Replies

To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer.

Good to see the two of you are teaming up. Very apt.

The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

That doesn't seem to be the trend set by every recent court decision and election pertaining to this matter in recent history. (Hint: think Dover.) Rational science has the raving lunacy of theocratic fanatics in part to thank for this, as well as the fact that all modern biological and paleontological science supports evolution.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

You honestly think Ann Coulter singlehandedly was able to raise 'valid' points that somehow 'eluded' the minds of scientists all over the world who dedicate their lives and educations to this research? Please. Ann Coulter is about as 'cogent' as Kent Hovind on this matter.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

Irrelevant. Facts are not right or wrong based on their popularity. I think you already know that, though.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes.

I have no problem with creationism being taught along side of evolution. Then, biology teachers could give creationism the public skewering it deserves. You do realize that this is what someone educated in biology would do in this situation, don't you? Still want them taught 'side by side'?

What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM?????

What does creationism and scientific ignorance have to do with conservatism? This perceived connection is driving sensible people away from the Republican Party in droves. Statements such as yours above are typical of the scientific ignorance people (wrongly) associate with Republicans.

You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

That's what I hear. That's why I support hard scientific facts, not this PC dreck called "creationism" and "intelligent design".

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science.

Rejecting any theory because it doesn't support a conclusion that you wish for is not science, it is apologetics. That's exactly what you appear to do.

If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent.

Oookayyy...

If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free.

Darwin established a biological paradigm shift that has withstood a century and a half of scrupulous investigation, notwithstanding sultry, substanceless attacks by unqualified fundamentalist antagonists. If he did that with only three brain cells, it beckons the question of what contributions you've made to science...

If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better.

I think you've quite 'cogently' demonstrated through your recent posting history that you don't know better.

If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

I don't find it comforting at all. If the fact that we descended from apelike ancestors was so 'comforting', it wouldn't cause so much consternation among folk like yourself. I'm sorry science has no respect for your feelings. I prefer to learn the facts and find my way to deal with them, rather than pervert facts to fit my comfort zone. (That I leave to the leftists...)

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

Unbelievable. Ironically, you scorn the philosophy (science) that has given us dominion over much of nature, as God commanded us.