Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The storm-tossed and rudderless Republican Party should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking re-election were defeated. This expressed the community's wholesome exasperation with the board's campaign to insinuate religion, in the guise of "intelligent design'' theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a required proclamation that evolution "is not a fact.''
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I think you're absolutely right. It really, really bothers me that "social conservative" has become equated with biblical fundamentalist.
It is true, unfortunatley, that in the US, right now, most social conservatives are probably into creationism or ID. But it is not true historically, and even now, it is not true internationally.
Poland, for example, is a far more socially conservative country than the US. Far more religious, I'd venture to say. And yet, no one there has any problem with evolution.
Ping for later reading
And isn't it nice that smart people like George Will are going to make sure that we are all (re)educated - it's for our own good!
ROFL .... if you're looking for things that are absolutely and undoubtedly true you'd better look to religion, specifically MY religion.
Should scientific theories not be taught because they may be proven wrong, or inadequate, in the future? Don't be foolish.
So end the WOT and get rid of the Christians and every thing will be just fine?/sarcasm
Perhaps you are unaware that most of the spending increases the Republicans have passed and signed into law have absolutely nothing to do with defense in any form?
For example, what excesses in the recent highway bill went towards Homeland Security?
Unfortunately, they often try to inject their moonbat ideas into the public school curriculum, which then leads to lawsuits in Federal court, which in turn makes it a national issue.
The only long-term solution as I see it is to get them to realize what Christians in other realized long ago: evolution is no threat to the Faith.
True. Like evolution.
There is a science establishment. that has been true since Newton and the Royal Academy. More importantly, there are centuries of experience with quacks attempting to invade science.
The accomplishments of science are so impressive and undeniable that all sorts of wannabes try to attach themselves to science hoping to acquire some of science's luster. It's the best scam going.
When you say no one owns science, you are correct, but everyone involved in science recognizes attempts that lack the commitment to empiricism.
What statement are you referring to?
You're missing the fact that creationism is a long-term political loser for the party. If creationism results in electoral losses in a place like Dover, a country that went for Bush by a huge margin in both 2000 and 2005, it's going to kill us everything.
Sidereal astrology has more scientific merit than the theory of evolution.
What I am saying is that the only people who get all riled up about whether there is a sticker in a science book stating that there are few things about the evolution theory that may be debatable are rabid evo fundies.
This is an evo-fundie pet peeve and they are trying to make everyone think it's ruining the GOP. This is a lie. They just want to force it down all conservative Republicans' throats by force of fear - "Oh, no one will vote R unless we make the TOE a state mandated belief!"
As I am not an East Coast over-educated elite, I don't want the gov't telling anyone that they have to believe in the TOE or they are the equivalent of a knuckledragging tobacco chewing cousin marrying 8th grade graduate.
If people like evolution, fine. If they don't, fine. It's irrelevant to politics. It's only because elitist evo-fundies want to force it down everyones' throats that it's even on the radar.
They may be in some cases. But most people are not really ideological. Most people have a collection of not very well sorted out beliefs--some driven by thought, some emotion. The point where one--if such a point ever comes--actually sorts out the inherent conflicts in personal beliefs is a very important one. But that point never comes for most people.
The problem is not evolution per se, but the mechanism behind it. It would take BILLIONS, not mere millions, of years for the complexity of the human genome to have evolved based upon random mutation and subsequent selection. The problem is one of irreducible complexity. You can't select a more complex organism from a simpler one unless each successive generation of mutation has been selected as providing a competitive advantage. In an irreducibly complex organism, removal of any constituent part renders the whole useless. These organisms are extremely hard to explain using evolutionary theory. If mutations are random, that takes far too long to account for the diversity of life on earth and the complexity of the human genome. Intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism, it is just more consistent with some of creationism's ultimate presumptions. Most adherents of ID tend to accept the theory of common descent (anathema to creationists). What ID proponents point to are flaws in evolutionary theory that cannot account for irreducibly complex organisms, where many, many mutations had to have occurred to produce a complicated physical manifestation, yet one cannot simply remove one aspect and still have functionality. As a simple analogy, think of a pencil evolving into a pen (I know, I know, I'm just trying to explain). From one generation to another, mutations in the pencil would have to occur which would provide some benefit to the pencil for that mutation to be "selected" by nature as more fit. But having a spring, or ink, or thumb-press would have no use except in the final product (ink would need the tube, for example). Many organisms show these kind of traits, traits that could not have evolved by the result of random mutation, or that under the most generous of scenarios would take a hundred times longer to have evolved than evolutionary theory provides. The alternative, according to ID, is that the process is the product of design. Every attempt by evolutionists to claim they've "debunked" the irreducible-complexity argument that I've read is loaded with flaws and tends to prove the argument more than disprove it, on careful reading, despite the authors' stated conclusions.
Within Protestant evangelical circles, evolutionary creation is held by a small but growing number of individuals educated in both science and Scripture. In particular, a majority of these Christians trained in the biological sciences accept this position.
That's very heartening. Lets hope evangelicals have their renaisance soon.
Decent points on some things.
Note my comment above.
You evo fundies just can't stand it that somewhere, someone isn't genuflecting to your pet theory. How about freedom of thought?
Evo-fundies start trembling in rage at a little sticker. You're like atheists who can't abide "In God We Trust" on dollar bills.
Every social conservative believes that God is our Creator, and that's been true for ages. Likewise, that the universe is the product of intelligent design.
A lot of bad conclusions are drawn from the failure to appreciate the distinctions on the spectrum between literalist fundie Darwin-damning young earth creationists and atheist humanist social evolutionist barbarians.
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.