Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Intelligent Design Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)
The New Republic ^ | 8/16/05 | Ross Douthat

Posted on 08/18/2005 5:17:34 PM PDT by curiosity

The appeal of "intelligent design" to the American right is obvious. For religious conservatives, the theory promises to uncover God's fingerprints on the building blocks of life. For conservative intellectuals in general, it offers hope that Darwinism will yet join Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of pseudoscience. And for politicians like George W. Bush, there's little to be lost in expressing a skepticism about evolution that's shared by millions.

In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives. Like the evolution wars in the early part of the last century, the design debate offers liberals the opportunity to portray every scientific battle--today, stem-cell research, "therapeutic" cloning, and end-of-life issues; tomorrow, perhaps, large-scale genetic engineering--as a face-off between scientific rigor and religious fundamentalism. There's already a public perception, nurtured by the media and by scientists themselves, that conservatives oppose the "scientific" position on most bioethical issues. Once intelligent design runs out of steam, leaving its conservative defenders marooned in a dinner-theater version of Inherit the Wind, this liberal advantage is likely to swell considerably.

And intelligent design will run out of steam--a victim of its own grand ambitions. What began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining, is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism. On this front, intelligent design fails conspicuously--as even defenders like Rick Santorum are beginning to realize--because it can't offer a consistent, coherent, and testable story of how life developed. The "design inference" is a philosophical point, not a scientific theory: Even if the existence of a designer is a reasonable inference to draw from the complexity of, say, a bacterial flagellum, one would still need to explain how the flagellum moved from design to actuality.

And unless George W. Bush imposes intelligent design on American schools by fiat and orders the scientific establishment to recant its support for Darwin, intelligent design will eventually collapse--like other assaults on evolution that failed to offer an alternative--under the weight of its own overreaching.

If liberals play their cards right, this collapse could provide them with a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. Take the stem-cell debate, where the great questions are moral, not scientific--whether embryonic human life should be created and destroyed to prolong adult human life. Liberals might win that argument on the merits, but it's by no means a sure thing. The conservative embrace of intelligent design, however, reshapes the ideological battlefield. It helps liberals cast the debate as an argument about science, rather than morality, and paint their enemies as a collection of book-burning, Galileo-silencing fanatics.

This would be the liberal line of argument anyway, even without the controversy surrounding intelligent design. "The president is trapped between religion and science over stem cells," declared a Newsweek cover story last year; "Religion shouldn't undercut new science," the San Francisco Chronicle insisted; "Leadership in 'therapeutic cloning' has shifted abroad," the New York Times warned, because American scientists have been "hamstrung" by "religious opposition"--and so on and so forth. But liberalism's science-versus-religion rhetoric is only likely to grow more effective if conservatives continue to play into the stereotype by lining up to take potshots at Darwin.

Already, savvy liberal pundits are linking bioethics to the intelligent design debate. "In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs," Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote last week, "can the U.S. afford--ethically or economically--to raise our children on fraudulent biology?" (Message: If you're for Darwin, you're automatically for unfettered cloning research.) Or again, this week's TNR makes the pretty-much-airtight "case against intelligent design"; last week, the magazine called opponents of embryo-destroying stem cell research "flat-earthers." The suggested parallel is obvious: "Science" is on the side of evolution and on the side of embryo-killing.

Maureen Dowd, in her inimitable way, summed up the liberal argument earlier this year:

Exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education . . . a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a "culture of life" than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo, sex education, stem cell research--on any issue that remotely touches on science, a GOP that's obsessed with downing Darwin will be easily tagged as medieval, reactionary, theocratic. And this formula can be applied to every new bioethical dilemma that comes down the pike. Earlier this year, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued ethical guidelines for research cloning, which blessed the creation of human-animal "chimeras"--animals seeded with human cells. New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade, writing on the guidelines, declared that popular repugnance at the idea of such creatures is based on "the pre-Darwinian notion that species are fixed and penalties [for cross-breeding] are severe." In other words, if you're opposed to creating pig-men--carefully, of course, with safeguards in place (the NAS guidelines suggested that chimeric animals be forbidden from mating)--you're probably stuck back in the pre-Darwinian ooze with Bishop Wilberforce and William Jennings Bryan.

There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.

Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; education; evolution; hesaidcrackhehheh; immaturetitle; intelligentdesign; politics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 951-953 next last
To: Shermy

Of coarse you disagree.

And the idea of complexity is not a faulty presumption. It's quite logical. A space shuttle is a complex piece of machinery. But an individual cell is more complex than that.
Nobody would look at the shuttle and think it is part of some grand biological scheme. It is a construct and an obvious one. And men instinctively know that. The thing has legs and a nose; but, nobody in their right mind would try to feed it like a horse.

This very capacity among humans to discern when things don't quite belong is played upon in early learning. Whether on purpose or not, it is used. Kids can instinctively look at groupings of things and tell you which in a group doesn't belong even if they can't tell you why. It's a basic sort of instinctive logic/reasoning. And I remember it being used when I was in school as early as Kindergarten. ID expands upon that and attempts to explain it scientifically as a starting point. And it is right. It's so right that it was relied upon for teaching long before they approached the problem. But since it threatens evolution, suddenly it makes no sense and must be wrong. Of course you disagree.
You also can't explain a paraconformity when it's inconvenient.

The ID crowd isn't afraid of being wrong. Nor are they afraid of what you think. And they understand that answers to questions are about more than what you can roughly postulate - however absurd. There were many approaches to flight before someone, namely the Wright brothers, came up with the right one. How did we know it was right - we saw it work. We observed it. Just as we observed the theories and ideas of every crackpot on the planet who tried unsuccessfully. Evolutionists have been designing cardboard wings for years and telling us 'this is how flight will work'. The problem is, people kinda know better. Just as they have learned better on the cancer front. Today, eggs cause cancer. Tomorrow they won't. And two years from now, they'll not only cause cancer again; but, will cause some new as yet unheard of condition which will later be found wanting and be rejected.. because science has lost it's way.
People have learned they cannot trust it because the people doing science barely know themselves what they are doing. They can't explain systems in front of them that they can observe with any amount of reliability, yet they can explain things they can't observe that happened before any of us were born with absolute factual capacity such that they set it in stone and pretend it is reality... it begs comprehension and it instinctively sets off alarms with people. In other words, people aren't as dumb as these high IQ priests of their own religion would like to think.

Fortunately, ID approaches people more openly, more directly and with a sense and understanding that doesn't offend or assume people to be stupid and gullible. They approach with a common sense that rather considers people to be quite bright. And in truth, people are quite bright as a rule. Many just don't apply themselves.


701 posted on 08/19/2005 5:25:27 PM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Was that you just on O'rielly no spin zone?

If not sure sounded like he was reading your collection of spin.
702 posted on 08/19/2005 5:28:01 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Joined the club?


703 posted on 08/19/2005 5:31:39 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
In my view, the position that you've taken is patently ridiculous. I am not referring to the political ramifications, which you ramble on at great length although I've said nothing about that, but rather your statement that the public doesn't care about the topic. The issue as it's been framed regards not ID in particular, but rather science overall and actual or perceived attacks on science including primarily those deriving from religion.

I've never seen anything either personally or in print to lead me to think that I overestimate the public's concern over science and religion. In fact, your statement strikes me as utterly absurd. I am hardly saying that "the public" sits around and obsesses constantly on the matter, but that people find both matters (and their intersection) of cardinal importance is not even remotely in doubt so far as I'm concerned.

As someone with no dog in this fight, I will tell you that the stridency and seemingly mortification of you evos becomes you little in the public square.

It strikes me as rather amusing that "someone with no dog in this fight" can carry on at such length, and with such stridency and seeming mortification regarding the matter, and yet still claim to have "no dog in this fight." Here's a tip, next time you wish to argue that you have no dog in a given fight try hiding the dog out of plain view....

If the Pope came out for ID then it would surely induce a debate parallel to the one that the President's statement has induced, and for much the same reasons. The questions at hand are central to the whole enterprise of human civilization, and normal people recognize them as such even if they don't sit around and obsess over them all day long. I'm not even sure what your motivation is to suggest otherwise, except perhaps that in my experience when someone dismisses an obviously important debate that even they themselves obviously find important, it's typically because they don't like the way it's going and can't think of a way to address the actual topic at hand.

