Posted on 02/11/2006 3:20:33 AM PST by Lindykim
David Horowitz on creationism:
"I have not called for balance. I don't say that if you teach biology, you should teach creationism. I would regard Marxism as crackpot, like creationism. More diversity is better education."
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/05/06/427b26e7801ae
"You ask why creationism would not be required. Because the Academic Bill of Rights I wrote specifically refers to the "spectrum of significant scholarly opinions." Creationism is not a science and therefore doesn't belong in a biology curriculum. Simple?"
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3Zn-0IBTLZIJ:www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp%3FID%3D18947+david+horowitz+creationism&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a
Redundant. They're always like that.
*yawn* already the author loses my attention by rabbiting on about utter trivialities, in a bid I suspect, to impress me. The fact is that the author could have shortened all of the above paragraph into 3 words: "Some socialist guy". That is all I need to know. Do I care that this guy was Italian, or a criminologist, or an editor of a magazine I have never heard of? (No I don't care). I don't wish to read articles like this - extremely low information per page.
The fundamental flaw of this article seems to be that the author is confusing Social Darwinism with the single term Darwinism used as slang to refer to the Theory of Evoluton. Both very different ideas in both type and content.
Noone is going to deny Social Darwinism has connections to Socialism, but the scientific theory of evolution as well as what the author deems "Scientific materialism" has absolutely nothing to do with socialism at all. I don't need a degree in "wordnomics" to know that and no amount of quoting of "famous" socialists is going to change that.
Utter hogwash. Darwin was revulsed by the attempts by socialists in Germany and elsewhere to somehow try to justify their ideologies with his theories.
Florid, but also vapid. No better than a D in most English courses.
Soon, I hope.
What ever became of the "Vanity" label requirement?
"Florid, but also vapid. No better than a D in most English courses."
Oh, I'd give it a C. It's all spelled correctly, and there are no glaring grammatical errors. The logic, of course, doesn't follow, but that's a secondary issue. It passes, but doesn't convince.
oops I wouldn't have been that rude if I had realised. For what it's worth I apologise
Methinks the mods are sleeping in out there in California. It's not even 7 AM there yet. Someone will be along soon to sweep up.
I mean 8 AM. Sorry. I'm not clear to the east coast.
Also, as you note ... obsessive. But love is obsessive, and to my view obsession is a great ability to have if applied correctly. It is an awesome ability really, and a needed one in society.
To a classifier, such a magnificent one, things must be "just so" to work! And that is one reason many of the fiercest Darwinists are obsessive, catholic (arreligious sense of that word), classifiers with personas that demand not only only must things be classed "just so" , and order be made of the universe, but also that words, their meanings, be exactly *this* (that is the *this* of exacting specificity in each case) exactly fitting the classified order their psyche needs imposed on the world and all its contexts and observations.
Note that such a minded persona, such uniquely abled individuals are found in great number in fields that thrive on classification. This in Science, biology is rife with them, both in professional and non-professional standing.
There is in biology, of course, classification systems that are alternate to Darwinism's. Cladistics, and historical classification systems that predate Charles Darwin. Yet in none of those is the act of classification itself such an necessary and intimate dynamic of the system. Darwinism is built, almost in whole, on deft classifications. AND on strict and restricted definitions of terms. All to the Order of Things, you know.
That obsessiveness -- what a magnificent and blessed thing it can be! -- goes hand-and-hand (that is, is a very closely affine trait) with (1) a certain limit on reading comprehension skills, that being a limitation on the ability to see alternative and read subtle, non-direct, contexts out of material, and (2) as posting history demonstrates an obvious limit on the ability to understand the arguments of their intellectual opponents, to make the most sense possible out of expressed disagreements, which results in a limited ability to respond converstaionally. fairly or even politely, and in a too quick resort to energetic name calling, mockery, and slander.
"oops I wouldn't have been that rude if I had realised. For what it's worth I apologise"
No need. Your statements weren't rude...they were an accurate analysis of the content of the post. When someone posts a vanity, they subject their writing to the scrutiny of Freepers.
537 is also an IRS publication about installment sales and taxation of such sales.
HB537 this year is a homeschooling bill that is going into committee shortly.
But, most alarming of all, 537 Avian Way is the address of Darkwing Duck. Something to think about.
Just FYI. Keep it under your hat...hint, hint...wink, wink.
bump
Then you have to create a rambling screed blaming poor Charles for everything from Pol Pot and Stalin to AIDS and Teen Pregnancy. (Boy, that Darwin fella must have been one evil dude!) Be sure to use lots of meaningless but emotionally weighted phrases like "theology of scientific materialism", "Darwinian socialism" "Darwinian Genocidalism"; these make it look like some sort of analytical thought went into the screed.
And did I mention the 'L' word? Make sure to blame The Liberals for all the world's ills. Remember, Darwin is beloved by Liberals, and no True Conservative believes in his evil, soul-destroying heresies.
Who would have believed that one dude catching a ride on a boat to the Galapagos could have brought ruin on the world?
Enrico Ferri (1856-1926), a prominent socialist of his day, was an Italian criminologist who for many years was the editor of Avanti, a socialist daily.*yawn* already the author loses my attention by rabbiting on about utter trivialities,
See, I started to wonder why the socialists named their daily after a cool-looking excecutive aircraft built by Piaggio 
Thanks for the ping. I really need to let all my pingees know that for the time being I am not pinging the lists due to other responsibilities.
Wagglebee and MillerCreek are doing the Moral Absolutes list and DirtyHarryY2K and DBeers are doing the Homosexual Agenda.
But keep pinging, so I can read what you ping out. Freepmail coming your way.
"DirtyHarryY2K and DBeers are doing the Homosexual Agenda"
Is that anything like the Macarena?
I doubt the truth of this statement. Christians are not given to idealism. God is not an Ideal, but a Person Who seeks to draw individual human persons into intimate relation and comunication with Himself. Socialism sees mankind as an abstract entity, as Mass Man. It cares not a hoot about individuals, who may be sacrified to the abstraction whenever "necessary."
God is Life in the here and now, as well as in the beyond of this world -- not some utopian future paradise whose manifestation here on earth is doubtful at best.
Great article, Lindykim. Certainly you are correct to observe the intimate connection between Neodarwinism and socialism/communism. The socialist ideas of man and history are both deductions from Darwinian premises.
Thanks so much for the ping!
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.