Posted on 06/27/2007 11:55:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oh. I assume the author is still living? If he is, then I would not be interested. If he has died, then we may discuss whatever he came up with of an organized nature, if anything.
“made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist...”
it seems that creationists are ignorant dolts who don’t believe in scientific inquiry while evolutionists never fail to insert the word “intellectual” to describe themselves. it must be that they’re the only inquiring minds which are filled with limitless brilliance who are “intellectually” superior to the rest of human kind. (sounds like they’re the future ruling class who are setting themselves up for “leadership” roles in the new order about to unfold with the superior democrat party at the helm.)
Anyone can appropriate certain scientific facts, e.g. differential IQ scores, and use them for malign purposes, e.g. trying to impute racial inferiority to one class of people.
That doesn't mean that the scientific material they rely upon is not valid, or that the scientific research underlying those studies shouldn't be undertaken.
Thomas Sowell touched upon this issue in one of his more recent books.
The same thing can be said of certain religious beliefs that-of themselves-are not necessarily evil in nature.
I think the usage is fine, and hyperbole is common in political writing. I simply expected a different, more commonly used word.
That said, the question of whether science would benefit from the irruption of supernaturalism seems to have been settled in the 18th century, by Newton, among others.
I agree for the most part. Where they differ is that ID limits itself to detecting design, whereas YECers assume and try to prove Genesis. But you are right to point out that most of their arguments against Darwinian evolution are the same. Although, IDers are taking things a step further in terms of astronomy, molecular biology, genetics, etc.
Indeed. Thank you for the pings!
Is that the Creative Principle?
(And we know that because the Bible tells us so but we can't say that anymore because the U.S. Supreme Court tossed creation "science" so we are flogging ID now and if that fails we'll come up with something else.)
Pachygenelius--mammal-like reptile or reptile-like mammal?
I’d have to question its usage in this context.
The context is social change within the timeframe you suggest (150 years). I don't think the usage is at all hyperbolic. People bragging about their atheism seems to be a rather striking development. Dawkins' and Dennett's "brights" campaign is a good illustration of an "irruption of atheism" that is quite aggressive in its tactics.
At least it looks that way to me, FWIW.
Loathsome cultural and political movements need something to justify their otherwise obviously nefarious activities, and often steal the mantle of "science" to lend them credibility. The socialist movement has hijacked science under the banner of "environmentalism" for example. Even the original creationism movement in the 80's attempted to hijack science to "prove" a young earth and Genesis style creation, although it was so laughably bogus it had to reinvent itself as "ID".
==ID is dangerous because it is a fraud. No, I’m not talking it’s argument against evolution, I’m talking about the fraud wherein it pretends to be non-religious, when in fact it is all about religious faith.
Substitute Church of Darwin for ID and we are in complete agreement. As I mentioned on another thread, I think one of your high priests said it best. Richard Dawkins was once asked “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” Dawkins’ reply revealed his true religion: “I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.” In short, like so many other members of the Church of Darwin, Richard Dawkins worships the Natural Selection god.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf
I'm somewhat at a loss as to how writing books can be construed as "aggressive."
I assume the "more to the story" is that Derbyshire has been so steeped in Darwinist "exegesis" that he has come to believe in its "truth claims." The theory rules out any need for God; and so I gather Derbyshire has done likewise.
So why did the creationists transform themselves into IDers if they were winning the battles?
The "brights campaign" is a huge in-your-face publicity stunt designed to be abusive of Christian believers ("dims"). Neither Dawkins nor Dennett makes any bones about that.
Are you saying that Darwin’s view of gradual change survived the test he laid out for it?
They didn't. The creationists are still creationists. The IDers are a whole 'nother group that has only become vocal for the past decade or so.
Whatever you label it, natural selection can be demonstrated in the lab. Let me know when you can demonstrate the existence of your God by similar manner.
But is it falsifiable? And if so, what would be the test?
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.