Skip to comments.Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
click here to read article
Actually, I tend to believe in evolution, and that it is all part of God's plan.
Funny how so many who take evolution as an article of faith constantly try to alter our behavior to prevent global warming or whatever the useful environemtal meme of the day is. If evolution works as advertised, will a 2 degree change in the earth's temperature really cause mass extinctions? Wouldn't the most adaptable species prosper, while those that are less adaptable will either migrate, die out, or evolve? If evolution is such a basic scientific principle, who are we to attempt to halt it?
They constantly preach the awesome power of nature, all the while trying to convince us to freeze nature in stasis like a fly in amber.
One of the most fascinating bits of science lately is that Palies now believe that all modern men (and women) are descended from one woman who came out of Africa-imagine that. It reinforces the biblical version of creation. I have never believed evolution contradicted the biblical version-things evolve...so?
What a pomous English a$$. This bloke has as much of an idea of what people in Kansas think as the U.S. Senate.
Science deals with the physical world and the 5 senses. Anything past that world (creationism, Intelligent Design, Global warming, etc.) are not science, but metaphysics.
Science depends on an objective study of verifiable phenomena. Any speculation as to the cause or the moral correctness of said phenomena are beliefs and belong only to philosophical discussions of a metaphysical nature.Religion begins where science ends.
(1)Do you believe in a creator God and the words & teachings He's given us in His book?
(2)Or do you choose not to believe.
You're side may be correct. Our side my be right. BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!
Dawkins isn't religion bashing. He's creationist bashing. There is a big difference.
I'm afraid I don't see any 'religion bashing' here; Dawkins is simply criticizing creationist canards.
Dawkins is an atheist who despises all religion.
He particularly hates creationists and reserves most of his venom for them, but it's not just creationists he hates.
the bible was written by man and while god is perfect man is not...
Well said and another reason for non-believers to reconsider - what will they really lose if they live as if God does exist? On the other hand . . .
Any other Eurotrash writer who showed such overweening, obnoxious contempt for Middle Americans would be derided - Robert Fisk wouldn't get a pass.
But Dawkins will get one from many FReepers.
Herein you are making an assumption that the Bible is God's Word. You assume that because the Book claims to be the Word of God, and people you respect claim it is the Word of God. You have no empirical evidence that this is actually the case.
So? His supposed hatred for religion does not come across in this article. So claiming this is "religion bashing" is a bald-faced lie -- of the kind that Dawkins decries in the article.
Preposterous analogy. Surnames are not a proxy for genetics and Pitcairn is hardly a proxy for general population.
A person receives only his father's surname, while he receives both his mother and father's heritage.
And Pitcairn's population and genetic diversity is dwindling because the more resourceful young Islanders leave the Island never to return.
They most certainly are, as they are inherited too. Whole lines die out, leaving only a few to continue on.
Dawkins is entirely correct when he complains about the practice of creationists when they pounce on out-of-context quotes and trumpet them as if it somehow proving their (otherwise vacuous) case. I posted this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating this one extra time:
Henry M. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, recently made this candid admission [bracketed comments are mine]:
A great need -- but very expensive -- is that of more high-quality scientific research. We have been able to accomplish much significant research with our limited staff and our graduate students, but much more is needed, especially in the various problem areas [hee hee] of geology, archaeology, anthropology, and astronomy. In the secular world, this type of research is very largely funded by government grants. We, of course, do not have access to government funding [I wonder why], and would not accept it if we did [yeah, right], so this is a serious inhibiting factor. In the meantime, even though we do not yet have answers to all the problems in scientific creationism, the answers we do have are better than those the evolutionists and "progressive creationists" have. We can at least do literature research, using the experimental data acquired by evolutionary scientists and reinterpreting such data in terms of Creation and the Flood. The modern creation revival has, in fact, largely been developed by this process.
Source: ICR AND THE FUTURE.
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.