But, I don't really know, maybe you actually believe what you're saying. I won't presume to fantasize a whole imaginary sequence like the one you've made up in the vapors of your own mind and attributed to me. My actual view on the political side of it is that it will only have an impact if the electorate concludes that religious interference will impede national progress, and I don't think we're anywhere close to that yet. Up to this point, the relevant debates are but one of several proxies for the overall culture war raging in this nation, and that would continue much the same regardless, since its fundamental underpinnings are other spheres of contention.

704 posted on 08/19/2005 5:33:50 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"Having foreknowledge of the future doesn't make God responsible for everybody's actions."

When you construct something with the knowledge that it will do evil, you are responsible. God created man knowing he would do evil; he is responsible.

What an infantile rational.

According to this warped logic someone could go out and commit murder and then tell God it is REALLY His fault because He created them in the first place.

Only a totally wicked ingrate would abuse the gift of life God gives them to commit evil and then turn around and blame God for it.

Well a Hell it must be believing your Creator is an evil sadist. I'll pray for you.

I hope you will come to realize the Lord is merciful and loves you and wants to forgive you.

705 posted on 08/19/2005 5:38:35 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: qam1; Torie
Great Dodge

There are no great Dodges and their sure the hell ain't any data supporting your 'cry wolf' assertions. I'm a patient man though. There have been scores of polls leading up to and after the last election. It should be a simple matter for a man or woman of your obvious talents to locate ONE with ID or Evolution listed as an issue concerning Americans.

I await the data in my Ford.

706 posted on 08/19/2005 5:39:41 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Very well said.

I'm not on a 'side', but if there is a 'side' to be taken then the evo crusaders are demonstrating what side not to be on.

Havoc, glad you are on the right 'side'

Well good weekend
707 posted on 08/19/2005 5:40:38 PM PDT by mordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
Yes, but I would argue that archeology and anthropology are not really "sciences." They are really in the Humanities.

Archeology, a field that I have immense respect for, strikes me as a sort of "applied historical study" which is richly informed by Science, and in general, the "hard sciences."

Anthropology, a field that I have some real problems with almost seems to me to be a form of literature, a form of literary conjecture, or perhaps a "preliterate philology" of illiterate cultures (an awkward phrase and concept, I know.) One could say that is is a "Social Science" which is, of course, to say that it is not a science at all, at least from my point of view.

I have a lot of trouble with anthropology, but occasionally these people put out some interesting stuff. I am just not sure that we need a "science" called "anthropology to get these writings.


Been there, doing that. Archaeology can be a hard science. In the US degrees are issued in Anthropology, with specialization in archaeology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc. Archaeology and physical anthropology can produce people with good training in the hard sciences--or not. The other branches generally do not. But none of the branches of anthropology are as bad as sociology! Anthropology seems to attract those who are interested in people, sociology attracts those who are more interested in politics and social engineering.

[My opinion]

708 posted on 08/19/2005 5:47:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Looks like I struck a nerve - more hysteria and mortification, I see.

This is not substantive response, nor does it address my points. It is just blathering informed by little else that egoism. That ego is the driver is amply demostrated by that fact that you somehow think that i was merely addressing you and what you said when it was quite clear who I was talking about ansd where my focus was directed.

Prior postings of your is rather off point. There is nothing to respond too as there is nothing in this response but personal attacks and psychobabble.

But drop me a note when you have something meaningful to say, just spare me the hectoring, please. It does not have the effect on of me that you evidently are looking for.

709 posted on 08/19/2005 6:08:06 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Don Quixote redux. He's popping up a lot lately. LOL.

The dirty little secret is that some are better able to separate the facts from their agenda than others, with the others sometimes just making them up as they go along. That simply doesn't work as well with the invention of search engines, not to mention on a site with a cohort of political junkies who find polls more stimulating that curvacious nubile women.

710 posted on 08/19/2005 6:15:43 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; WildTurkey
This of course is a poison doctrine straight from the Devil

Wow, are you saying WildTurkey is the Devil?

711 posted on 08/19/2005 6:16:33 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Because you can't calculate a priori probabilities for a process without specifying mechanism in detail.

The probabiliites being calculated aren't a priori. Amino acids exist. What are the odds of them forming a protein at random? Dembski wrote a long paper addressing your concern. You can find bits and pieces of it here

More to the point, if the idea that life is designed is a bad one, why is the alternative -- that it occurred by chance -- a good one?

