Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Please expand on this bizarre statement. What exactly does it mean for someone to be "all his"?
And what on Earth was the purpose of your spewing this comment, other than the obvious intent of a double-edged ad hominem fallacy of the most transparent and childish kind?
Sorry, you haven't produced the card yet.
I hardly think they have a monopoly in that respect. In fact, what you perceive as lies may be an overreaction. Does "Creationists: God's Gift to Ignorance" sound like a religion-friendly title to you? I bet if the title read, "Evolutionists: Science's Gift to Ignorance" you would consider it "science bashing."
You will not find many creationists, at least any thoughtful ones, saying "all evolutionists are atheists." I need to know more about the Marx school of religious thought before I comment on whether Dawkins dovetails with it, but I would not be surprised.
Evoutionists, OTOH, have "dime-a-dozen" fantasies PLUS a monopoly on public education. Education has put up long enough with naturual selection and random mutations as fully explanatory of the processes currently observed in the heavens and upon the earth. Let evolutionists cry like stuck pigs while their philosophy is exposed for what it is.
What do you mean by that? Most people would regard me as an atheist and I would not characterize myself by either phrase. But, then again, it may fit depending on your meaning.
zZZZz
I hope that helps.
For some people, politics and ideology are more important than science. Lysenko is an example.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." Karl Marx
YEC INTREP
You're in good company.
Of course you don't, because than you'd have to wrestle with the absurdity of this argument--you don't care to uncover this question because you know perfectly well that virtually all biologists are pursuaded by evolutionary theory. There is no vast controversy within the scientific community about the reliability of the theory of evolution, no matter how much confident-looking preening and strutting you do. That is a plain and obvious fact anyone can check out for themselves by going to any reputable university natural history department or biology department, and taking a poll of the scientists you find lurking there.
There was a recent post on talk.origins which I think is the *perfect* antidote to all of the ridiculous school-board "debates" over the past few years wherein creationist activists are trying to shoe-horn their fantasies into classrooms under the guise of "teaching both sides". It's based on the same sort of idea you've described here. Here's the post:
Subject: Re: In the News: Biologists snub 'kangaroo court' for Darwin
From: "Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com>
Date: 2 Apr 2005 12:49:04 -0800I have a simple solution for the Kansas board. Since we are talking about biology education, all they have to do is put the names of all the names of biology faculty from all the US Universities in a hat (They can even include the religious universities like Sean's employer) and pull them out at random. They call the person they pick and tell them what they are doing and how they are choosing the people that will present the scientific views of the biological sciences. They must accept every person that agrees to present their views of science education. They can go down the list until they get the number of people that they think will give the board enough information to decide the issue. My guess is that ID advocates will be outnumbered by at least 30 to 1 and they will probably have a hard time even finding anyone willing to claim that what they consider to be ID is even science. There are a lot of religious people in the sciences, but most of them know what science is and what it isn't.
What is a given is that they will have a hard time finding anyone willing to defend the "teach the controversy" scam outside of the scam artists that are perpetrating this scam. If the board thinks that this isn't true, they can adopt this selection plan and see what they get.
Ron Okimoto
In what way? Lysenko was the guy who had Darwin supporters murdered. I guess my opposition to Lysenko troubles you.
Um, sure, if you're starting out to read nonsense and pseudoscience.
Boy. He sure has a low regard for science. Par for the course.
"Ooooookay... You really need to stop reading the creationist propaganda and get out in the real world some more."
LOL! I see you spend much more time than I do on these crevo threads.
"And it has apparently escaped your notice that the *majority* of Americans who are "evolutionists" are *Christians*. I'm sorry if that punctures your cherished preconceptions, or makes your head explode."
You mean they were converted into evolutionists by the anti-Christians. Notice that I did not pose that statement in an interrogative form. It's a declarative statement of fact.
In the end, I believe this issue will be resolved in the streets, not through words or persuation or hiding behind a monitor.
My head is not exploding, but Force may eventually come out of its box, you know.
Oh, you just happen to be one of those products of natural selection who would rather see discussion of ID supressed in public schools for emotional, political, religious, and perhaps other reasons. At least you're such a swell guy you would refrain from murdering ID'ers. Very kind of you. Might as well palm your wishes for the suppression of ideas off on judges and police officers instead.
Oh, I see what you mean. Hmm.. I would say that I don't clearly fall into either category. If anything, my general attitude toward religion is that it's of no great consequence. In other words, that by and large society actuates via religion what it would by other means in the absence of religion. Since the details of a creed are arbitrary, there are distinctive permutations contingent on such doctrines, but the overall function of religion is uniform.
I'd say the governing factor of human affairs is economics, itself a proxy for security and control. Religion can and is adapted to suit whatever one wishes for it to represent, and ultimately subordinated to economics. By example, the Christianity of today is utterly alien to the Christianity of 500 years ago, and both are equally alien to the Christianity of 1500 years ago. The objectively irrelevant framework is the same, but its respective functions bear little resemblance to one another, and therefore neither does the experience of it or the perception of it.
More importantly, in the grand scheme of things it certainly appears as if religion is on its way out as a viable force in human affairs. I wonder what will replace it because that's not at all clear to me. It's even less clear to me that its replacement will be preferable. My suspicion is that tighter political regulation will be the solution, and that's not at all an improvement in my view. At its extreme, it ultimately eliminates the apertures of ambiguity that all religions provide within which personal freedom could thrive.
So do you support Lysenko's suppression of Darwin's supporters or not?
[donh replied:] ...and rarely seen here coming from the defenders of evolutionary theory posting here, nor from scientists, that I am aware of.
[Argee responded:] I responded to one such in post #97.
No, you didn't. Post #97 was a reply by TomB to a post by armymarinedad, on a subject having nothing to do with the subject at issue. Care to try again?
If you're actually referring to narby's #91 (the only post I can find that could *possibly* be misinterpreted the way you describe), then I have to point out that your grossly misrepresenting what he actually said. He said that faith and science "don't mix well" (and was clearly making the statement in a specific limited context) -- that's not at all the same thing as your misinterpretation that anyone on this thread has said anything like your absolutist version of, "faith is incompatible with science". That's not at all what he wrote.
I've always been fond of, "If dogs don't go to Heaven, then I want to go where the dogs go."
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.