Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Somewhat less dishonest than Gould and Dawkins, Darwin was more vocal in admitting the problems gradualism faced in the wake of punctuated equilibria. All of them, and the general community of evolutionists at large, are on their face simply duplicitous. Militant evolutionists do believe in limitless speciation and expect us to swallow broad abiogenesis, but dare not trumpet their duplicity from the wires lest their opponent gain greater public support. These are the militant evolutionists who choose to ignore the compelling nature of the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life.


383 posted on 12/05/2005 4:40:25 PM PST by dotnetfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]


To: dotnetfellow; Stultis
Is there some reason you didn't want Stultis to see your reply to his post?

What are you afraid of?

385 posted on 12/05/2005 4:42:49 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies ]

To: dotnetfellow
"Somewhat less dishonest than Gould and Dawkins, Darwin was more vocal in admitting the problems gradualism faced in the wake of punctuated equilibria. All of them, and the general community of evolutionists at large, are on their face simply duplicitous. Militant evolutionists do believe in limitless speciation and expect us to swallow broad abiogenesis, but dare not trumpet their duplicity from the wires lest their opponent gain greater public support. These are the militant evolutionists who choose to ignore the compelling nature of the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life."

Other than laughable accusations, do you have anything to support this tripe?
386 posted on 12/05/2005 4:45:21 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies ]

To: dotnetfellow
the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life.

Such as? Anyway, since you won't answer that, I think we should come to some agreement about the use of "militant." Being conservative here in CT, I'm sick of the adjectives, "militant," "fervent," "rabid," "arch," etc. Your hyperbole makes you sound, well, silly.
387 posted on 12/05/2005 4:48:12 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies ]

To: dotnetfellow
Somewhat less dishonest than Gould and Dawkins, Darwin was more vocal in admitting the problems gradualism faced in the wake of punctuated equilibria.

Huh?

  1. Charles Darwin: 1809 -- 1882
  2. Punctuated Equilibria: 1972 -- Present

All of them, and the general community of evolutionists at large, are on their face simply duplicitous. Militant evolutionists do believe in limitless speciation

What is "limitless" speciation? If this simply means that evolutionists accept the proposal of "common descent" (that all living things, and all species, are ultimately related by biological reproduction) then, yeah, of course they do. Common descent, after all, is a core claim of modern evolutionary theory. But this would mean you're saying that it's "duplicitous" for those who openly claim to be evolutionists to openly accept and advocate evolution, which is exceedingly odd to say the least!

and expect us to swallow broad abiogenesis

Uh, yeah. So what? You realize that abiogensis simply means the origin of biological life by any means other than biological reproduction? Therefore, unless you believe (like for instance Aristotle a few other ancients) that biological life has ALWAYS existed -- that it had no beginning -- then you too expect us to "swallow" abiogenesis.

but dare not trumpet their duplicity from the wires lest their opponent gain greater public support

This might come as a shock to your inflated sense of the influence of popular antievolutionism, but the VAST majority of evolutionists, and scientists generally, couldn't care less about "greater public support" for the theories they work with. They're only concerned with the professional standing, and actual utility vis-a-viz their own research interests, of these theories. It's only a very small proportion (probably much too small, if anything) who take time from their professional pursuits to engage popular controversies about evolution (or pushing gravity, flying saucers, etc).

These are the militant evolutionists who choose to ignore the compelling nature of the apparent mechanical designs underpinning the delicate balance of life.

How do you get "ignore"? A principle purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain such "mechanical designs"!

597 posted on 12/06/2005 8:27:53 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson