[balch3]

another Home Run from Jonothan Wells.

[Hardastarboard]

Darwinists think they already possess the secret of turning bacteria into baboons.

Certainly someone has discovered the secret of turning Democrats into baboons. Or is it the other way around?

Say, which IS the higher life form of the two, anyway?

[concerned about politics]

Darwinists, like Marxists, tend to be blind to their own commitment to materialistic philosophy.

Agreed. They see themselves as Gods. They assume, blindly, there is nothing else.

[paudio]

But his answer was “The Marxist theory of history.”

Marx held high respect to chemistry because he thought the society had to be studied the way people studied molecular chemistry. His doctoral dissertation was on philosophy of nature, especially atom. He argued that Social Scientists need to learn how the mechanism in the society work, the way Chemists learn how sugar dissolves in water and makes water sweet: by observing how the molecules of water react to the molecules of sugar.

Since Marx believed he already had analyzed the society the way molecular chemist did with sugar and water, he also believed that his Social Science is the objective science (of human).

Like usual, his followers shared his optimism.

[Oztrich Boy]

Unification Church placemarker

[RunningWolf]

Darwinists think they already possess the secret of turning bacteria into baboons.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, although the Darwinist wont admit it

Darwinists think they are above philosophy and theology.

Touche!!

Darwinists, like Marxists, tend to be blind to their own commitment to materialistic philosophy. In this regard, Darwinists are more like Marxists than alchemists.

I like this Guy.

[RadioAstronomer]

What a buch of rehashed twaddle.

[NicknamedBob]

Traditionally, one of the principle opposition groups to announced findings in science, whether it be the rotation of planets, or the occurrence of meteorites, has been the religiously devout.

It is curious now to see the accusation made against "Darwinists" that they have adopted a new religion.

In truth, the truly scientific analytical mind does not care whether discoveries might prove the existence of a Creator, or the undeniability of happenstance. Scientific research yields what it yields.

Galileo determined through logic, analytical thinking, and experiment that the Earth rotates. Though he was forced to deny these discoveries, they still remained true.

Similarly, Darwin postulated that there was a mechanism which permitted gradual changes leading to a point where a single species branched into more diverse forms. This seems obvious enough, once it is pointed out, but he also backed up his thinking with careful observation and analysis, just as Galileo had done.

Darwin called this "The Origin of Species", not the Origin of Life.

I do not expect to see this argument end, ever. Not because the evidence is not available to prove it one way or the other, but because far too many will simply refuse to look at the evidence.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" and you know who you are.

[AtomicBuffaloWings]

Where is the barf alert for this bit of IDiocy?

[narby]

I then predicted that Darwinian evolution would eventually fade into the same obscurity that now shrouds alchemy.

If these folks keep on talking, they'll prove to be just as good as the Global Warming folks at spinning the Big Lie. They hope it will bring them as much money as the environmentalists bring in. Both GreenPeace and the Discovery Institute are non-profit foundations, selling their stories to the faithful. And both claim they're promoting "science".

[Stultis]

O.K. Here's a new entry! Who's got the big list of predictions of Darwinism's eminent demise (stretching back to the 1800's)?

[DoctorMichael]

Ignorance for ignorant people.

[doc30]

The insights, materials and tools used by Darwinists have almost all been lifted from animal and plant breeders, classical biology, Mendelian genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology – none of which owe anything to Darwin’s theory. The only things Darwinism can call its own are speculations about common ancestry and the transmutation of species that look increasingly implausible with each new piece of evidence.

More DI nonsense. The fact is that genetics, biochemistry and nolecular biology came after Darwin and all offered tests of evolution. These newer branches of science not only are consistent with evolution, but were logically foreseen by evolution. I have no idea what 'evidence' DI is pulling out of it's solid waste sphincter, but it certainly is not diminishing the validity of evolution. DI's work may be better described as propaganda to elicit donations in order to produce more propaganda.

[wintertime]

Darwinism might, like Marxism, persist for a while ( from the article)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Marxism should not be dismissed so lightly. It is a philosophy that is far more pernicious than something that might "persist for a while."

Sadly, our society is infected with Marxists. They inhabit the Democratic Party, government bureaucracies, and our universities and K-12 schools are thoroughly infiltrated with them.

If the Marxists succeed in winning total control of our government and social institutions, freedom will be doomed for all mankind, worldwide, for a very long time. We would be literally looking at another Dark Ages.

Darwinism is useful to the Marxists because it undermines a young person's belief in God, trust in his parents and family, and community traditions. Darwinism works to destroy society's belief in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers that human rights are an immutable gift from God.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is really very inconsequential to the work of nearly all people except for the very, very small number of scientists actually engaged in the field of evolution. Even other scientists ( including those working in biology and biochemistry) have little reason to use, or even study evolution.

My husband is a biochemist. Except for the one lesson he had in introductory biology, he never again had any reason to return to the subject. He is a highly respected scientist and has lectured world wide, published many papers, and is the holder of 6 pattents in his field. His experience is true for nearly all scientists, except for the very, very small number of those actually doing research in the very narrow field of evolution itself.

So...why do the materialists ( Darwinists and Marxists) push so hard to impose Darwinism on our nation's K-12 and university students? After all, it is a topic that if of **very little** use to nearly everyone.

I suspect Darwinists and Marxists push evolution so hard, not because of its scientific usefulness to the student, but for its political, cultural, and religious consequences for the children. Darwinism pushes the Marxist agenda forward.

[wintertime]

I stated that no science is entirely objective – that is, based only on the facts and free of subjective elements. ( from the article)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The education of youth ( just like science) is **never** entirely objective. It is **never** politically, culturally, or religiously neutral in content or consequences.

Marxism and Darwinism will **never** be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral in content or consequences.