Posted on 06/09/2006 6:16:57 AM PDT by tomzz
You can't help but notice that there is a very vocal sort of a little clique of evolutionists on FreeRepublic, and there has always been a question in a lot of people's minds as to whether or not the theory of evolution is in any way compatible with conservatism.
This new book ("Godless") of Ann Coulter's should pretty much settle the issue.
Ann does not mince words, and she has quite a lot to say about evolution:
"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory which is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record, and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God....
It gets better from there, in fact a lot better. Ann provides a context for viewing the liberal efforts to shut down everything resembling debate on the subject in courtrooms and makes a general case that it is the left and not the right, which is antithetical to science in general. Anybody interested in this question of American society and the so-called theory of evolution should have a copy of this book
Yes, thus far. If He wants to reveal himself more directly, He beomes testable and we can stop arguing over methodological naturalism as the tool of the Devil.
Gotta bail. Thanks again, A-G!
But the metaphysical naturalists (atheists) in powerful positions wrt science (Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin, Singer) have tried to equate the two philosophies - hence the "intelligent design" movement which seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition. (Any hoot, that is what my research has revealed as the original motivation.)
Thank you for your reply!
As far as I know they haven't, just like Darwinists have not observed a biological history dating millions of years. That is why I liken Darwinists to astrologers. They make huge extrapolations from the evidence and expect the rest of the world to bow down as if their extrapolations are not only empirical but also worthy of exclusive hearing in a scientific context.
But what happens when the YECs begin pushing their doctrine into science classes? When they twist science into pretzels to try to make it fit their doctrine, yet still insist it is science?
(I didn't even realize this old thread was still kicking.)
Hopefully not the same thing as happens when the "science" of Darwinism is applied in the interest of genocide and eugenics.
Make the legal arguments, pro and con - authority for the agenda in education, publicly v privately funded institutions, caselaw, politics, social v fiscal conservatism, philosophy, etc.
"As far as I know they haven't..."
So, they make no observations of the stars, and make no observations of how the planets/stars affect people. When you said,
"I consider astrology to entail a fair amount of direct observation, and insofar as it does so, to be scientific in nature.", you were mistaken?
"just like Darwinists have not observed a biological history dating millions of years."
Yes they have.
"That is why I liken Darwinists to astrologers."
Because they are different?
"Hopefully not the same thing as happens when the "science" of Darwinism is applied in the interest of genocide and eugenics."
Eugenics is more the misapplication of genetics than it is evolution. Do you attack genetics as well because of the ill use some have made of it?
Hello Elsie
You really should review the RM guidlines when posting on the RF!
When talking about someone post you should ping them!
Also it is you choice to bring into topice what you want but the covenant I was talking about was in the OT and really did not want to turn this into and LDS bash or a Creation or ID bash , or a bash cervo just to engage on this thread in a cordial discussion things from an open mind point of view!
I am sure when first enter these type of threads you came with you understanding and point of view. The Evo ask that the those who are faith base follks not get testy or sarcastic as not to create animosity!
It works on both sides be respectful!
RELIGION MODERATOR GUIDLINES
Hello everyone. Pleased to meet you. I am your Religion Moderator.
I have been asked by several posters to let you know any special guidelines which apply to posting in the Religion Forum on Free Republic. Here goes…
First, you should know that all moderators have authority on the Religion Forum and we are individuals and therefore what is tolerable to one may not be tolerable to another. However, I have general responsibility for this particular forum and spend most of my time reading your posts and moderating the conversations. And I do hold Religion Forum posts to a higher standard.
The previous Religion Moderator is still with us and other moderators who have served as Religion Moderator may also appear on thread with this handle. In other words, you cannot be sure that I am the person who posted with the handle. However, most of the time, it will be me simply because I’m reading all of your posts.
A few guidelines:
Threads which are devotional or church-like in nature (such as daily mass readings) will be protected from challenges to doctrine, etc. Reported challenges will be pulled. The titles of the threads should be clearly designated so other posters and the moderators will know.
Threads which are not clearly designated are open to challenges, like a public square.
Posters should remember they are not “preaching to the choir” on open threads – and take care to be respectful, clear and concise in their arguments. Passers-by will value your demeanor as much – or more than – the actual substance of your post.
This is very important: meet the offensive challenge to your doctrine on the open thread, do not mash the abuse button. I will not remove a challenge simply because it is offensive to your beliefs. If you cannot defend your own confession, then you are better off avoiding the open threads and leaving the reply to someone else of your confession.
Always argue the issues – theology, philosophy, history, etc. – and never make it personal.
If I see the conversation turn personal, I will intervene by pulling posts and/or posting a warning. If the misbehavior continues, posters may find themselves having to log back in – or they may be given a time-out to cool down.
In the extreme, the threads may be banished to the smoky backroom, locked or pulled. And a hot-headed or defiant poster may be banned.
Banned posters who try to sneak back onto the forum using a different handle are nuked. Trolls are nuked.
I have no tolerance for potty language simply because it inflames other posters and results in unnecessary abuse reports that moderators then have to process. It is a waste of everyone’s time and doesn’t help the poster’s image either.
Whenever I see a profanity – or a reference or acronym for a profanity – I will remove the post. If your post was pulled and you remember using such a word, just rephrase and repost and everything will be fine.
As with all threads on the forum – hatred and any suggestion of racism or violence will be pulled. Posts which are just plain tacky may also be pulled.
Calling an author a liar is permitted – calling another poster a liar is not.
Attributing motive to an author is permitted – reading the mind of another poster is not.
Poking fun at a confession is permitted, but be careful when poking fun at another poster. If he doesn’t think it is funny, I won’t either.
Don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of it. It all boils down to being respectful – phrase your challenges as if you were the recipient, i.e. think Golden Rule.
As a final note, try to work your problems out on-thread before resorting to an abuse report. The moderators are already over-worked and do not look kindly on abuse report spammers. More importantly, it is a good witness for your confession to be a peacemaker.
Addendum:
A toxic thread is a post which ridicules a person or deity who is deeply respected by other posters. The discussion is "poisoned" from the beginning.
As long as the posters discuss the issues the thread is useful - but if the discussion turns personal - even slightly - it will not be tolerated.
<< It is too much to ask for perfectly ethical debates when one side is not constrained to a standard other than personal preferences, >>
I note that this is only the second response to my question about ethics -- but it doesn't answer my question any more than the first one did. It only -- again -- casts aspersions on the other side, the side without a "book" to base any ethics on.
I did not ask whether we could have a fair debate, or whether the evos could be ethical. I have already stipulated, for the sake of argument, that we can't be counted on to tell the truth or hold to any standard of ethics at all. It's clear from your words above that you don't believe "my side" has any commitment to ethical and truthful debating. That is clear from all the anti-evos.
What I DID ask was if the Christian creationists had any commitment to ethical behavior for themselves -- regardless of the behavior of others.
The following scenario seems to sum it up:
I say: I believe in telling the truth and holding to a high ethical standard of behavior in debate. Do you?
Answer one: You are darkness -- I am light. You don't even deserve an answer.
Answer two: It's impossible to hold to a fair debate because your standard of ethics does not come from this book -- so I don't have to answer you, either.
The fact that I have not gotten one single direct answer to my question speaks volumes -- and drowns out all the moral preachments that are constantly thrown at us from those who claim to the be sole owners of absolute moral standards.
I don't read minds, but I can see the pain in your posts on Christianity. May God bless you and give you peace in His Grace.
As to your questions about ethics, we all know right from wrong, even when we deny they exist. Or, more commonly, deny their Origin.
I would recommend changing the debate - in that case the operative component is neither science nor doctrine but law.
Make the legal arguments, pro and con - authority for the agenda in education, publicly v privately funded institutions, caselaw, politics, social v fiscal conservatism, philosophy, etc.
Actually, the legal aspects are only half of the issue. If it could be shown and verified that one religious belief was unquestionably true, there would be no debate. The debate comes in from the fact that there are thousands of competing religious, each with their own beliefs and none can prove, with evidence, the superiority of its beliefs.
When a particular belief challenges some statement made by science, it is possible to go back to the scientific data and document the accuracy of a claim. For example, science can weigh in on the claim of a global flood with a considerable body of evidence from multiple fields of investigation.
So, I do not see the issue as being strictly legal in that science can and does have verified fact and theory to fall back upon; if either is incorrect, there is also a mechanism to correct an error.
You: That is the "official" method of science: methodological naturalism. But the metaphysical naturalists (atheists) in powerful positions wrt science (Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin, Singer) have tried to equate the two philosophies - hence the "intelligent design" movement which seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition.
But it's not a presupposition. It's an operational necessity -- "trade-craft," if you will -- as we've discussed before. We have no angel-detectors, no God-o-meters. It doesn't matter what a scientist thinks about religion -- he can believe in one God, or ten, or even thousands of them, or none at all. If the hand of Providence is invisible -- that is, not detectable (objectively verifiably so) with any presently-existing equipment -- then it's outside the scope of science. No atheism implied.
And Dawkins is an annoying boob. Good biologist, I understand, but a grand pain in the neck.
We Christians know that everything was made by Jesus Christ and for Him (Col 1), that He is the purpose for "all that there is", that He became flesh to reconcile all things whether in heaven or in earth to Himself, that He arose from the dead after three earth days. We believe He was born of the virgin Mary, that He raised Lazarus from the dead, that He made the lame walk and blind see, turned water into wine and so on.
Since we know Him personally and therefore know all these things, how then could anyone convince us to the contrary through empirical evidence, historical evidence or reasoning?
The same is true of the Noah flood and Creation - no matter what doctrine we embrace. A miracle is a miracle.
In sum, for those who have it, Spiritual knowledge trumps all other forms of knowledge whether sensory perception, reasoning or whatever.
And as we have discussed before, physics and mathematics (including information theory) are by far the most epistemologically zealous of the disciplines.
IMHO, there would be a greater peace between the combatants if all of science would stick to what can be said about observed phenomena - and acknowledge that “meaning” is the domain of theology/philosophy.
Common descent has not been directly observed, but may be reasonably inferred.
Which is exactly what science deals with. Reasonable inferences supported by enough evidence are what we in the real world call "theories".
The only evidence that the diversity of life forms we see today came from simpler forms of life billions of years ago is, (like the "tree of life,") as imaginary as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now it looks like you are back to the YEC party line.
It seems insulting to the Creationist who has passion about their views that some how they are not being honest!
I appreciate AG expression on this topic. I agree with her on many levels solely that Godhead is the Initial Architect or Creator!
I understand that AG says God but I am using Godhead because Genesis continuely refer to "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness"
The Lord is always instructing and talking to others
This is food for thought for another time just pointing out there is room to ponder!
Creationism is literally a belief that God created the universe.
Many times when I read creationist they are lock into the 5000 year theory and that I find difficult to digest!
It would be nice it this was a real open exchange when all could bring their understanding to the table and there is son much on this planet and also knowledge from the heavens that we have been able to gather!
To make a mockery or dismiss other sources to me is not fruitful should it not also have it day?
Is it not true that Paul was dead sure that what ever the saints has to offer was Blasphemy!
Is it not true that Paul could not hear hear the Lord, until the Lord got his attention!
Must it always be like that?
In my post #503
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.