712 posted on 08/19/2005 6:21:00 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Why lie to our children and say that we've demonstrated some "design to life" and that we know that there's a reason for our existence beond chance?

Why do you bother debating this subject or posting to FR at all? Think about it.

713 posted on 08/19/2005 6:23:12 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y is a pretty good reference that can explain it all to you.

Why do you think Christians should be the source of evil in this world?

714 posted on 08/19/2005 6:24:28 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
What are the odds of them forming a protein at random?

No one claims they formed a protein at random.

Dembski wrote a long paper addressing your concern.

Dembski's a charlatan.

What are the odds that all the water molecules could line themselves up exactly in the right direction to form an ice crystal?

More to the point, if the idea that life is designed is a bad one, why is the alternative -- that it occurred by chance -- a good one?

No one argues life formed by chance.

715 posted on 08/19/2005 6:25:11 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - John Marburger, science advisor to George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
Looks like I struck a nerve - more hysteria and mortification, I see.

It is easy to strike a nerve. Just be an annoying jerk and you will strike a nerve - I know how to do that perfectly well myself. But, that doesn't mean that your points struck a nerve, merely that your presentation struck a nerve. There's a difference.

This is not substantive response, nor does it address my points.

Sure it did. Most of your points were a fantasy concocted in your own mind. I stated that quite clearly. There is nothing further to say about them because I wasn't arguing any of that to begin with. You are battling the demons of your own imagination, and you don't need me for that.

It is just blathering informed by little else that egoism. That ego is the driver is amply demostrated by that fact that you somehow think that i was merely addressing you and what you said when it was quite clear who I was talking about ansd where my focus was directed.

Whatever. I quote from your post post #164:

Really, you evos and IDers...

Besides, you make it sound...

On one have you seem...

...and on the other you seem to be saying...

You cannot have it both ways...

...and you evos do not help your cause...

Do you really think...

Do you really think...

I think that you are falling...

...I will tell you that the stridency and seemingly mortification of you evos becomes you little ...

Prior postings of your is rather off point. There is nothing to respond too as there is nothing in this response but personal attacks and psychobabble.

Your silly posturings and inane protestations mean nothing to me. I could care less if you wish to address me directly or obliquely, but I do think it's pathetic for you to retreat into claims that you are not addressing me when you are. As for the material that was indirectly attributed to me by association, there is nothing to say to that except that it's not my position, and I have clearly stated so.

Moreover, I have not personally attacked you until now. If you thought anything I wrote before was a personal attack, then you are clearly too delicate to safely participate in an online political forum, much less in these evolution/creationism threads. I would recommend crocheting. Furthermore, the only "psychobabble" I've seen has come from you and no one else, at least so far as our discussion. Your post linked above is nothing but psychobabble.

716 posted on 08/19/2005 6:29:58 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Dembski's a charlatan.

He stated his case and signed his name to it. Check out his site and shoot him down.

What are the odds that all the water molecules could line themselves up exactly in the right direction to form an ice crystal?

Break a crystal and what do you get? Smaller crystals. Do you get smaller proteins if you break a protein?

No one argues life formed by chance.

Except Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, a few of the teachers I've had (at least).

717 posted on 08/19/2005 6:39:19 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Man, you seem annoyed. But I don't think the issue has much political traction myself, in part because it is confined to places where the majority are in tune with their elected officials trying to maneuver under the Constitutional wire SCOTUS has set on this one. Stem cells have more, not because of an attack on science issue thingie, but rather because folks want to live forever, and want to perceive that the Ponce de Leon Fountain of Youth seems to be just over the embryonic stem cell horizon.


718 posted on 08/19/2005 6:41:29 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y is a pretty good reference that can explain it all to you.

Well by golly, that pretty much settles it for me.

Why do you think Christians should be the source of evil in this world?

Well, everybody knows that.

719 posted on 08/19/2005 6:43:12 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Well of course! That explains it! Christians really ARE the source of every evil in the world!

Now you've got it.

720 posted on 08/19/2005 6:43:41 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
"This of course is a poison doctrine straight from the Devil"

Wow, are you saying WildTurkey is the Devil?

How juvenile.

I said the doctrine that God is the author of evil comes straight from the Devil.

I never said all who repeat this accusation are "the Devil".

721 posted on 08/19/2005 6:44:39 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The dirty little secret is that some are better able to separate the facts from their agenda than others, with the others sometimes just making them up as they go along. That simply doesn't work as well with the invention of search engines, not to mention on a site with a cohort of political junkies who find polls more stimulating that curvacious nubile women.

Well, just d@mn! You do have some real insight, don't you?

722 posted on 08/19/2005 6:46:16 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Appearances are not deceiving! ;^)

We are in agreement, but even with stem cell research I doubt that there would be much political ramification short of an outright ban. I just don't think people are gonna get that worked up over the federal government inadequately funding a particular type of research when they perceive that other sources of funding will compensate just fine. An outright ban even on private research would be a whole 'nother matter altogether, and that would raise a great hue and cry.


723 posted on 08/19/2005 6:54:28 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Knowing what will happen is not the same as causing it. The individual's decisions made of Free will are the cause. God does not interfere, else there's no Free will.

hmmm. God decides to create the BTK and knows all the evil and harm the BTK will cause to innocent people but God goes ahead and creates him all the while knowing exactly what he will do. If the BTK had free will to do otherwise, then God must not know what he will do. Therefore, either God knows and there is no free will OR God does not know.

724 posted on 08/19/2005 6:56:53 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
A nerve? No, I must have hit your spinal cord.

Too funny

You should listen to yourself - you think that is reasoned discourse? Just more invective, hand waving and psychobabble.

Again, nothing substantive.

let me repeat myself:

But drop me a note when you have something meaningful to say, just spare me the hectoring, please. It does not have the effect on of me that you evidently are looking for.

It is just nettlesome, I doubt that you could insult me.

Oh, an inclusive, "plural" use of the English pronoun "You" is quite acceptable, as you should well know. My meaning is clearly stated by my phrase:

Really, you evos and IDers.

Honestly.

You are just proving my point about how "you people" (perhaps you would prefer "Youse guys") with all of these attacks on anyone that disagrees with "you"in any form whatsoever. "You" may chose not to believe me, but "the public" finds this irksome. But go ahead, perhaps they will find "you" as impressive as you find "yourselves." (Note the plural usage here.)

You know, if you actually worked in an real, professional scientific institution and tried this tactic, you would get fired.

But then you would not know about that, now would you? (now here I mean it in the singular)

725 posted on 08/19/2005 7:00:23 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Torie
That simply doesn't work as well with the invention of search engines, not to mention on a site with a cohort of political junkies who find polls more stimulating that curvacious nubile women.

There is a correlation between age and your observation but I'm fighting it with every ounce of my strength. :-}

726 posted on 08/19/2005 7:00:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Yep, ain't that the truth. Thus the attraction of stem cells. :) Keep hope alive.


727 posted on 08/19/2005 7:01:55 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
What an infantile rational.

What an infantile response

According to this warped logic someone could go out and commit murder and then tell God it is REALLY His fault because He created them in the first place.

They frequently do.

Only a totally wicked ingrate would abuse the gift of life God gives them to commit evil and then turn around and blame God for it.

Remember, that 'wicked ingrate' is one of God's creations

Well a Hell it must be believing your Creator is an evil sadist. I'll pray for you.

How about praying for the future victims of the next BTK?

I hope you will come to realize the Lord is merciful and loves you and wants to forgive you.

The Lord is merciful? Tell that to the victims of the BTK.

728 posted on 08/19/2005 7:04:31 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
The Lord is merciful? Tell that to the victims of the BTK.

Doesn't get any more left wing than this beauty of a statement. Individual responsibility doesn't do it for ya, eh Turkey? You screw up, you blame God. If that doesn't work you blame the government. And if all else fails you blame your baby sister.

729 posted on 08/19/2005 7:07:39 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Torie

A heads up for you. There is a lady in Vermont whose son was killed in Iraq. She has had it up to the gills with Mrs. Sheehan and her fellow travelers and is gonna start demanding "equal time". You heard it here first.


730 posted on 08/19/2005 7:09:39 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
This is totally ridiculous. I am annoyed because in order to properly respond to your inanity I would have to go back and parse your original post and respond to each item, and none of it would have any substance to the debate at hand, because we would not be discussing the debate at hand, but rather your methodology. I will entertain this stupidity only briefly and leave at that.

When you begin statements with "do you really think" then you are attributing what follows to me, not to some abstract community of evolutionists in general. The answer is: no, I don't really think that, and never did, so go find someone who does and argue with them.

Then you compound that with this supercilious, condescending tactic of proclaiming that you don't really care about the discussion anyhow, so what does it really matter what the other person says in reply, because it's no big deal anyhow, and you weren't even talking to them anyway. You lump me in with some imagined community, attack me obliquely, and then expect me to either humor your tactics or just 'suffer' the attacks, even while declaring that it doesn't matter what I say anyhow.

But, as I always say, every problem has a solution! Check out the bottom of my profile page. Toodles!

731 posted on 08/19/2005 7:13:44 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"According to this warped logic someone could go out and commit murder and then tell God it is REALLY His fault because He created them in the first place."

They frequently do.

Ok. So you subscribe to the God hating rational of the criminal mind?

Is that why you are here promoting their viewpoint?

What did God ever do to you to deserve this kind if contempt?

732 posted on 08/19/2005 7:13:52 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Yep, ain't that the truth. Thus the attraction of stem cells. :)

Hey, I'm a social conservative firmly routed in Ludditism, Beaver Cleaverism and apple pie. If 15 will get you 20 what will being attracted to a day old stem cell get ya?

733 posted on 08/19/2005 7:14:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
She may demand it, but she won't get it. Patriotic parents of their dead progeny who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, which the parents even while devastated in their grief, understand and accept, are a dime a dozen. There is no news there.

There was a special on the battle of Falujia (sp) on Fox News I think, and the father, Mr. Blacksmith, of one fallen hero, a second lieutenant leading his men shot threw the heart by a bullet that sneaked under his flack jacket, who had everything going for him, looks, charisma, intelligence, athletic prowess, wealth (the parents lived in what appeared to be a mansion in a very tony zip code of SoCal, gave a very moving testament to the fact of the selfless intelligence of most parents of the fallen. They lost their only son, and were devastated, but knew it was not all about them. It was about so much more. The father exuded great dignity and wisdom as he spoke through his pain, palpable pain that just poured out of the screen. Ah yes, I cried.

734 posted on 08/19/2005 7:21:29 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: mordo

You appear to be lost in your own enjoyment of a snide state that is quite pleasant for you. Carry on.


735 posted on 08/19/2005 7:22:45 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist

You are a bully.

Scratch the surface of the ID movement and you are the kind of person who espouses it.

You are a bully who loves the sound of your own voice, you preen in your vanity.

I assumed you were a woman by the way.


736 posted on 08/19/2005 7:24:24 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: apackof2

You don't need to be sorry.


737 posted on 08/19/2005 7:25:07 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I don't think geezers should live forever. We need to get out of the way in good and timely order. Thus a stem cell for me is of drastically less interest than that rare and confused nubile curvaceous women who gives me a smile. But that is just me.


738 posted on 08/19/2005 7:29:22 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
You appear to be lost in your own enjoyment of a snide state that is quite pleasant for you.

No not really. And if so then the snide state came from the pseudo intelligentsia of the evo crusaders here.
They corrupted me. Hey I made their fault! Kind of a evo-liberal thing huh!? So who's side am I on now?

Now I said good weekend and I meant it.
Out
739 posted on 08/19/2005 7:32:46 PM PDT by mordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Well, I do think if I had Parkinsonism or some other dreadful disease and I had a lot of life in me yet to live, I might look kindly on a stem cell.


740 posted on 08/19/2005 7:36:21 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: mordo

Carry on Dude.


741 posted on 08/19/2005 7:37:00 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
You mean you would have to read my post and understand it? That no doubt is annoying - and challenging, evidently.

That might require you to get off your hobbyhorse and out of your echo chamber. can't have that.

What really annoys you is being disagreed with, that and not being held in the high regard that you hold yourself in.

Again, you argument seems to be "I am a very impressive person, and if you do not agree with me I will bludgeon you with insults." This is not discourse. This is egoism.

That is what is so comic about the evos around here: They think they are "deep scientific thinkers" when I doubt that any of them have even worked in even third tier institutions. I doubt that you have worked in one of any tier.

This amuses: "Toodles." Is that suppose to be clever? Dismissive?

Do you imagine that I am hanging out here looking for your approval?

Too funny.

