Skip to comments.A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a fast from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Roves 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Gotta reject the evolution Richard Dawkins believes in.
You're confused. We do not believe Richard Dawkins is God.
Because Ken Miller believes exactly what Genesis 1:1 states. If he doesn't then he is not a Catholic. Simple stuff Dimensio.
Correct but one must, of necessity, utterly reject the materialism and reductionism of the neo Darwinists such as Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker.
"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."
Do you support the Missouri Amendment?
1) You first must pledge to cease and desist from flaming, insulting, attacking, belittling, trashing, defaming or bringing any kind of harm or discomfort whatsoever to other FReepers and or to religious conservatives, anywhere, anytime, on this planet, or in any life hereafter, for all time and forevermore.
2) You must now and forevermore denounce any and all claims to the title "antifreeper" and cease and desist from dissing other FReepers or Free Republic from aforementioned Darwinian base camp or any other such place where antifreeping, stabbing in the back, and other equally unhonorable, unmentionable and despicable acts are conducted.
3) You must recognize that FR does not offer advanced degrees in the field of Evolutionary Science and shall therefore foreverafter swear not to attempt to title thyself "Evolutionary Scientist."
So, when another FReeper calls me a Marxist, a Hitlerite, a Stalinist, a follower of Pol Pot because I am studying for a degree in science, you are going to ban or suspend those people, right? I'm just asking because you never have, and your attitide indicates that you never will.
What you are suggesting is that from now on any scientists or person interested in science is a 2nd class citizen on Free Republic. We have a separate set of rules applied to us. Are we now to be assigned only 2/3 of a vote in polls as well? Or, would you rather that all scientists, and all who have an interest in science be stripped naked in the middle of the street, religious fanatics be given a pile of rocks, with you proudly proclaiming "there be witches"? You do realize that has been done before, right?
Keep the faith! :-}
Never said you did.
Then why are you acting as if his particular viewpoint is the only possible one science-minded people could accept? If Richard Dawkins is not God and does not dictate to us what we can and cannot think, than your post above was completely irrelevant.
Yep, the science-minded apparently are to be the dhimmi here.
It's more basic than that. Whoever believes the philosophy of history known as evolution (in the wide sense) deserves an exclusive hearing by law in public schools belongs to a party that does not accept the authority of the Consitution. That, IMO, means liberal democrats who do not accept the meaning an intent of the text, but twist it to fit their own, squishy, mealy-mouthed, agenda.
Don't go too far out on that limb. I am among the one-third who voted with you on that poll, and I am indeed pro-science, but you do not speak for me. There are rational, reasonable people who accept evolution, and rational, reasonable people who accept creationism. But there are some in both camps who are neither rational nor reasonable. Do not fall into the trap of portraying Darwinism as some sort of modern Prometheus, a courageous champion bringing the light of knowledge to the ignorant masses. There are any number of evolutionists who accept evolution not because they find the evidence for it convincing, but because they are driven mad by the notion that someone, somewhere might be quietly believing in God. This is obvious from what they choose to fight about.
I have seen some terrible, unsupportable arguments brought by creationists on some FR threads... but I have also seen a ridiculous number of straw-man, false dilemma, appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacies used by the militant evolutionists. Crevo threads are remarkable for the dishonesty and irrationality exhibited on both sides.
P.S., there is no broad-based conservative war on science. There is a sizeable culture war against Judeo-Christian religion, though.
Complete and utter bullcrap. Priests teach evolution and priests teach the true origins of some biblical tales. Ever hear of the Enuma Elish.
Who said we were teaming up with the ACLU? Most of us despise those rat bastards.
Not all evos think Dawkins is correct. He is like Pat Robertson to a lot of us. He is an opinion and I think, an odious one at that.
LOL, You will of course point me to the section of the Catholic Catechism which teaches that God did NOT create the heavens and earth.
Priests teach evolution and priests teach the true origins of some biblical tales.
Can you translate this sentence into English?
Ever hear of the Enuma Elish.
Sure, have you ever heard of Daffy Duck?
Amen to that.
We don't have to accept each others views on evolution, but we should respect the fact that we are all conservatives. Just because someone is an atheist or believes in evolution, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are conservative. Some here have equated Christianity with conservatism. That is wrong. Christians are a segment of conservatism, just like evangelicals are a segment of Christianity.
Absolutely true. And some have equated acceptance of creation/fundamentalism with being stupid. (*cough* "I think a lot of people in conservative media pander to the dullards... They all seem to [sic] intelligent to be cretards or fundies." *cough*). That isn't conducive to or reflective of "respect," in my opinion.
That's not what I saw, Jim. Still don't see it, especially taking into account everything else that you have said over the last two days. Are you apologizing?
Sounds about right to me. Thanks for the intriguing post, Blackirish!
It has become a wild ride that's for sure. Look at it this way......
You, my FRiend, have now become a part of FReeper History. LOL
This thread might just become a rival to the famous "undead thread".
In fact, I submit that you should contact Jim or the mods and ask to have the title of your thread changed. Maybe something like the Great Evolution Thread or something like that. I'll leave that up to you.
Just think of it........
Blackirish: The FReeper who posted an article from NRO and kicked off the Great Evolution Debate!
You'll be both cheered and reviled. Like it or not you're now a hero or villain depending on the point of view.
You are now a legend of all FReeperdom!
Please carry your elevated status in accordance with the dignity proper to your newly found fame here at FR.
I never said it was the only one possible. I said you could not accept his particular viewpoint and hold the Pope's viewpoint. Do you?
But all creationists(and IDer's) are Jack Chick?
You wouldn't know it based on the reactions of most of the evos over the efforts to keep creation out of the schools. Somehow it gets blown off with trite phrases, *like even a stopped clock is right twice a day* (concerning the ACLU and lawsuits to keep the slightest questioning of the ToE out of the picture).
As for me, if I hear of the ACLU defending something that SOUNDS good, I take a really good hard look at what I thought on the matter and what it is that they're really trying to accomplish; because to say that I don't trust them is the understatement of my life.
I realise that to many evos, according to them, it's about *keeping science pure* but if it involves the ACLU and they're supporting it, it's not going to come across as conservative, not matter how you look at it and what you say in its defense because it's not about science to the ACLU.
What say you, O Fearless Leader?
Do you not recognize tongue in cheek when you see it?
A sense of humor is not an evolutionists strong point. That's probably why they walk around with such a chip on their shoulder. They're so easy.
He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
It's a scientific theory, not a way of life, not a religion, it has no effect on the way we live our lives, most of us are theistic.
Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Or, why is it so important to you, that evolution be looked at as a religion, instead of the scientific theory that it is.
Why does science threaten your religion, and why are people that understand evolution, and science, such a threat to you?
You are saying the "loyalty oath" was tongue in cheek?
I am overjoyed to hear that. I was about to post a message on my home page to the effect that "I am no longer posting."
Your comments on this thread, and a comment just made on another thread asking, "Since when did Freerepublic have an intelligent science community?" were just too much for this reasonably intelligent (on a good day) scientist.
Thank you for the clarification.
V-A:He's probably the greatest theologian alive today.
So I thought Darwinism was not a religion and now here your telling us that Dawkins is probably the greatest theologian alive today. Make up your minds.
Warning: This may be sarcasm.... I think; because you certainly cannot be referring to Pat Robertson when stating that *he* is the greatest theologian alive today.
Because you defend it with religious fervor and tolerate no dissent. And apparently are more than happy to allow the courts to force in on an unwilling public.
Doesn't smack of tongue in cheek to you? *sigh*
It shouldn't be forced on anyone, unless they are taking a science course, and then they need to learn at least the basics of it. It should be taught in science class, not in a social studies course, a religious studies course, a theology course etc, now ID on the other hand, that should be taught in a religious studies course, or a theology course, but not in a science course.
Pretty simple if you ask me, teach science in science class, if it's not science, then it shouldn't be taught there.
Evolution is scientific, ID is not.
I thought she meant Pat Robertson. I was scratching my head over that one!
The only reason that it went to court was because the school boards were trying to force a nonscientific hypothesis, namely ID, onto an unwilling public, who believed, and rightly so, that it had not gone through the scientific rigors that evolution had, and until it has, it has no place in a science classroom.
The court agreed.
ID is trying to slip in via a public school curriculum, instead of through scientifically rigorous tests of it's hypothesis. This is not the way science is done.
Popular vote, schoolboard vote etc, does not a scientific theory make.
How dare you!
Moments ago, I just left a retirement ceremony for one of my best friends retiring as a Lt Col USAF. We stood together under the flag of the United States as the national anthem played. One of my thoughts was of all the flag draped coffins and national anthems being played for the heroes that have died over the past year. Some of my friends are over there right this minute. Very moving and poignant moment.
I have spent the better part of my adult life (with a brief hiatus to NASA) defending this nation both in and out of uniform. I stood many a watch during the cold war both in various control rooms and crammed in the back seat of F4s waiting for the Soviets to push thru the Fulda Gap. I also assisted during that terrible day now referred to as 9/11.
And to be called a Marxist and/or communist?
What an evil affront! /rant off.
Thank you for your service, this conservative appreciates it.
Is that the one that pretends to support stem cell research but actually authorizes cloning? (Sorry I'm a little vague on it; I don't live in Missouri and haven't been following it very closely).
But to be clear on the underlying question, I support stem cell research to the extent President Bush does. As far as I have been able to discern, all the advances in stem cell research have come through the use of adult stem cells or neonatal stem cells, and nothing at all of any use has resulted from embryonic stem cells. By "of any use," I mean anything successful.
Michael Fumento has done some excellent reporting on this subject.
I do not support human cloning, and I most certainly do not support government funding for human cloning.
The Pope points out (elsewhere in his document), that there are, more properly theories of evolution. My reading of the Pope's statement is that he accepts speciation, but not the idea that man is indistinguishable from any other animal. Man's having a soul is why he is in the image and likeness of God, and what sets him apart from animals. And that that could not have come about by any natural process.
That would appear to put JPII in the "theistic evolution" camp.