One of the most curious things about these evolution threads on FR are the ardent defenders of Darwinism who show up. Despite their protests that "Darwinism is science!" Darwinism is today as much a political/social/theological movement as it is a scientific theory. The Darwin defenders here are clearly highly organized and dedicated to promoting their viewpoint, to such an extent that I wonder what their agenda really is. It also makes me wonder...what draws these Darwin-apologists to a conservative discussion site? I mean, when you consider that the most ardent defenders and believers in Darwin's theory (for its social implications) in the last century were atheistic Marxist and eugenic fascist regimes, and when one considers that Darwinists' most powerful allies today are the leftist media and the ACLU, how can these folks on FR be so dedicated to defending a viewpoint that is embraced by the left?
The kind of "enthusiasm" we see from the Darwin-apologists here on FR can only be described as *religious fervor*. As Robert Koons, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas has said, "The evidence for evolution seems far from compelling. It seems compelling only to those with a prior commitment to metaphysical materialism, for whom Darwinism is practically the only reasonable explanation available for life as we know it." I suspect the prime motivation for such rigid dedication to this "theory" has less to do with science, and more to do with adherence to a particular view of morality.
Upon meeting Phillip Johnson (author of DARWIN ON TRIAL) prior to their formal debate, Stephen Jay Gould dispensed with the pleasantries and said, "You are a creationist. I am here to stop you." Note that Gould didn't say, "You are not a scientist; you are out of your realm. I am here to stop you." Gould's main concern was his impression of Johnson as a creationist. That was the rub -- not science, but the idea that God exists -- and in so responding to Johnson, Gould unwittingly betrayed the real concern of Darwinists.
Do you have to be a Christian to be a conservative?
Very well said. Bravo
Bump
Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened.
I mean, when you consider that the most ardent defenders and believers in Darwin's theory (for its social implications) in the last centur (for its social implications) in the last century were atheistic Marxist and eugenic fascist regimes, and when one considers that Darwinists' most powerful allies today are the leftist media and the ACLU, how can these folks on FR be so dedicated to defending a viewpoint that is embraced by the left?
This is simply a lie. Stalin rejected Darwin; Hitler had no clue what evolution meant, and embraced it only to the same extent he embraced Roman Catholicism. The 'leftist' media are by-and-large ignorant of science; the ACLU defend separation of church and state, which is one of the bulwarks against teaching religious ideas of creation is school. The ACLU also defends the freedom of children to bring Bibles to school and to disseminate religious messages. Since this poster is likely on their side on those matters, I guess, by his own logic, that makes him a leftist.
The kind of "enthusiasm" we see from the Darwin-apologists here on FR can only be described as *religious fervor*.
Apparently defending a position vigorously is in the mind of this poster 'religious'. How sad that apparently nothing in his life is worth defending vigorously, except a set of superstitious beliefs. One would have hoped, at least, he would consider his country worth defending vigorously; but apparently, not, since he does not describe the defenders of evolution as having patriotic fervor.
I suspect the prime motivation for such rigid dedication to this "theory" has less to do with science, and more to do with adherence to a particular view of morality.
I suspect this poster doesn't understand science and therefore is clueless why one would be interested in promoting a scientific view of the world, and protecting it from backward superstition.
As was right. The fact that Johnson isn't a scientist isn't a basis for stopping him, it's because he is a peddler of lies and falsehoods. Indeed, many non-scientists have made contributions to science. Johnson's pushing lies and trying to get them taught to school children. He should not only be stopped, he should be locked up for attempted child abuse.
Darwin Central--the Conspiracy that Cares! How can we be of service?
What a load of codswallop!
Like "physics," "mathematics," and other silly movements.
ID is the retarded stepchild of Creationism.
It basically says, Barbie style, "it's TOO HARD. We need DADDY to fix it."
But I appreciate the hours of entertainment you IDers provide. Your "scientific treaties" are particularly hilarious.