You know I just got back from a meeting at CERN (tech not science) and twerpish, mediocre and prickly little egoists like you would literally be shown the door in about a half a hour over yonder, and yet you think that you are dealing with "issues of the highest levels of import to civilization," or some such blather. Really, no one that matters is listening to your little echo chamber.

742 posted on 08/19/2005 7:38:46 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

There is something to be said for living in perfect health until one drops. But part of the marketing of stem cells, is about extending the natural life span. I don't like that aspect. That is really letting the genie out of the bottle. Heck we could have a Senate with 100 Strom Thurmonds.


743 posted on 08/19/2005 7:39:40 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I don't think geezers should live forever. We need to get out of the way in good and timely order. Thus a stem cell for me is of drastically less interest than that rare and confused nubile curvaceous women who gives me a smile. But that is just me.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Long live the fairer sex, but not too long and not at the expense of their progenies potential progeny.

Gotta be a split participle in there somewhere.

744 posted on 08/19/2005 7:48:45 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: Torie
But part of the marketing of stem cells, is about extending the natural life span. I don't like that aspect. That is really letting the genie out of the bottle.

That point of view is virtually certain to be outvoted. The history of such things suggests very strongly that human nature is such that whenever a new technology comes along that offers the possibility of a better or more comfortable life, people will use it, and use it to the absolute fullest extent possible, consequences be damned. Then again, someone has to play the part of Cassandra - it never works, but someone's gotta do it ;)

745 posted on 08/19/2005 7:51:16 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
not at the expense of their progenies potential progeny.

And that is THE issue in a nutshell. Just how selfish are we is the question.

746 posted on 08/19/2005 7:51:27 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"hmmm. God decides to create the BTK and knows all the evil and harm the BTK will cause to innocent people but God goes ahead and creates him all the while knowing exactly what he will do.

As a summary, that's fine.

" If the BTK had free will to do otherwise, then God must not know what he will do.

Whaaaat? BTK has a Free will. God's knowledge of what choices he'll make and actions he'll take are independent of BTK's Free will. Where do you get the, "God must not know" from the fact BTK has a Free will? The conclusion is illogical.

" Therefore, either God knows and there is no free will OR God does not know.

The use of "therefore" is irrational, because it follows from and illogical construction. The only way BTK could not have Free will is if God interfered with BTK's sovereignty over his own will.

Perhaps you missed the fact that God foretold of His betrayal at the last supper and before that. God did not interfere with anyone's sovereignty of will, even to His own mortal end. He said to Pilate to whom the betrayer and the "priests" handed Him over in John 19:10-11
"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

The power given from above is the gift of life and sovereignty of will-Free will. Pilate's choices were made in relative ignorance. The betrayer's was not. That is why his sin is the greater sin. Pilate's was just to kill to end a bothersome conflict.

He came to teach. Learning and judgement requires the effort of Free will.

747 posted on 08/19/2005 7:52:58 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: general_re

That suggests a good reason to nip it in the bud, however specious the grounds. Maybe I need to assume the posture a hard line pro lifer. What do you think?


748 posted on 08/19/2005 7:55:59 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
What next, an article entitled How God Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)?

And what's the next step after that; an irreparable Great Schism of the GOP between the atheists and the people of faith?

Of course, I never fail to find amusement in the observation that the Evo crowd simply cannot pass by anything ID or Creationist without comment. It just cannot be done. There's always something; an epithet; derogation; snide monologue -- something. Thankfully, most stop short of brain-dumping the entire chronology of evolutionist thought, so I suppose I must give some credit for restraint.

But, then, I'm just the sort who, knowing all of this, would pose as a Creationist simply for the great theater it evokes.

CURTAIN!

749 posted on 08/19/2005 7:57:53 PM PDT by HKMk23 (GoT this sweLl tagline on eBay with changE I found in my soFa. It's a "fixer.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I think it can't be stopped. Delayed, perhaps, but not stopped. You can shut it all down here - it'd be a heck of a fight, but I think a winnable one - but all you really end up doing is pushing the work overseas, beyond your reach. And then if (when?) significant benefits are realized, most people will find a way to rationalize and accept the repatriation and use of it. They always have. You must remember that we're all in favor of principles, right up until the point where they interfere with us getting something we want, and the person who doesn't want perfect health or eternal youth is a rare bird indeed.


750 posted on 08/19/2005 8:06:08 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 951-953 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson