Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
No, but the best chimp sculptors, the best chimp architects, and the finest chimp tenors should be comparable (though not quite as good.)
Mayr was being literal when he said, “almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce,” and he was correct.
Darwin was being metaphorical,??????
Mayr was being literal ??????
You mean that Darwin's theory could be classified as metaphor? We aren't to take everything he said as literal after all?
How do you expect us to make the distinction? How do you know what parts are literal and what parts are metaphor?
How do you know if the parts that you think are literal aren't metaphor after all? If you're going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literallyand if you're going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically.
Let's be consistent here.
Does that make you Darwin literalists?
Is that you methodology?
He's a microbiologist, not an evolutionist.
So he's only right when he speaks on something outside his field of expertise?
Besides, what does that have to do with “When one of the foremost microbiologists in this country suggests something, you’d think people would at least give it a fair hearing.”
Do you have something against scientific research? Do you think that because some in science have determined something that that is the end of the discussion? Science is the absolute final word on all knowledge?
Way to squelch the desire to learn; *Sciencedidit* We can sit back and vegetate because now we have the answer and don't have to look any further.
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. He did not remember that he had stringently affirmed those propositions to be "all true" back in 2007. Upon seeing them again yesterday, he immediatly said they were "utter nonsense" and "metaphorical". Since those Malthusian-style propositions of Darwin's are the the very foundation of Natural Selection, js1138 is thus saying that Darwinism is either utter nonsense, or a metaphor.
So Darwin’s eyewitness testimony should be suspect as well.
After all, all we have is what he wrote down and he’s dead now.
How do we know that he didn’t make it all up? You know, like myths and fairy tales and folklore?
Even if someone rises from the dead, those who don't want to believe, won't.
There are miracles today comparable to many of what Christ did, verified by medical tests and scans, and predictably, they are explained away as co-incidence, spontaneous remission (naturalistic), and errors in diagnosis.
The evidence is still out there.
Is there a problem with that?
You guys use it all the time when you apply it to the Bible.
Since truth is a word best avoided in science, then it makes perfect sense.
Can you show it to us?
It is clear that you have spent a good portion of your life improving your understanding of "metaphorical" "utter nonsense" and sharpening your ability to communicate "utter nonsense" metaphorically.
If it produces reliable results, then I think it's probably good methodology. Does it?
You guys use it all the time when you apply it to the Bible.
Who are "you guys", and where did "we" say that the Bible has to be interpreted as being either totally literal or totally metaphorical?
Medical tests and scans can verify it.
You can look it up if you can get past the HIPAA regulations.
How convenient......
OTOH, maybe you can get on trussell’s prayer list and see all the answers to prayer and tell all those people who have been healed that they’re wrong and that it’s not evidence of miracles.
How many times does some someone claim that they believe the creation account as written and they’re accused by the evos of being *Bible literalists*? And you’ve never seen it?
Sorry, not buying today, or ever.....
Indeed. You can make any claim you want, submit that evidence exists, but that "HIPAA" prevents you from being able to produce it.
There is no scientific evidence of a contemporaneous worldwide flood.
There is no scientific evidence to support a “young earth” or a “young universe”.
There is no scientific evidence to support the near simultaneous creation of all species that then lived contemporaneously.
To claim that creationism is a “theory” supported by “evidence” is to reduce both terms to having no meaning.
Creation has apologists, not scientists.
Way to avoid the question. Evolution is evolution, human or otherwise. The Church has long said that belief in the creation of human beings from other species was compatible with Catholic faith, now the new Pope speaks of Evolution as “fact”. You said “only an atheist” or the ignorant could believe in evolution. Do you consider the Pope an atheist or ignorant?
Have you ever actually seen anyone say that the Bible has to be interpreted to be either totally literal or totally metaphorical, other than yourself?
How can you make such a declaration? Science does not search for evidence, the creators of science search, and you can't say that there has never ever been a worldwide flood. And I am not referring to Noah's flood.
There is no scientific evidence to support a “young earth” or a “young universe”.
No argument here. And the literal WORD of the Bible makes no such claim. Flesh man is young and limited 'age', given the element of time considered.
There is no scientific evidence to support the near simultaneous creation of all species that then lived contemporaneously.
No disagreement here, however, this is no evidence for a hot steaming pot of primordial soup. The dinos existed long before 'man' was placed in flesh. And the span of time from the dinos to flesh man are nothing but mere guesses. And if the foundation for what is evidence literally is based upon that hot steaming pot of primordial soup then your claims have no standing. If there ever was such a thing what made it dry up, and why aren't all matter of beast still creeping out of these hot steamy ponds? Was there only one hot steamy pot of primordial soup and what made it get hot? And to say evolution does not deal in the 'genesis' of hot steamy ponds does not make your claims legitimate. Because every claim to evolution begins with that fabled hot steamy pot of primordial soup.
To claim that creationism is a “theory” supported by “evidence” is to reduce both terms to having no meaning. Creation has apologists, not scientists.
The evidence abounds there was, is, and will always be the Creator. You and I would not be upon this earth were it not the case.
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution" --Benedict XVI
It's a safe bet to say that the Catholic Church absolutely rejects any theory or ideology that denies final causes. If that's what someone means by "evolution", then no, it is not compatible with Catholicism in any way.
You could ask allmendream to back up his assertions about the Pope's beliefs with quotations (in context.) Allmendream has said, for example, that "The Pope... think[s] that we came from apes by natural selection of random variation"
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.