The lies of Lynchburg: How U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis.

Answers In Genesis ^ | September 1997 | Carl Wieland

[Natufian]

You evidently don’t understand the term ‘evidence’.

[ZULU]

I guess your interpretation is literal one. I suppose you think the “Good Samaritan” really existed. But that is your perogative, I suppose.

But when the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence indicates evolution is a fact, and a literal interpretation of a religious book replete with symoblic and allegorical parables and other passages and intended as a moral and religious work and not a science text conflicts with that evidence, a reasonable person would re-assess their interpretation of that book to develop an interpretation which is in line with scientific fact and not in conflict with the essential spiritual message of the Bible.

I reject a total literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.

There is that passage in the old testament about the Sun stopping in the heavens during a battle. It was used by the Inquisition to condemn Copernicus, imprison Gallileo and execute others for implying the planets revolved around the sun. Well, we found out that they actually do revolve around the sun and nobody I know of has compromised their faith because the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.

There are, to be sure, individuals who believe that evolution refutes the biblical description of creation and evolution is due to chance mutations and hence this proves that God does not exist and the Bible is a defective text.

Those individuals are making the same mistake you are. They are interpreting Genesis as though it was intended to be a literal description of creation when in fact it merely states, in effect, that God created the world and everything in it. The rest is more or less literary addition.

The average neolithic pastoralist in Palestine would not understand a detailed description of evolution and how God actually created the world and speciation. Furthermore, that topic is not what the Bible is about anyway.

Evolution may be due to mutations and genetic changes, but terming the results as due to mere chance is expressing a personal opinion about religion which has no basis in science. God created the world, including the laws of evolution by which speciation occurs. Hence, it is not possible in my mind to say that evolution is due to mere chance unless one is inserting one’s personal atheistic prejudices.

These people have found out the “how” but they certainly have not defined the “why,” which is really in the realm of religion and philosphy, not science.

[ZULU]

“Louis Pasteur was a Catholic.”

So what does that have to do with the analogy?

Bill Maher is an idiot, and his idiocy is not germane to this discussion.

[allmendream]

“you all is”? Wow. Just when I thought it wasn't possible to sound any dumber your post takes the cake.

I.D. IS creationism, as the poorly constructed “cdesign proponentist” shows. The Creationists were too stupid to even use the ‘find/replace’ function for their manuscript and poorly replaced “creationist” with “design proponent” leaving several ‘transitional fossils’ of ‘cdesign proponentists’. I.D. is a political movement of one organization, the “Discovery Institute”, and its “Wedge document” shows that their goal is nothing less than the destruction of the foundation of science.

[tacticalogic]

So, who all is figuring on getting into Heaven by accusing their neighbor of being a Nazi if the believe in ToE?

[Coyoteman]

Where do I fall in this group? My family watched Expelled together. I looked for websites that refuted it and found only one (the blog upthread is new to me) where when my husband rented Fahrenheit 911 there were many, many sites that went scene to scene and disputed it. It's hard not to believe the movie when very few people say it is wrong.

There is quite a bit of information on Expelled out there. Here is a long and thoughtful review:

The Expelled Controversy: Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division, by Jeffrey P. Schloss (pdf format)

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf

[netmilsmom]

I found googobs on MMs movies. And I find that the reviews tend to fall into the mode of “ID is creationism in disguise and you know how those religious people are!”

I’ll read through it, but if it does not give examples of actual cases where ID (not creationism) is recognized on a campus, they prove the point of the movie. Even the arguments here on FR are creation/evolution. The movie was about Intelligent Design. An intelligent force created life and it moved on.

[editor-surveyor]

"Mr. Maher told David Letterman -- a quintuple bypass survivor -- to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him"

It would appear that Mr. Maher has picked up a small bit of wisdom, taken it out of context, and run wild. Even the most ardent natural therapists do not ever advocate that anyone just stop taking necessary medication 'cold turkey.' There are natural substances that outperform every synthetic medication, and do it without the often fatal and everpresent side effects, but the change has to be made gradually.

Maher's lack of belief in 'germs' certainly won't make them go away. I don't know of any N.D. D.O. D.C. or nutritionist that doesn't accept the causality of illness from bacteria, or virus. I can't imagine where he is coming from on that, especially since he is known to reject out of hand the idea of sin. Western medicine is certainly full of pitfalls, and charlatanism, but physiology contains an established body of facts.

[ZULU]

The analogy is not dumb.

Your conlcusions vis-a-vis Eugenics, Nazis and evolution are.

Anybody can take an idea or concept or theory and use it to justify nearly anything.

A lot of people used Christianity to justify the Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan and the Requiremiento.

That is hardly a relfection on Christianity, but more due to the pervserseness of human behavior.

[Coyoteman]

Here is another review of Expelled:

A Blood Libel on Our Civilization: Can I expell Expelled?, by John Derbyshire

Sample paragraphs:

My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools. ...

