Posted on 12/08/2005 7:57:08 PM PST by curiosity
Wow. He's honest.
As I have stated, most support for "evolution" has nothing to do with biology or evolution but is used as a means to change socierty.
It is socio-political. The Miricki hoaxer KU dude is a perfect example -- he's a professor of religion -- what does he have to do with evolution or biology?
Nothing -- he's a rabid leftist liberal who simply wants to change society which meand excising anything traditionally conservative.
I give Mireski props for being honest and straightforward about it.
I wish the evolutionite cultists here were as intellectually honest.
Just a few days ago a scientist in South Korea got slapped for his overreaching and possible fraud concerning embryo and stem cell research. Human beings, even scientists, are subject to human failings.
There's greed and vanity and deceit in science, because it is a human enterprise. All this Truth and Reason and Knowledge is great, but there's the graft at the universities (look at tuition) and exaggeration and posturing...Life.
The reason I speak sharply about libertarians is that I still have my "Taxation is Theft" button in my junk drawer. I still think taxation is theft, it's just that I've learned that when you're dealing with people....you have to deal--the libertarian mindset is that all they have to say is "principal" and "reason" and that's all she wrote. It is, if you're willing to lose. And I left libertarianism behind very quickly, and all my Ayn Rand rants, when I figured out that they bring a "loser gene" to the party.
Religious conservatives, OTOH, have brought winning to the party. The exact time the religious conservatives joined forces with the GOP is when the GOP started winning.
That's why the left would love to do anything it could to chip away at the alliance.
Are they here, in FR, sowing discord?
But then again, that's what you get when you define "honest" as "agrees with me".
Speaking of betting one's money on science--scientists are putting so many people on these meds that the Pharm stocks have a long-term growth potential. The older the population gets, the more demand . Of course, pharm stocks are also a good way to lose money, fast.
What does a professor of religion know of or have to do with a sub-discipline of Biology?
Thay are called "doctors", the ones putting people on medications. Some of whom should really do a better job of monitoring their patients' dosages, obviously.
You tell me - you're the one who's parsed his entire worldview out of six words divorced of all context.
Thay. Right.
Thanks for the ping!
I think there are a lot more than six words involved.
For but one example, he stated when asked about the beating: The right wing wants blood, period. They’re not going to stop until they see blood. They’re not into anything else
I think his world view and socio-political views are established and he is very open about them.
The quote is from Lawrence-Journal World.
I don't understand your most recent comment.
Okay.
Even if true, the question specified "God", not "the God as specified by a literal interpretation of Genesis". The Deist God is perfectly compatible with evolution, for example.
Yes, is is your imagination. Read the original article. Science and religion are two different worlds. Science does not believe in deities, even though many scientists are Christian. Yes, many people are enamored by the subject of science. But many people are enamored by the subject of horses. So?
There's greed and vanity and deceit in science, because it is a human enterprise.
Just as there is greed, vanity and deceit in organized religion. Tammy Fae Baker, and Oral Roberts strike me as a complete frauds. And Jim Jones certainly was. Humans operate these religious organizations too, and you probably will disagree here, but I think mere humans wrote the Bible too. For a fact humans compiled "The Bible" centuries after the incidents the books chronicle, and they left out many parts such as the Gospel according to Mary. You may believe that this was "inspired by God". But I think the book collectors who assembled the King James Bible just missed that one.
Religious conservatives, OTOH, have brought winning to the party. The exact time the religious conservatives joined forces with the GOP is when the GOP started winning.
And religious conservatives can bring losing to the party. Did you not notice that the entire Dover school board lost their elections, after they pulled the ID stunt?
I, for one, will leave this party if those religious conservatives insist on attempting to institute religious dogma into public schools labeled as "fact". Simply because it is not fact, and I refuse to tolerate such illegitimacy.
If religious conservatives want to attack abortion, fine. If they want to promote prayer in schools, fine, as long as there is no requirement for participation. If they want to have "in God we trust" on coins, fine. Even the word "Christmas" I approve, while I disapprove the ACLU removing crosses from city seals.
But evolution is fact, and many Christians believe that it is fact. And a minority (see the above poll) of troglodytes that have idiotic interpretations of the Bible should not be the tail to wag this dog.
That's why the left would love to do anything it could to chip away at the alliance.
Which is exactly why PatrickHenry and many of us have been fighting this ID thing. It will disintegrate the party, and it needs to be shut down now, by us, and not because we've lost votes. We need to keep our eye on the ball and promote low taxes, low regulation, and a strong United States. Bogus "science" is not what this party should be doing.
Our Maker clearly laid out how he created the universe. It wasn't gradually through evolution. Genesis said he did it suddenly. Clearly, we don't know all of the details, but it's clear the two theories are compatible if you ignore all the detailos and decide that they're both "in different areas". They're not. They both attempt to explain how we got here. One says God was intimately involved. The other claims either he doesn't exist or wasn't intimately involved. They are mutually exclusive.
Can you elaborate or say it again so I can understand your point?
Of course he would be. The Deist god is not intimately involved. The God who created the universe in the Genesis account was. Evolution is not compatible with either the Bible or the Christian God. If evolution could be proven (and it can't and won't), it would and should be devastating to any religion that attempted to explain the presence of the universe differently.
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.