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

Skip to comments.

Tension Over Intelligent Design
International Herald Tribune ^ | 10/31/2005 | Joseph Rosenbloom

Posted on 11/01/2005 7:43:16 AM PST by Diamond

BOSTON Michael Behe is a respected professor of biochemistry noted for his research into the structure of nucleic acid. He is also the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," a book, published in 1996, that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design, causing deep tensions between Behe and his fellow faculty members at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Two months ago Lehigh's Department of Biological Sciences, where the 53-year-old Behe has taught for 20 years, publicly repudiated his views in a notice on its Web site, saying that they had "no basis in science."

Read more at International Herald Tribune

(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; evolution; id; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2005 7:43:16 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Among the 40 to 45 members of the Muslim Student Association, intelligent-design "hasn't been a topic of great debate," said Youssef Chouhoud, the group's president and a political science student.

As a Muslim, "I'm glad to have somebody standing against evolution," Chouhoud said. "That, I'm proud of.'


2 posted on 11/01/2005 7:56:30 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
As a Muslim, "I'm glad to have somebody standing against evolution," Chouhoud said. "That, I'm proud of.'

:-)

3 posted on 11/01/2005 8:08:31 AM PST by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
Reporter to self: how can I get in a last-word slur against ID without actually stating it directly myself? Ooooh, I know. Guilt by irrelevant association. Find a MUSLIM (read; terrorist, jihadist, etc) on campus to say something critical of evolution.

Cordially,

4 posted on 11/01/2005 8:16:35 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Birds of a feather flock together.


5 posted on 11/01/2005 8:24:23 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

"in good company" ping.


6 posted on 11/01/2005 8:27:27 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Actually that's guilt by voluntary association. The IDjits are doing it to themselves.

For the Kansas hearigs they brought over a Turkist Islamist to suupport them.

For the Dover hearings they brought over a Brit postmodernist.

Along the way they have argued for relativism anf affirmative action for "Intelligent Design"

It does seem the ID is a progressive cause.

7 posted on 11/01/2005 8:32:48 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
===> Placemarker <===
8 posted on 11/01/2005 8:36:53 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; Alamo-Girl
"Frankly, just from a humanities point of view, it's considered good to challenge the conventional wisdom. It's inherently respectable."

Indeed. If we don't question what we believe we know, then how do we learn anything new? I honestly don't understand the rationale for the science faculty's behavior at Lehigh. They act as if Behe were promoting child molestation or wife beating....

Thanks for the post, Diamond!

9 posted on 11/01/2005 9:00:17 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
Birds of a feather flock together.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander:

Joseph Rosenbloom is a contributing editor at The American Prospect.

"The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective ..."
blah, blah, blah.

One of the lessons of Vietnam was that a sharply divided nation should never take on armed conflict. That's why the framers gave Congress, not the president, power to declare war. Conservatives are fond of invoking the wisdom of the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. This is one case where we have a pretty clear idea of both what that original intent was and what it requires of the executive branch today. Bush may claim to be a constitutional originalist -- but evidently, when war is at stake, he is a selective one.

The July 2004 edition of The American Prospect features a special section on capital punishment with articles by some of the nation's most respected experts on the topic. "Reasonable Doubts: A Special Report on the Death Penalty" examines the growing movement to reform or abolish capital punishment in America. Among the topics examined are public opinion, innocence, race, and the death penalty for juveniles. The series also provides a closer look at the death penalty in states such as Illinois and Texas, and offers an overview of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the death penalty. The authors included are: Anthony Amsterdam, Hugo Bedau, Christina Swarns, Tom Lowenstein, Sasha Abramsky, Jean Templeton, Joseph Rosenbloom, and Connie de la Vega.

People who use irrelevancies about people's political and religious beliefs as defeaters on other issues make themselves fair game to receive the same.

Cordially,

10 posted on 11/01/2005 9:04:46 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Just as Behe has every right to put forth his philosophical posturings as if it were Science, the Science faculty at his University have every right to disavow any perception that they have bought into this philosophy gussied up as if it were a Scientific theory while it doesn't have a unified definition, a falsifiable hypothesis, any observed phenomena that can be measured, or having any predictive power.
11 posted on 11/01/2005 9:06:29 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Absolutely! Lets get Phrenology and Astrology back in there as well. Are they afraid of the challenge to their pet theories?


12 posted on 11/01/2005 9:07:52 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
They act as if Behe were promoting child molestation or wife beating....

A preview of this thread, perhaps?:^)

Cordially,

13 posted on 11/01/2005 9:08:10 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design

A lie. ID is not anti-evolution.

