terms have a long and well established history. There is no reason why marxist-monist-materialists should dictate our vocabulary. They like to proscribe and redefine commonly used terms (like 'ape' for example.) There is no reason to concede to such tactics.

435 posted on 01/29/2009 5:38:38 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
If that’s as far as you can see, then that’s as far as you can see.

That's as far as it goes here.

436 posted on 01/29/2009 5:40:21 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; metmom
You’re a Creationist because of your religion.

And you are a Darwinian because you are a Randian atheist.

437 posted on 01/29/2009 5:41:01 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; Wonder Warthog
We can stop using the term Darwinist and Darwinism when the evos stop calling creationism a religion.

We shouldn't. The terms have a long and well established history.

Perhaps you can fill WW in on that. He seems confused about the origin of the term. I saw someone explain that just recently but don't recall who it was.

There is no reason why marxist-monist-materialists should dictate our vocabulary. They like to proscribe and redefine commonly used terms (like 'ape' for example.) There is no reason to concede to such tactics.

They like to redefine EVERYTHING, as is was evidenced by cm's homepage. You're absolute right.

If we can't define scientific terms, they can't define non-scientific ones.

438 posted on 01/29/2009 5:54:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"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.

The philosophy of communism is dialectical materialism. All the major commies (Deitzgen, Lenin, Stalin, etc) have said that it is merely a developed form of materialistic monism. Materialistic monism is the pseudo-scientific philosophical crap we hear from the vocal faction of evolutionists on this forum. Both marxism and eugenics have similar goals: the destruction of Christianity being the main one, because neither system can succeed where there is Christianity. Darwinians have tried to sell eugenics as a replacement religion. That was one of Galton's strategies, as well as Julian Huxley's. Eugenists were (and are) all totalitarians, just like the marxists. Julian Huxley believed in labour camps for biological outlaws. You are correct when you speak of elites. Huxley's elites are "scientists". They will tell you what you can and can't believe:

in the Socialized State the relation between religion and science will gradually cease to be one of conflict and will become one of co-operation. Science will be called on to advise what expressions of the religious impulse are intellectually permissible and socially desirable, if that impulse is to be properly integrated With other human activities and harnessed to take its share in pulling the chariot of man's destiny along the path of progress.

--Julian Huxley, Religion as an Objective Problem.


439 posted on 01/29/2009 5:59:41 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
"The public school system, which must educate children of parents who belong to many different faiths and none at all, must remain neutral."

Must remain neutral?! Have you been awake for any of the last 20 or so years?

This is the danger of growing up with MTV as your primary news source.

440 posted on 01/29/2009 6:00:47 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; Coyoteman

Why pick on evolution then?

"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?"

I hope the lawsuit was thrown out, since everything is a "theory" and its impossible to prove a theory, only to disprove it. Truth has little bearing on utility. Take a falsly geocentric view of the universe and navigating a boat by the stars and the assumption that everything revolves around the Earth still works fine.

Oh, and btw, Edmund Burke never actually wrote that tagline - it is oft attributed to him and may well be something that he might have said but there is nothing in his works or those of his contemporaries to suggest that he did. So much for truth.

RIP Coyoteman

441 posted on 01/29/2009 6:07:49 AM PST by Anatheme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; grey_whiskers; Mr. Silverback; tpanther; csense

There’s one thing that people like evos/atheists just can’t seem to understand: religion and science do not stand equal before the Constitution. Of the two, one, and only one, is enumerated.

Because of this, Jim Robinson is absolutely right when he aggressively defends people of faith, and the practice of religion. Evos/atheists just don’t seem to understand this, and apparently never will.


442 posted on 01/29/2009 6:11:19 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; wagglebee
So, you're quoting a "Creationist," in defense of "science," Gumlegs?

He must quote a Christian. Atheists have zero credibility. So quoting great evolutionary geniuses like Dawkins, Huxley etc., would be useless. And he knows it.

The Pope did say: "on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." If one investigates what he meant by this (no evolution of the soul, no polygenism, no denial of final causes etc.) things suddenly look quite different.

443 posted on 01/29/2009 6:15:16 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: metmom
There’s one thing that people like evos/atheists just can’t seem to understand: religion and science do not stand equal before the Constitution. Of the two, one, and only one, is enumerated.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This is the only power granted to Congress for which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided.

444 posted on 01/29/2009 6:24:06 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; YHAOS
Near as I can tell, "coyoteman" just got banned for being an idiot but, then, we all knew that; I mean, the guy actually believed in darwinism... Am I missing anything here?

You good with that explanation, YHAOS - CM got banned for believing the ToE?

445 posted on 01/29/2009 6:25:31 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Darwinist seems to be in current usage by others besides the creationists.

“Definitions of darwinism on the Web:
a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin’s work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

The principles of natural selection set out by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species (1859) and other writings; The evolution and common ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Darwinism”

And how does the term “Darwinist” bash evolution when Darwin is credited with the soul of evolution, natural selection? Darwin is rightly termed “the father of evolution” is he not?

Global warming went to climate change when the warming wasn’t so warm, So now is Darwin going to be ejected?

There’s more to it then simply, “Oh the creationists use the term ‘Darwinist’ so Darwinian, Darwinist, has to go”.


446 posted on 01/29/2009 6:26:53 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; wendy1946; YHAOS
You good with that explanation, YHAOS - CM got banned for believing the ToE?

You're still here. Does that mean that you don't believe in evolution?

If cm hadn't tried to throw his weight around and act like this was his forum (like DC) and told JR off, I can't see that his banning would have happened.

Evos need to get over their persecution complex.

447 posted on 01/29/2009 6:29:52 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
All you ever do is shout "Hallelujah!" right along side them, praise them for their faith and their "insight," and endlessly mock and ridicule the countless real scientists who have spent centuries showing that the Bible literalist view of the universe is a bunch of ignorant, superstitious crap written thousands of years ago by people who had no idea how the universe really works, and had no way of ever finding out because the observational tools that they needed simply weren't there yet. And I'd point out that many of those real scientists paid for their "blasphemy" with their lives, thanks to people like you.

A fine monistic diatribe in the spirit of evolutionist Ernst Haeckel.

Science and Christianity, Ernst Haeckel.

448 posted on 01/29/2009 6:33:54 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You need to get over the idea that you’re going to be able to provoke me into saying something intemperate.


449 posted on 01/29/2009 6:33:55 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Get over your persecution complex.

Cm was banned over his behavior, not his beliefs.

If it were for beliefs, none of the evos would be here. They would have been gone long ago. All of them.


450 posted on 01/29/2009 6:38:37 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 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