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 ...
No, my point is that personal views on evolution and creation have nothing whatsoever to do with governance - period. The introduction of this non-issue is to solely agitate against faith and, with that broad paintbrush, most of conservatism.
For short term proof of evolution look to microbiology. Where was XDR-TB 50 years ago ... guess what? It didn't exist.
XDR-TB Extreme drug resistant tuberculosis ... it's a bacterium.
First, you should use question marks for questions .... but so much for the grammar police statement.
Here's another thought on evolution
Nylon : Invented : 1930's .... roughly
In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture, such as, 6-aminohexanoate linear dimer, even though those byproducts had not existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were novel, significantly different than any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any other material other than the man made nylon byproducts. [1] This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon eating bacteria, and the enzymes were collectively known as nylonase.
They didn’t claim to be creationists - if by that you mean biblical creationists, although they may in fact be that. They just said they don’t believe in evolution, at least not as it’s defined in textbooks.
Shut down the CDC and the NIH?
The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste
Apologists for materialism latched onto these findings as an example of evolution of new information by random mutations and natural selection, for example, Thwaites in 1985.4 Thwaites’ claims have been repeated by many, without updating or critical evaluation, since.
Is the evidence consistent with random mutations generating the new genes?
Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested.5 If this were the case, the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to ‘pure chance’. However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance.6
They are not dedicated either to science research or to the scientific method.
You might want to regard any scientific claims they make with a healthy measure of skepticism.
This is probably a good example to the bias that is inherent in many a evolutionist based scientist.
Why am I not surprised that you’re the one who posts this?
In any case, I would consider that “evolution” question to be a “gotcha” one on Chris Matthews’ part, but let’s elaborate anyway.
What kind of evolution?
Microevolution (which is somewhat like crossbreeding, and very plausible) or macroevolution (which is well, not as plausible)?
Did God create the world in such a way as to allow evolution to exist in some form?
I can’t claim to know exactly how the Creator did His work. But Duncan Hunter is a pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-God Baptist (as his record and words have shown constantly and consistently over the years). To think that whatever his specific viewpoint on evolution may be makes him a RINO is silly, IMHO.
Leftists have their own split on Darwin. They accept only half of Darwin's theory, the wild natural selection part, and reject Darwin's Descent of Man. Darwin explained that mankind descended from tribal warfare, that man is by nature a war making animal and owes most of his intellect, morals, and physical properties to their advantages in war. Man is the most genetically and culturally evolved animal to ever exist on Earth and it cannot be explained by natural selection alone. Creationists have a point that for humans natural selection does not add up. But if you include Darwin's ideas in The Descent of Man it is more plausible.
FWIW the Hunters are Baptists and Rep. Hunter's other positions indicate a reverent man not willing to trifle with what is, by any honest and humble assessment, beyond the human grasp.
Fine, you have your theory and I have mine. PROVE IT.
If you are going to submit an alternate hypothesis, then use the scientific method and PROVE it.
> If you want India and China to be the preeminent powers
> in the world, keep teaching kids that science is whatever
> one’s religion says is correct.
If you knew anything about the history of science, you’d know that the WORLDVIEW of origins has next to NOTHING to do with scientific advancement, because some of the greatest advances in science were made by those believing in intelligent design, including young earth creationists like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal.
If you knew anything about recent History, you’d know that atheistic evolutionists comprise the overwhelming preponderance of the greatest butchers of human life the world has ever seen. They were their own gods, determining for themselves good and evil, who shall live and who shall die. Truth is something they make up as they go along.
> Where was XDR-TB 50 years ago ... guess what? It didn’t
> exist.
It is STILL a strain tuberculin bacterium.
It has not become a mouse.
They didn't believe in the Atomic Theory either, does that make it wrong? Can you name any scientific advancement made by a scientist in the 20th century made by any scientist who didn't believe in evolution?
If you knew anything about recent History, you’d know that atheistic evolutionists comprise the overwhelming preponderance of the greatest butchers of human life the world has ever seen.
Yeah, there were never any wars, murders, adultery and the whole world lived in one big Christian Utopia all until Charles Darwin came along and ruined it all
Pluueezze, Stalin didn't believe in Evolution and Hitler was a Christian
Dumb argument anyhow, even if evolution was misapplied by people doesn't mean it's wrong anymore than the fact that people have been murdered by being pushed out of windows makes the theory of gravity wrong
> Pluueezze, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution
Stalin was INDEED an evolutionist! It was Darwin’s book that changed his life. Stalin was a Seminary student when he read Darwin’s book. In a letter he declared, “You must read it!”
The title of Darwin’s book was, “The Origin of Speicies by the Process of Evolution and the Preservation of Favored Races”.
Now there’s a great theme for the advancement of the brotherhood of man.
If Hitler was a Christian, then he didn’t read the Bible.
Jesus was a Jew, doncha know.
The Jews were God’s CHOSEN PEOPLE, doncha know.
What about, “Love your enemies”, “bless them that curse you”, “blessed are the peacemakers”, “God hath made from one blood all nations”, “whoso hateth his brother is a murderer”, all of which are in the New Testament?
Hitler had Lutheran and Catholic priests put to death for objecting to his ethnic cleansing programs.
Now there’s a real Christian for you.
The “Dark Ages” were NOT an artifact of Christianity, but an artifact of the LACK OF Christianity! The BIble was FORBIDDEN by the existing Roman hegemony. Only the Monks and Priests had access to it, and most of them were ILLITERATE, making copies letter-by-letter when they couldn’t even READ it.
In the 15th Century, when Erasmus had learned enough Greek to study some Greek New Testament manuscripts he had discovered he said, “Either this is not the Bible, or we are not Christians”.
From extant New Testament Greek manuscripts, Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus which Luther translated into German and Gutenburg printed in his new invention, the Printing Press.
Then came Tyndale in England who proposed that every Ploughman should have a Bible.
From this was born the Reformation.
Without the Reformation, it is very unlikely that there would have ever been an Enlightenment, which fostered the scientific discoveries and advances in Science we so enjoy today.
The advent of Evolutionism, and the shrill protests and smarmy tactics of its defenders, blackballing all who criticize it, in the spirit of Mao’s political correctness, THIS is what threatens us with a new Dark Age!
A society that celebrates abortion while ridiculing motherhood, that de-values children, that teaches young men to abuse women and kill each other in gang wars, that dumbs down education, that punishes self-reliance, that promotes homosexuality, that promotes drug abuse, that has an anything goes, might makes right mentality, that endorses euthanasia for an ever-growing list of people -- such a society is at an evolutionary dead end. Such people will simply die out.
It amuses me how they present themselves as so very modern. I think their movement got a new lease on life with the advent of 1960s radicalism/nihilism. We I think are condemned to have to put up with them for another 20 years. I hope by then people will see what a dead end it all was.
Well maybe you’ve found the missing link with your example here.My suggestion, submit it to the scientific community and see what happens.Who knows,maybe there’s a Nobel in the future for you. As for your grammar policing,don’t worry cause I’ve been called out by just about every type of police (language police,partisan police etc.) that frequents this website !?@!*?#
if evolution was all there was, that is true
Fortunately, there is a Creator who has redeemed a remnant of His people and made them righteous, and they will live forever with Him in a perfect society. No need to despair, just need to find Christ and His perfect peace.
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.