Posted on 09/24/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by gobucks
He'd have to answer that for himself.
Hitler was an occultist, who had very twisted ideas of G_d. Whatever "god" Hitler worshipped, it sure wasn't the G_d of Abraham.
It was you who introduced NAZIism. I was thinking more along the lines of Communism. Your offense is your problem.
Your post to which I responded...
The stronger and the further evolved are the masters.
You say weren't referring to Nazi's here? You say you were referring to communism instead. And you expect me and anyone reading it to buy that? LOL.
"Hitler was an occultist, who had very twisted ideas of G_d. Whatever "god" Hitler worshipped, it sure wasn't the G_d of Abraham."
I agree. He also was no evolutionist, though.
Actually Bush's comment was ambiguous. He merely said that the subject should be taught "appropriately". Everybody agrees with the literal sense of that statement, even those who believe the "appropriate" level of teaching is none, or that it is "appropriately" dealt with outside of science classes.
Nor did Bush suggest that politics or popular pressure should determine the content of science or science curricula.
You are the one gleefully applauding the determination of science content by those means. As you were apparently unable to decipher my post it is that tendency which is comparable to the record of Nazism and Stalinism.
Real conservatives believe in the free market; both in the economy and in the life of the mind. Real conservatives insist that ID or creationism earn its place, if any, in science and in curricula on its demonstrable merit, just as any other theory is expected to do. It is a leftist (and ultimately totalitarian) tendency to submit the issue to political fiat or the power of a populist movement.
If you prefer to call me a liar, so be it. That's your burden.
You just jogged my memory about something. A group of "biologists" from Australia are among the leaders of the crakpot movement that denies HIV exists.
They call themselves the "Perth Group."
True, but that was the public appeal. He appealed to a long tradition in Germany of blaming Jews for the death of Jesus.
Fine. But the left in general resisted Darwinism (in favor of neo-Lamarkian views) and did so very early and for a very long time. Since you insist that Darwinism is tailor made for them, how do you explain why they disliked it so?
If you prefer to call me a liar, so be it. That's your burden.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can show me where in the commy doctrine there is anything like the statement that 'The stronger and the further evolved are the masters.'
I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt if you say you were mistaken in your statement. I've done it too, so I'll just assume that's the case.
Seems easy to understand.
Some folks hold onto discredited ideas, long after they should just punt.
Actually, in spite of perception, the left is far more opposed to science than the right. True, they want money spent, but they want lots of it spent on junk, and they have their own pockets of PC nonsense, every bit as stupid as ID.
Ever heard the phrase, "God in the hands of angry sinners"? He just laughs.
God haters have been hating God since the beginning. God never could live up to the standards of the little gods.
Richard Lewontin is one of their more intellectually honest spokesmen:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Anyone who begins from that premise is not a serious scientist.
Hey, I made a direct comparison -- at least in the limited sense of deciding the content of science and curricula by political power and popular pressure -- between the promotion of ID/creationism and Nazism/Stalinism. So take it out on me, ml.
Stultis, I think you're taking things the wrong way. I'm on your side, I think.
Your religion is not going to be taught in the classroom. What ID proponents are asking for is to have children taught that an unnamed designer is responsible for all of life, the pleasant and unpleasant together.
If you like sex education, you'll love ID.
Ask yourself why the Discovery Institute is not supporting this.
Ever heard the phrase, "God in the hands of angry sinners"? He just laughs.
God haters have been hating God since the beginning. God never could live up to the standards of the little gods.
Who said anything about hating God? Or did you just mean your God?
That doesn't even come close to explaining the phenomena. Why would leftists cling to Lamarkianism long after it had been discredited, especially when they had a highly creditable theory available, which you insist was congenitally favorable to their ideology?
Why did leftists argue that natural selection and random variation was inherently anti-revolutionary, and favorable to capitalist ideology? Why did even those leftists who considered darwinism compatible with leftist views go to great pains to refute such arguments (that is take them seriously)?
Obviously leftist did (and some still do, e.g. Jeremy Rifkin, many "new age" anti-Darwinists, etc) see problems with Darwinism, despite your insistence that they should have embraced it as ideologically favorable.
The trouble with Darwin is that all his sychophant followers can't prove his theory because Macro-Evolution never happened. One of the few instances still remaining in history in which blind and deluded followers who know it is only theory continue to treat the subject as de facto science. Bbbbwwwaahhhhaaaaaaa!
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.