Posted on 07/28/2009 4:33:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Oh give us this day our creationist spam...
Ping!
That would be filet mignon. Sad you can’t tell the difference.
Even the commentators on the posted site call the whole thing a steaming pile.
How old is the spam?
Just so we know exactly who we're talking about, how many "evolutionists" are "such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne"?
And another example of projection.
They are no more indicative of the attitudes of scientists as a whole than militant creationists with credentials.
And the last thing they should do is delve into their “theological thinking” more deeply; they should abandon their pretense that they have any sort of privileged insight into religious belief at all.
Asking an atheist for information or insight about religion is like asking a virgin to give you information or insight about sex.
Yes. And finding a site the agrees or disagrees with thus-and-such is proof positive.
Isn't it?
As reliable as using wikipedia as a primary source....
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God.
Of the elite scientists who excert disproportionate control over tenure, the right to publish, and grant money?
The NAS and the Royal Society were both polled on their belief in God. Only 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences said they believed in God, whereas only 3.3 percent of Royal Society scientists said they believed in God.
Does that help to answer your question?
Not quite. What percentage of the people you regularly and generally refer to as "evos" do those people constitute?
Unlike your Temple of Darwin co-religionists, Uncommon Descent allows their opposition to post there as well.
I like the quotes:
“the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections”
So arguing God wouldn’t have done it this way is “not a theological argument”. Hmmm....
There is not much to say about these meaningless as hominem attack.
I’ll just say that evolution is natural history. Those who study natural history just go with what they get. They are not going to give up their work just because people think they are part of an anti-religion conspiracy.
We all can’t be intransigent enough to believe in microbiological soup as you.
What ad hominem about them? Evolutionist are indeed in denial, delusional, or just plain dishonest about the theological underpinnings of their evo-religious creation myth. It about time scientists like Cornelius Hunter started pointing it out!
>> My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job.
That’s a pretty common misconception about Job. He started bitching pretty heavily after two chapters (out of 40-ish). Then God told him to butch up and stop his whining (that’s a paraphrase of Job 38). God may have even called him “Nancy” somewhere in there.
SnakeDoc
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.