Posted on 09/25/2010 6:37:13 AM PDT by srmorton
DOVER, Del. – TV comedian Bill Maher is taking another jab at Republican Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, who as a conservative Christian activist was a frequent guest on his "Politically Incorrect" show in the 1990s.
After O'Donnell won last week's GOP primary in Delaware with the help of tea party activists, Maher played a 1999 tape in which she said she had dabbled in witchcraft while in high school.
Maher threatened to show more old clips of O'Donnell unless she appeared on his current cable show, "Real Time with Bill Maher."
On Friday night, Maher made good on his threat, showing another clip from the 1990s in which O'Donnell challenged the theory of evolution
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And since I was privileged to see and hear the best, I'm better able to discern true humor, satire, parody, irony and other tools of a gifted, authentic comedian.
Too many people today will laugh at ANYTHING....and actually prefer excessively sick humor.
Leni
I wonder if Bill Maher can answer that one?
Agreed.
1. Maher isn’t doing this to shock conservatives. He is doing it to change the narrative. Why do we let it work?
2. Notice the AP framing: Maher takes a “jab” at O’Donnell. Imagine the spitstorm if someone had taken “jabs” at Obama during his campaign. I think they are called something else when republicans do it.
3. Who cares what was said 15 years ago on a show that staged arguments for theatrical purposes? Seriously.
“On the contrary, I do believe in evolution, just not so much in Evolution. Technically that still leaves the system expressed as theory. If natural selection is self-guiding, what is the mechanism, and how do we explain evolutionary dead-ends?” ~ steve8714
Good stuff.
Here’s more:
Undeniable truth of life # 23. Evolution cannot explain Creation. — Rush Limbaugh (1980’s)
“...evolution does take place, but it doesn’t explain Creation. Obviously, it can’t ..” Rush Limbaugh Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth February 28, 2007
[][][]
“No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don’t need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution. ... Although God-believers don’t need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. “. — Ann Coulter (from her 2006 book, “Godless”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1646185/posts?page=31#31
[][][]
But “Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
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. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution - John Paul II http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70
[][][]
The Fractured Fairy Tale of Darwinian Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2540831/posts?page=36#36";
[][]
“The most important truths are indeed “self evident,” that is, evident to the higher self. ...”This is why you cannot prove the existence of God to such a logic-bound individual, any more than you could prove it to a dog. Religious truths are conveyed through symbolism and analogy (with the assistance of grace), more like a great work of art than a mathematical equation. Although not merely logical, it would be a grave and simplistic error to suggest that the great revelations are illogical, any more than a Shakespearean sonnet or one of Beethoven’s symphonies are illogical. Rather, they are translogical.... “ Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2540831/posts?page=38#38
Exactly. bttt
“As far as the mechanism for Natural Selection is concerned, my understanding is that it is largely survival of the fittest and chance mutation.” ~ luvbach1
FYI:
“Evolution by natural selection in the classical sense—unguided, with no transcendent agent to direct mutations along “certain beneficial lines,” as Asa Gray put it, hasn’t a clue about how to explain religion—or mathematics, or philosophy, or our ability to do science, for that matter. Evolution might or might not be able to account for the complexity of our brains, per se, but it’s mute and powerless to “explain” the higher products of our brains, which are of course by far the most complex objects yet known to us anywhere in the universe. Many agnostic and atheist philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists have stated this much in frank terms. Our ability to do higher mathematics, for example, was utterly irrelevant to our survival in evolutionary terms—our ancestors needed to know absolutely nothing about topology or fractals, manifolds or tensors, even differential calculus, in order to outwit mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. Nor did they need to know the profoundly shocking fact (from the point of view of naturalism) that mathematics of the kinds just mentioned is incredibly powerful for understanding the external world—a fact that just cries out for a deeper explanation. Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and company are flying into the face of the facts on this one. We can not only do mathematics, but our mathematics actually matches the subtlest details of the external world. How does this make any sense at all, if we aren’t in a very real sense created in the image of God, the divine mathematician (as Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus regarded God) who also created the external world?” ~ Ted Davis 3/24/08 Professor of the History of Science
Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1990848/posts?page=7#7
Exactly. bttt
Your “fix” is good. :)
You are correct. They intend to destroy the foundation of this country, Christianity, and supplant it with Marxism and they have been at it for over 100 years.
Such hatred.
Hatred for individual success drives them. They are pure evil. They lie, lie, lie. They claim to be crusaders for good, to care for the poor and downtrodden, but their intent is the opposite. Those who don't go along are murdered.
As you’ve said, they chose to “forget” that it is a theory. Heck, why is it that they allow themselves to forget the scientific method, and what that signifies for darwin and his theory? (rhetorical question)
They don't forget the scientific method, they ignore it. Global Warming is the same.
Darwin's theory was survival of the fittest. In itself that is self evident. However, he theorized that progress was made, the act of evolution, when a mutation occurred, giving one version of a species favor over another until eventually they become a new species. Think about that. Progress was made in animals, according to Darwin, through screw-ups in DNA. How whacked out is that? Yet, those pushing the theory claim the belief in creation is a silly fantasy.
It is, as you said, an effort to eliminate God and replace Him with a God/State. They pretend to believe in the perfectibility of man (From each according to ... to each according to ... ), but they don't trust man to do it. The God/State must make man be perfect. Those who refuse to be perfect are eliminated. How elite is that? How whacky is that? They claim that idea is superior to the belief in a loving God who offers us an avenue toward perfectibility through Jesus Christ and Christian principles.
It is time to ignore those politically correct asses and challenge them on every issue. I sure hope the political consultants, our enemies, don't persuade O'Donnell to apologize. She is right and should stand her ground.
Not confused at all... The scene where Chewbacca and R2D2 were playing that chess-like game, and R2D2 was winning. Han explained why it's a good thing to let the wookie win.
Mark
“..IMO, it is MUCH harder to believe that the natural world evolved due to chance mutation than it is to believe that God is the One who created it and used whatever means He desired (natural selection included) to produce what we observe today.” ~ srmorton
I agree. Is there anything you disagree with in either of my posts here?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2596051/posts?page=147#147
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2596051/posts?page=149#149
I said it was self-guided (my term); ergo, “with no transcendent agent to direct mutations along certain beneficial lines...” I see no contradiction with what I said. But thanks for the detailed posting/definition.
Thanks for your reply. This needed a reply. Of course it must be verified. Did you really think I meant acceptance of unverified or erroneous information? By new I meant that which adds to the body of knowledge. Didn't think I had to say that.
There are plenty of “experts” on both side of these issues.
Well, I don’t know exactly what she said, did you see the clip?
It’s pathetically easy to make fun of fundamentalists but it isn’t necessarily right to do so.
Evolution, as described by Darwin, as always been referred to as a theory.
Most science is a theory right now and is eventually proven wrong when the next generation of scientists comes along.
If Christine simply said that she didn’t believe in the theory of evolution if it negated the fact that God created the universe, well all Christians would agree with that.
We all know that creatures have evolved over the milleniums but it doesn’t mean that God wasn’t at the helm.
Maher worships evolution simply because he thinks it’s proof of No God.
It is not.
In this controversy, an honest and detailed debate is the enemy of the evolutionists.
Who knows? Could be that this latest strike at O’Donnell will ultimately result in greater support for creationism.
O'Donnel seized upon her religion, and made it into her science. It isn't.
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.