Posted on 05/05/2007 6:10:09 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans’ “big tent,” as could be seen Thursday night when the party’s 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three — Senator Sam Brownback; Mike Huckabee; and Tom Tancredo of Colorado — indicated they did not.
...The reference to stem cells suggests just how wide the split is. “The current debate is not primarily about religious fundamentalism,” Mr. West, the author of “Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest” (2006), said at Thursday’s conference. “Nor is it simply an irrelevant rehashing...Darwinian reductionism has become culturally pervasive and inextricably intertwined with contemporary conflicts over traditional morality, personal responsibility, sex and family, and bioethics.”
The technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from “ordinary citizens ...so that they alone could make decisions over “controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.”
For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design...
Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.
...“The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It seems the New York Times is trying to drive wedges between conservative Republicans...
Whodda thunk it!!??
“”it makes me quite sad. We can agree to disagree, but evolutionism only validates our culture of death and amorality.
If we were not created, then owe nothing to a creator, and have no rules to follow. Anyone’s morals or lack thereof are equally valid, as they all evolved from the same system. Hence abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and the like are not morally depraved choices, but just continuing evolution. This leads to moral decline and eventually the death of our society.””
Totally in agreement with you! Thanks for stating this so well!!
It might be noted that Goedel destroyed the basis of Logical Positivism and Bertram Russell later admitted it is bunk.
Sure, just take a five year old flu shot or use the same exact pesticide year after year and see how far that gets you
The technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from “ordinary citizens ...so that they alone could make decisions over “controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.” ... For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design...
***Hi AG and BB. I don’t like to admit it, but the NY times expresses how I view this issue quite well. Would you two care to chime in?
Oh, and don’t let me pass up this opportunity to plug your book.
Announcing a New Book by Alamo-Girl and betty boop [Update at #329]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738139/posts
But since governments, federal, state, and local, control education, at least at the 2ndary level, and through funding, much of the university level too--AND, since government is so involved in the funding of science, evolution has a huge bearing on our governance--and societal assumptions in all areas.
The problem is, we don't have, and haven't had for a very long time, true Constitutional governance.
Scientific “laws” like the Newtonian Laws of physics are just another word for “Observations”. Theories are constructs that are floated to explain laws. So can you “Prove” the theory of gravity? Can you even point to one theory of gravity that is widely or universally accepted? We all know about the law/observation of gravity, but can you prove the THEORY of gravity. If you can, you’ll get a Nobel prize, because no one else can. Do you “believe” in this amazing theory of gravity that you have so much confidence in?
What you say is true. However, many bad things, are done in the name of something good. Just because the theory of evolution is used to justify bad things, does not mean that the theory itself is bad.
Jesus himself was crucified in the name of religion. The faith itself isn’t bad, only the way people chose to use it.
There are many deeply religious people, who abhor abortion and euthanasia, but do not reject the theory of evolution. For many, evolution is not incompatible with either the Bible or their religious beliefs. The theory of evolution is not compatible with a strictly literal interpretation of some translations of the Bible. For other interpretations, it is completely compatible. Evolution is not responsible for the moral decline of our society, but maybe those who misinterpret it to mean that God does not exist are.
Classic evo response. Anyone who rejects the ToE isn’t a *legitimate* scientist, therefore the ToE is valid because all *legitimate* (read also *real*) scientists support it.
There are none, however there are many who believe logical positivism has followers now.
Pretty much.
Again, I have yet to see that as a political issue. Not one of the candidates has made it an issue. People don’t really care if the candidate is a creationist or evolutionist. They care where he stands on the abortion issue, homosexual marriage, gun control, UN, taxes, public education, health care.
The only people who I’ve EVER seen make it a political issue is the evolutionists on FR. Nobody else I know even cares about it at election time, including all the Christians I know. The only reason it would become an issue is if the evolutionists make it one by making belief in the ToE a litmus test for a candidate. Then people will push back.
This link pretty well covers what any alternative theory to Darwinism is up against:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/57/65/
I see no reason to repeat what is already there.
One of the issues that page does not address is how would anyone of any repute get his/her theory heard? To apply for a grant from the U. S. government, requires getting past a hand-picked committee that represents the status quo in the science industry. How would one obtain tenure at a university if one did not buy into the prevailing Darwinian theory? Too many “scientists” have their reputations at stake to allow a serious challenge to their “life’s” work.
One small example of rogue scientists eventually making a little headway over the entrenched establishment positiion is in this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/about.html
But, we didn’t get to hear much about that, now, did we?
Couple the difficulty of fighting entrenched reactionaries in the scientific community and the prevalence of political correctness (where is the Kennewick Man?), there is very little chance of of any really new thinking about the orgins of the earth/man getting a fair shot at a hearing.
These same bully boy tactics are being used by the manmade Global Warming crowd. There is “consensus” - the discussion is over.
I’d never vote for an anti-science candidate, and I think most conservatives would cock a snoot at someone who was. The defining issue has to be national security, but that doesn’t mean Pat Robertson wins.
The terms *evolution* and *science* are not interchangeable. Nobody is talking about an anti-science candidate, just someone who doesn’t agree with the currently accepted *scientific* interpretation of the fossil record. And for that matter, there are many creationists who recognize variation within species but don’t acknowledge speciation. So they’re *anti-science*, too? IOW, only those who completely accept the TOE right down the concept of speciation, are not *anti-science*.
Disagreeing with the conclusions drawn about the fossil record is not being anti-science. That’s just a tactic to try to discredit people; liberal style name calling to produce hysteria.
*Oh look, he doesn’t accept all the conclusion of the ToE lock step. He must be an anti-science, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, Neanderthal who wants to impose his backwards religious dogma on all mankind and drag us back to the Dark Ages*.
So do scientists (or FRevos) say that about every theory that someone disagrees with or just evolution? What about Relativity? String Theory? Dark Matter? Singularity? The Big Bang? Are people who disagree with those theories also classified as anti-science? Why not?
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.