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

Skip to comments.

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced
Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-357 next last

1 posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:12 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jla

It's Darwinism's application to justify about every leftist social theory which doesn't play well in an essentially conservative nation.


2 posted on 08/15/2006 10:16:50 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla

SPOTREP


3 posted on 08/15/2006 10:17:04 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism.

Also, there are no American troops in Baghdad.

4 posted on 08/15/2006 10:21:41 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla

spot on.


5 posted on 08/15/2006 10:23:45 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

That's because there isn't a controversy about evolution within science.

If it is controversial to you, tell your children that elswhere than in science classes.

6 posted on 08/15/2006 10:30:15 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (They have a saying in Chicago Mr Bond once happenstance, twice coincidence, three times enemy action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
You can't silence empty barrels as well.
7 posted on 08/15/2006 10:31:27 PM PDT by Hong Kong Expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith,

The entire creationist belief system is predicated upon the notion that almost every scientist consciously puts aside the evidence to profess something they know is not true.

Such a notion simply does not make logical sense. You can't find that level of unanimity among the oppressed victims of communism, whose very lives are on the line. And yet the scientists are supposed to be even more strongly motivated by a mere emotional investment? Please.

No Christian congregation manages that level of commitment either, I might add.

News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.

8 posted on 08/15/2006 10:31:32 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; PatrickHenry

But it can be ridiculed.


9 posted on 08/15/2006 10:33:48 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed

Isn't that the truth. I love it when Phyllis uses Ann Coulter's book to support her statements.

10 posted on 08/15/2006 10:34:02 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
I love it when Phyllis uses Ann Coulter's book to support her statements.

A whiner quoting the scientifically illiterate. Oh, yeah, I'm impressed. Not.

11 posted on 08/15/2006 10:44:31 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jla

[Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced]



The scientists studying and teaching evolutionary theory, knowing that it's an integral part of science, must always welcome criticism. What they don't welcome is persons who are totally ignorant of not just evolution, but of the methods of science entirely, telling them they're idiots and frauds and demanding that the government force them to teach to the students in their science classes that a religious creation myth is a valid alternative to genuine science.


12 posted on 08/15/2006 10:49:49 PM PDT by spinestein (Follow The Brazen Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Exactly. Proponents of ID say they just want to "open a dialogue" and give "alternating viewpoints a chance". It's not creationism, they say!

Well, why do about ALL of the "broad-minded" IDers act in some sort of concert with political evangelicals? Every one of them has some sort of link to religious organizations. ID, carried to its logical end, IS creationism.

So then, is it true that the only reason the vast majority of scientists who believe ID is a sham....just what, reject God? are all acting in consort to enslave our children in a godless, Satanist plot? Get together at Darwin's grave every Halloween and chant incantations?

I don't think so.


13 posted on 08/15/2006 10:52:09 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; jla

I am a professional scientist actually working as a scientist. The vast majority of scientists that I work with acknowledge the shortcomings of evolution as a theory and recognize that it is time to sack the theory as it has been pushed and in effect evolve to a new theory. Those of us who were trained with the "Central Dogma.., Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny...gradualism... precepts etc." have already acknowledged that the facts do not support darwinian evolutionary theory, grown up and moved on. If you are referring to poorly educated public school teachers in general than you may have a point to be made.


14 posted on 08/15/2006 10:58:06 PM PDT by ProfScience
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

[quote]It's Darwinism's application to justify about every leftist social theory which doesn't play well in an essentially conservative nation [/quote]

This is a ludicrous statement. Darwin did no such thing. Neither does Evolution. Just because a theory scares the bejesus out of some people who have no grasp of science more profound than "God make Thunder", "God heap big Man in Sky, him pour rain down on us" does not make for ground of criticism.
You want to believe that God works outside of natural processes go live in a cave because for the rest of us science is the uncovering of just how this universe is put together and the application of that science. I see very little difference between people who believe that God made man out of a mud pie and people who believe that God is waiting on them with 72 virgins in heaven when they kill infidels. One is a little less repugnant socially but both are not much more advanced than the 7th century.

I get tired of primitive screwheads who can't figure out that Evolution and God forbid I say it "Darwinism" is a more conservative idea than that whiny, liberal, hippie they worship as a God.


15 posted on 08/15/2006 11:10:08 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProfScience

Just what sort of "Scientist" are you?


16 posted on 08/15/2006 11:12:27 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sentis

A professional scientist. Who coincidentally works....as a scientist.


17 posted on 08/15/2006 11:14:46 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RippyO; Physicist

If evolution theory is true, it wouldn't exist without the Creator's impetus. I used to believe in God 'creating' evolution. But now, with proof still quite elusive and sketchy, I'm not so sure about evolution.


18 posted on 08/15/2006 11:16:33 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

I wondered because you see I'm a professional Archaeologist and I work as an Archaeologist. I don't think that I had met a bonfide professional "Scientist". You know those generalists Scientists they are really coming back in vogue since the Victorian age.


19 posted on 08/15/2006 11:19:07 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ProfScience
Either you believe that the current working theory of biology employed by the vast majority of scientists is something other than the TOE--playing with semantic niceties, in other words--or you are not being truthful at some level. The things you mentioned are not central tenets of evolution and never were; common descent with inherited modification is the core issue.

I have never, ever met a professional scientist who rejected the modern synthesis (i.e. that genes are the mechnaism of Darwinian inheritance, and that genetic mutation is the origin of inheritable variation). And I have regularly interacted with life scientists, both personally and professionally. For you to indicate that the "vast majority" of scientists you've met do reject it is frankly unbelievable.

20 posted on 08/15/2006 11:19:27 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-357 next last

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.

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