Posted on 06/27/2007 11:55:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they.”
Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson try to disprove God. That part is amusing and also dangerous because I'll bet it makes many go atheist
Actually, I thought first of someone else. But at least I didn't name you and fail to ping you, as you did to me.
Feel free to continue the debate any time. There's no rule against going back days or even months later.
That's from Dembski's site. Dembski billed the Thomas More group for 20,000 dollars and then refused to testify on their behalf.
As for accusing someone of mischaracterizing Behe's position on the stand -- Behe was a witness. He was there to clear up any such thing. Folks who don't have the guts to discuss the issue under oath should be cautious about criticising those who do.
And why did Dembski refuse to testify as an expert witness?Because he couldn't have his own lawyer.
Now just try and imagine why an expert witness -- not a party to the case -- would need a lawyer.
Evolution can't happen, so fears of bird flu are misguided. Besides, I'm sure that True Conservatives don't believe that viruses cause disease.
Behe apparently believes we are genetically engineered descendant of "monkeys." It is interesting that so many people find this version of evolution compelling enough to require its being taught in school.
I wonder if they realize what they are buying? Do creationists ever look at the ingredients?
A 160 IQ is probably a sort of a limited asset when your ass is burning in hell....
Who, or what, is the Intelligent Designer?
You also seem to think that not not sharing that assesment make you a member of that religion.
With all the thousands or religions, the odds that you have chosen the correct one are pretty slim. Even slimmer if you have chosen to hide you talent (your mind).
Yes.
“Grim Satisfaction at the Eternal Torment of Others” Placemarker
I’ll add —
Reservations for ringside seats overlooking hell confirmed.
Yeah, notice how pharmaceutical and biotech companies are absolutely falling over themselves to hire all those creation "scientists". *snicker*
You are spot on.
Perhaps I'm wrong though. Why do you think Gould would propose such a change in the theory?
Yes, again, I admire C.S. Lewis very much and agree with everything you’ve said about him.
My point was not that Lewis was a socialist in the sense that Hugo Chavez or Ted Kennedy or Lewis’s old sparring partner, J.B.S. Haldane have been socialists-— just the opposite. Rather, my point was that, except in rare occasions, one cannot simply label someone or take how he labels himself and assume it follows that person has a certain detailed set of beliefs. In other words, just because Lewis proposed something called “Christian Socialism” does not mean one can simply extrapolate from that term a set of beliefs.
Of course the “Christian Socialism” Lewis endorses is very different from that of the socialism of Screwtape. The former is pretty vague, but seems to amount to something like a free market in which Christ rather than Social Darwinism, is the ideal.
I brought this up because on these threads, a great variety of people with a great variety of ideas are brought up, and often along with them comes the attitude, “well, I don’t have to deal with that person’s ideas or research, because s/he is a Creationist, or “I don’t have to deal with that person’s ideas or research because s/he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute”.
This was, in my opinion, what FReeper Dinsdale had done in Post 121 when I suggested until shown otherwise, it would be wise to assume all concerned were saying what they meant and meant what they said, Tom Bethell and Mike Gene included. Dinsdale seemed to be claiming something like:
1. Mike Gene advocates ID (although he doesn’t think ID is science yet).
2. Mike Gene says he’s not a Creationist.
3. Therefore, Mike Gene is lying because ID is Creationism.
4. Besides, all Creationists are liars, so their points can be ignored, no matter what they might be.
My point in bringing up C.S. Lewis was to try to show that this sort of extrapolation doesn’t work.
Punctuated equilibrium does not contradict Darwin’s initial theory.
I find your snark ironic. My wife was a research biologist for pharmaceutical companies for several years. Yet she soundly rejects the notion of evolution between species. For myself, I think evolution between species probably happened, but I have to admit she knows a heck of a lot more about biochemistry then I do.
Mind you I do not "believe" in evolution like many here seem to do. I am simply convinced it probably happened. If modern variations of the theory could be falsified, and becomes so, it would not bother me in the least.
However it has become overwhelmingly obvious that there are a great many who care deeply about it being true, and cling to it as a necessary component to a larger faith. Moreover some even seem compelled to actively proselytize and even mock unbelievers.
So I find myself arguing with apologists for a philosophy, who's basic premise I am convinced is probably true...how odd is that?
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.