14 posted on 11/01/2005 9:09:55 AM PST by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
"........Among the 40 to 45 members of the Muslim Student Association, intelligent-design "hasn't been a topic of great debate," said Youssef Chouhoud, the group's president and a political science student. As a Muslim, "I'm glad to have somebody standing against evolution," Chouhoud said. "That, I'm proud of.' ......."

Muslims and ID/Creationists are not the same.

However, there is a confluence here between the interests and goals of Muslims and ID/Creationists: They both share the same Fear and Loathing of Western Society and its Institutions and fervently wish to destroy it. First though, they must destroy those in the Conservative Movement and discredit Conservative websites such as FreeRepublic by posting their crap here.

15 posted on 11/01/2005 9:26:26 AM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
As a Muslim, "I'm glad to have somebody standing against evolution," Chouhoud said. "That, I'm proud of.'

Nice lot of friends you have.

16 posted on 11/01/2005 9:29:42 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Reporter to self: how can I get in a last-word slur against ID without actually stating it directly myself? Ooooh, I know. Guilt by irrelevant association. Find a MUSLIM (read; terrorist, jihadist, etc) on campus to say something critical of evolution.

Given the open cooperation between Islamists and creationists, both of the straight-up and stealth (ID) variety, it's hardly irrelevant.

17 posted on 11/01/2005 9:31:01 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
For the Kansas hearigs they brought over a Turkist Islamist to suupport them.
For the Dover hearings they brought over a Brit postmodernist.
Along the way they have argued for relativism anf affirmative action for "Intelligent Design"
It does seem the ID is a progressive cause.

Wait a minute. I thought that ID'rs were all Wild-EyedTM Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist, Bible-thumping ignoramuses. Which is it?

Cordially,

18 posted on 11/01/2005 9:34:13 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Here, I think you dropped this:


19 posted on 11/01/2005 9:34:15 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Uh, Diamond, you were the one who posted the Rosenbloom article. So it appears you're trying to smear yourself with guilt by association!
20 posted on 11/01/2005 9:35:50 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (...or maybe he just misspoke?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; USConstitutionBuff; blowfish
A preview of this thread, perhaps?:^)

LOL Diamond! Sure looks like it's shaping up that way! :^)

21 posted on 11/01/2005 9:38:54 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Wait a minute. I thought that ID'rs were all Wild-EyedTM Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist, Bible-thumping ignoramuses. Which is it?

Doesn't mean they can't make common cause with other wackos; Islamists, postmodernists, creationists, astrologers, and perjurers (as half the Dover School Board seems to be). A straight flush of wackiness.

22 posted on 11/01/2005 9:39:52 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (...or maybe he just misspoke?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
However, there is a confluence here between the interests and goals of Muslims and ID/Creationists: They both share the same Fear and Loathing of Western Society and its Institutions and fervently wish to destroy it.

The Founding Fathers of this Country and their intellectual and spiritual predecessors were Creationists. I guess you mean that they, too, intended to destroy western civilization and their own Judeo-Christian institutions?

Cordially,

23 posted on 11/01/2005 9:40:48 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Uh, Diamond, you were the one who posted the Rosenbloom article.

Since when does posting an article necessitate agreement with it's contents?

Cordially,

24 posted on 11/01/2005 9:43:49 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Since when does posting an article necessitate agreement with it's contents?

Usually disagreement is indicated by a relevant indication in the title. Barf alert, perhaps?

25 posted on 11/01/2005 9:46:03 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (...or maybe he just misspoke?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Barf alert, perhaps?

That would be like throwing the bait into the water with no hook, though:^)

Cordially,

26 posted on 11/01/2005 9:49:32 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
27 posted on 11/01/2005 9:54:30 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Given the open cooperation between Islamists and creationists, both of the straight-up and stealth (ID) variety, it's hardly irrelevant.

What if we substituted "ACLU" and "evolutionists" in the open cooperation category? Is that helpful? Do you think this "open cooperation" is the reason that Mr. Rosenbloom included this final tibit about the 45 member Muslim Student Association in his article about Behe and the other faculty members at Lehigh University, or did he just have an axe to touch up?

Cordially,

28 posted on 11/01/2005 9:58:44 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
var bad_monkey = 'burps and grins'
var good_monkey = 'quotes Shakespeare'
29 posted on 11/01/2005 10:05:51 AM PST by cornelis (Fecisti nos ad te.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
What if we substituted "ACLU" and "evolutionists" in the open cooperation category?

Of course, you could equate fellow Americans whose politics differs with yours, with religious extremists hell-bent on destroying the United States. Some Dover School Board members have in fact said they fear the ACLU more than Osama Ben Laden.