Understanding this, the creationists took the morally fatal decision to campaign clandestinely. They overhauled creationism as “intelligent design,” roped in a handful of eccentric non-Christian cranks keen for a well-funded vehicle to help them push their own flat-earth theories, and set about presenting themselves to the public as “alternative science" engaged in a “controversy” with a closed-minded, reactionary “science establishment” fearful of new ideas. (Ignoring the fact that without a constant supply of new ideas, there would be nothing for scientists to do.) Nothing to do with religion at all!

I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably. The old Biblical creationists were, in my opinion, wrong-headed, but they were mostly honest people. The “intelligent design” crowd lean more in the other direction. Hence the dishonesty and sheer nastiness, even down to plain bad manners, that you keep encountering in ID circles. It’s by no means all of them, but it’s enough to corrupt and poison the creationist enterprise, which might otherwise have added something worthwhile to our national life, if only by way of entertainment value.

And you want ID recognized on college campuses as a science?

Just read the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy and you'll find confirmation that ID is a dishonest attempt to push religion in the guise of science.

[editor-surveyor]

Zulu has no clue what constitutes an analogy, so an invalid comparison was substituted for the misunderstood concept.

What can you expect from an evoist?

[editor-surveyor]

WARNING !!!!

NO SCIENCE CONTENT DETECTED

EVOLUTION FANTASY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SCIENCE ON THIS FORUM.

ERROR - ERROR - ERROR

- CONTAMINATED MESSENGER EMBOLISM TO BE DESTROYED -

- VACATE AREA IMMEDIATELY -

[netmilsmom]

I’m reading a lot about Creationists and not about Intelligent Design in these reviews.

I guess I’m just amazed that we slip so easily into the Global Warming debate with facts, yet when someone asks a question about intelligent design, it becomes very hostile.

The people that take the evolution theory side have no problem with “beings” from another planet “seeding” the Earth, but have a problem with Our Lord “seeding” it.

Isn’t that strange?

[Old Professer]

I would have used perversity as it’s much easier on the spell checker.

[tpanther]

Let me get this straight.. I just want to find out exactly how far out on the fringe, just how much of a minority, you are....

You’re saying that there is no evidence for the ToE, that it is all faith and ideology?

There's a gigantic difference between the theory of evolution and the cult of evolution.

It's not that hard.

For the record, I am on record with not having any problems with the THEORY of Evolution taught in school.

My beef is with godless liberal NEA types pretending as though they and they alone have the keys to science and particularly science education. Only they get to define what is or isn't science, etc. etc. etc.

And defending the godless liberal NEA agenda is an untenable position. And this position is the one very much in the vast minority, NOT my position.

[Coyoteman]

I’m reading a lot about Creationists and not about Intelligent Design in these reviews.

The problem is that ID has not been made a separate field, with ongoing research and a body of competing hypotheses used to make and test predictions. ID is creationism with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to fool school boards and courts.

The evidence is there in the Wedge Strategy:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

When you start off with this beginning, it is no wonder that ID is not taken seriously by science. It is religion, not science.

The people that take the evolution theory side have no problem with “beings” from another planet “seeding” the Earth, but have a problem with Our Lord “seeding” it. Isn’t that strange?

You are confusing science with religion. The former requires evidence, while the latter relies on belief and revelation.

By the way, there is no credible evidence for “'beings' from another planet 'seeding' the Earth."

[tacticalogic]

- CONTAMINATED MESSENGER EMBOLISM TO BE DESTROYED -

KILL THE MESSENGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[tpanther]

Maybe coyoteman can show you the “religion” in this scientist’s views netmilsmom?

He waffles when I ask him to.

Now why would that be I wonder?

from the dissentfromdarwin.org website:

---

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

It’s curious buut whenever a scientist observes scientifically the problems with evolution, coyoteman begins to stamp and huff and scream “theocracy”.

[CottShop]

[[I.D. IS creationism,]]

Wow- just when I thought you couldn’;t sound much dumber- you go and prove me wrong- Hey- two can play at petty name calling allmen- ID isn’t creationism- but hten again you know htis- but apparently you- like many other Macoreovlution agendists think that simple repetition will make it so. The rest of your post just shows a complete lack of honesty- As I mentioned in another thread- when your word is nothign but a lie- your credibility plummets- but then again- folks like you apparently don’t care about honesty and integrity- You have an ice day now- provided you can get past your petty bitterness.

[netmilsmom]

>>When you start off with this beginning, it is no wonder that ID is not taken seriously by science. It is religion, not science.<<

So it begs the question, did the creationists become prominent in the ID definition because God was taken out of science?

Did they come to the forefront of ID because those like me were totally disregarded anyway?

>>By the way, there is no credible evidence for “’beings’ from another planet ‘seeding’ the Earth.”<<

It’s from the mouth of Dawkins.