I was a member of ACLU once. I left when they started defending affirmative action.

30 posted on 11/01/2005 10:08:56 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (...or maybe he just misspoke?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
How do you reconcile the many materialistic statements of Thomas Jefferson, the Deist faith of Franklin (as stated in his autobiography he said of himself that he was a "thorough Deist"); with the ludicrous statement that our Founding Fathers were Creationists?

Do you actually believe it, and if so, what evidence do you have for it? Otherwise your just parroting empty propaganda devoid of substance or historic accuracy.
31 posted on 11/01/2005 10:11:40 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
[that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design]

A lie. ID is not anti-evolution.

ID as a *concept* is not anti-evolution, but the ID *movement* is very much anti-evolution. In fact, that's pretty much all they have -- ask them for evidence *for* ID, and they inevitably offer (alleged and usually flawed) evidence *against* evolution.

32 posted on 11/01/2005 10:11:44 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Wait a minute. I thought that ID'rs were all Wild-EyedTM Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist, Bible-thumping ignoramuses.

Where exactly did you hear that allegation? Be specific and provide citations.

But change "Christian" to "religious" and "Bible-thumping" to "holy-book thumping", and yeah, that describes the large majority of "IDers". Surely you can't seriously dispute this.

Which is it?

Most IDers are religiously motivated. You know this is true, so don't pretend there's something wrong with pointing it out.

33 posted on 11/01/2005 10:15:18 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
Is that all you've got? Three quotations from the DEIST, Thomas Jefferson, the third of which is a general observation about human reason, and so does not have any direct bearing one way or the other on the subject of the Judeo-Christian religious, legal and cultural institutions and thought that undergirded the foundation of America?

Cordially,

34 posted on 11/01/2005 10:15:34 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Busted-flush placemarker.


35 posted on 11/01/2005 10:19:41 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
ID as a *concept* is not anti-evolution, but the ID *movement* is very much anti-evolution

You make an intelligent point here.

I should quickly add, however, that the issue at stake in this case is the constitutionality regarding freedom of speech within the public square;

Is it not true that freedom of speech grants the right to express views that are wrong?

And yet, freedom of inquiry requires the mature; adolescents in power (both sides) cannot be patient and prefer to abuse it.

36 posted on 11/01/2005 10:19:51 AM PST by cornelis (Fecisti nos ad te.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; USConstitutionBuff
Is that all you've got?

What more does he need in order to puncture your goofy implication that if Jefferson et al believed in some sort of deity -- even one not bearing much resemblance to your own -- that this somehow counts as "points" for your lame defense of the antics of *modern* creationism?

Apparently that's all *you* have.

Hint: Modern fringe creationism bears very little resemblance to the deism or ideals of Jefferson and the rest. But in your simplistic worldview, they "must" all be the same, right?

37 posted on 11/01/2005 10:23:24 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Is it not true that freedom of speech grants the right to express views that are wrong?

Certainly.

And yet, freedom of inquiry requires the mature; adolescents in power (both sides) cannot be patient and prefer to abuse it.

You are misrepresenting the nature of the "ID" controversy. The Dover court case is about an issue aside from mere "free speech" and the "right to be wrong", as is the reaction to flawed propaganda being presented as if it were legitimate science.

38 posted on 11/01/2005 10:25:22 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
The ID controversy is not a court issue.

You don't go to court to settle a disputed opinion.

Of course there are papal courts, but you're intelligent enough to see this is not one of them.

You go to court to establish the law.

39 posted on 11/01/2005 10:28:44 AM PST by cornelis (Fecisti nos ad te.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
A materialist is not a Creationist. A Deist believes the world was created, but they are also not Creationists. You have provided no evidence that any of the Founding Fathers were Creationists. I have provided evidence that your statement that they all were is most certainly false.

I'd let your generalization stand if you said that "most of the Founding Fathers were Christian", or the fall back position you have now retreated to that "Christian religious,legal and cultural institutions and thought" under-gird the foundation of America. Absolutely correct. But when you LIE and say that they were all Creationists I have to bring out a few inconvenient (for you) facts.

And Thomas Jefferson was very much a Deist in philosophy, a materialist in regards to the supernatural, but considered himself a Christian (albeit one who denied the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the Trinity). So your deviating from the Creationist party line by admitting he was influenced by Deist thought; they usually try to claim he was a Christian.
40 posted on 11/01/2005 10:30:10 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Quite frankly, Evolution is going to get more harder to justify each year IMHO. As we find out more and more about the intricacies of life itself and at the molecular level the theory that we all came into being just by chance is going to get harder and harder to maintain. It is like trying to plug a leak in a crumbling seawall dam.

If evolution was correct, we should have been making life from the basic elements long ago. No life is more complex than we think and it's locks and rules are often much harder and more complex than we think to pick.

41 posted on 11/01/2005 10:45:42 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
Welcome to FreeRepublic. If you do a search here you will find many old threads on the subject with more detail than you may be able to stomach. In short though, the materialism of Jefferson and Locke is the not same philosophical materialism that we think of today. Locke was a practicing Christian. And second, while there were a few Deists among the Founders, the overwhelming number were Christians of one Protestant denomination or another. The American historian Bancroft puts it this way:
"...He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."
and
"... "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster."
I think would be most difficult to sustain an accusation of empty propaganda devoid of substance or historic accuracy againt one of America's greatest historians, and one who was certainly no Calvinist himself.

Cordially,

42 posted on 11/01/2005 10:51:15 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff
A Deist believes the world was created, but they are also not Creationists.

What??

You have provided no evidence that any of the Founding Fathers were Creationists.

You think that the Founders who were Christians did not believe that God created the universe? Even deists believed that God created the universe and then left it to run on it's own.

I think it is sufficient to show that the Founders were Christians to prove that they believed in creation, and t. A creationist is someone who believes in creation.

Cordially,

43 posted on 11/01/2005 10:58:42 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Diamond; Alamo-Girl
Most IDers are religiously motivated.

We can exchange generalizations if you like, Ichneumon. I'd say that most neo-Darwinists are "religiously motivated," as well. Believe it or not, atheism is a recognized form of religious expression.

44 posted on 11/01/2005 10:59:59 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
So when caught in a bare faced lie, you retreat and then attack a straw man argument?

I never denied that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, or denied the influence of Calvin in specific or Christianity in general. That is a straw-man that you set up.

However I still take issue with your statement that the Founding Fathers were Creationists. Jefferson was a Materialist, and decried any hint of the supernatural as the product of a corrupt or ignorant mind. Deists believe the world was created (I am a Deist) but they are most certainly NOT Creationists by any stretch of the imagination. And being a Christian and being a Creationist is hardly synonymous; just as being an Atheist and subscribing to the theory of evolution through natural selection are not synonymous.

And I can stomach much; as evidenced by my tolerance for your incorrect generalizations, logical fallacies, and your straw man arguments.

Cordially,
45 posted on 11/01/2005 11:07:44 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Hey, I found your real argument:


Unfortunately, it was too late!

46 posted on 11/01/2005 11:28:28 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I'd say that most neo-Darwinists are "religiously motivated," as well. Believe it or not, atheism is a recognized form of religious expression.

So you are equating "neo-Darwinists" with "atheists" then?

47 posted on 11/01/2005 11:30:31 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff; Diamond; Alamo-Girl
So when caught in a bare faced lie, you retreat and then attack a straw man argument?

Ah, I love polemics! :^)

Seems to me you and Diamond are defining key terms differently. Actually, USCB, Diamond has long-standing usage and understandings to back him up. There is no way that TJ was a "materialist" in the sense that word has acquired in recent times. And neither was Locke -- as Diamond has already pointed out.

Christians and Deists both believe that God created the Universe. The essential difference between them is that Christians believe that God's creative activity continues in the Universe, and Deists do not. Both, however, are creationists, for both believe that God created the world. (That is the definition of a creationist.) TJ believed this; Franklin believed this. Indeed, these men took divine creation so for granted that they referred to the Creator as their justification for separation from the British Crown, as we see in the DoI. For the Creator created men as having unalienable rights, which the British Crown was violating. Both TJ and Ben apparently believed that human nature itself is a gift of God that not even a king has the right or power to tamper with, limit, or infringe.

I think perhaps you simply regard the word "creationist" as a term of opprobrium -- which may be the reason why you refuse to apply it to yourself, a self-proclaimed deist. Perhaps you picked up this attitude or habit from the general Kultursmog that we are all breathing in today.... Just remember that it was Marx who first made it fashionable to hold "creationists" in contempt. And his "scientific materialism" was something never encountered by any of the Founders.

48 posted on 11/01/2005 11:34:53 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

No need. However, you'd better use a bunch yourself!


49 posted on 11/01/2005 11:36:28 AM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Deists are not Creationists.

cre·a·tion·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

And Thomas Jefferson was a materialist in the full meaning in which I use it; someone who eschews supernatural explanation and doesn't believe in supernatural accounts.

To disprove the generalization that 'the Founding Fathers were Creationists" I need only to show that one was not. No Creationist would say the following...

"But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, &c."

Thomas Jefferson
50 posted on 11/01/2005 11:43:10 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 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