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
Maybe he temporarily forgot we are the agents of Satan.
<< 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. >>
You are misreading my "pain." I have no regrets or doubts about my change in belief -- and I am not now "anti-Christian" in attitude. As I said in another thread -- and got screamed at by a creationist for saying it -- I like Christians.
I spent over fifty years of my life among Christians. The Christian world was my main world. Most of my friends have always been conservative Chistians, and many still are. The only ones who are not are the creationists who could not get over the fact that I had rejected YEC -- but that happened twelve years before I changed my beliefs about Christianity.
Even today, as I have also said before, I am still strongly "pro-Christian." I have no "pain" about Christianity. I just have this feeling of being totally flabbergasted that I can't get a single creationist in here to agree that we should adhere to ethical standards in debate, even if they don't believe I am capable of doing so.
<< As to your questions about ethics, we all know right from wrong, even when we deny they exist. >>
I did not ask if "we know right from wrong." I asked if the creationists felt any OBLIGATION to be truthful and ethical in debate, even though they don't believe the "enemy" is capable of being so. That's all I'm asking -- and no one will answer yea or nay.
If I asked the same question of the evos -- I am confident that the overwhelming majority of them would agree with me that we should tell the truth and be ethical. Maybe only a few would speak up -- but even a few is more than none. And I am sure I would not get any answer as haughty and holier-than-thou as "darkness vs. light."
<< Or, more commonly, deny their Origin. >>
See, here's the problem with that statement. It seems to be saying that if we posit any other "Origin" for ethical standards other than the one you believe to be the origin -- then they are "denying" that those ethical standards even exist at all. Yes, I noticed the capital-O -- and I know what you are getting at.
But even if others do not agree with you about the origin of ethical standards -- if they do agree that all of us SHOULD adhere to those standards, that is a good foundation for honest debate. In addition -- it really doesn't matter that others disagree with your opinion about the "Origin" of the standards -- as far as my question is concerned, and as far as Christian ethics -- as I know them -- are concerned. All that matters -- as far as my question goes -- is whether or not the Christian creationists in here feel any obligation to adhere to those standards I outlined -- regardless of the behavior of others, and regardless of where others think those standards come from.
From my fifty+ years around conservative Christians, I got the strong impression that the vast majority of them would say: Yes, of course we are obligated to adhere to high standards of ethics, even if others do not. Since we believe that God is the source of those standards, we should endeavor all the more to model good ethics for those "on the outside."
It would have never occurred to them to say, "We can lie because we are dealing with liars" or "darkness vs. light -- you get no answer." They would be horrified and embarrassed by such behavior from people claiming to be one of them.
Salt crystals forming in a bottle of NaCl is the result of ID?
ya all seem to have your lingo would be nice to post them so others could have a fuller understanding what you folks are saying.
Thank you!
such as YEC?
Fair enough, but in the ID movement is a misguided approach entirely. They are doing great harm to their original cause.
YEC = Young-earth Creationist. Generally involves a belief in creation of everything by the god of the Bible -- the entire universe, the earth, and all life, a few thousand years ago, fixity of "kinds," and no common descent beyond the level of "kinds."
OEC = Old-earth Creationists. Generally accept the findings of science that are rejected by YEC -- old earth, old universe, even evolution of life -- with the exception of humanity.
You are the one who started this by calling creationists "kooks" and "terrorists". Even though you have no facts to back up your claim you have resorted to name calling.
Would it be OK to use some non-Darwin based philosophy for genocide or eugenics?
Dawkins is a great writer. No one IMO does a better job explaining biological concepts. "The Selfish Gene" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" are great places to start for any one interested in understanding modern biology.
The stuff he interjects on atheism is *very* annoying to me as it's irrelevant and distracts from the main points. He needlessly ruins any opportunity for these books to be used in elementary biology classes, which is a real shame.
could it not be possible that recorded history seem to be around 7000 years or so.
Since it would be a long time before man could venture off this glob would not the Creator have given us almost every thing man would need to know reside somewhere on this planet?
Could not the Planet it self is a composition of various sources when created!
Could not this planet be composed from ancient or discarted planet source, as well as some ingredients from living planets and of course earth having its own idenity!
Could this not answer some disputes going over carbon data?
Maybe you would like to rethink your Stalin and evolution idea. At the same time, some more who espoused evolution. I certainly wouldn't say good company.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/tyrants.html
I tried to follow the conversation back through the posts between you and 1000 and others, but never actually found a reason for doubt that Christians, including YEC, would be truthful.
In my discussions with YEC's, I only see a firm belief that any findings that contradict a young Earth must be misinterpreted or misunderstood (and I have seen some religious reasons for that misunderstanding, including those similar to the Screwtape Letters reference). I've seen both sides question the ethics of the other.
I will say that the meanest are those who deny that there is a Creator - just ask Richard Stemberg. My main interest is bioethics and too many of the non-believers have a problem with human rights.
I've come to agree with Ann Coulter: evolution is the religion of those who don't believe in a Creator. And there is a ton of evidence that there is a direct relationship between the early eugenicists, socialism, and (the religion) of teaching evolution.
In sum, for those who have it, Spiritual knowledge trumps all other forms of knowledge whether sensory perception, reasoning or whatever.
Fine, no problem.
The problem for many of us, though, is when you try to teach your particular religious belief in science class, when science has produced evidence to the contrary. Your belief, dear as it may be to you, does not constitute scientific evidence.
I think there needs to be more awareness
Some believers don't accept evolution
Some believers accept a version of evolution
Some evolutionist don't accept a Creator
Some evolutionist accepts a creator!
In short, no.
Well explain why that would help!
In the Book of Mormon, Alma is a man. "The account of Alma, who was the son of Alma the first, and chief judge over the people of Nephi, and also the high priest over the Church".Book of Alma Son of Alma
All the Muslim terrorists, killers and kooks are creationists. I'm not sure about how closely the terrorists, killers and kooks in the predominately-Catholic IRA and ETA follow RC doctrine, or what percentaage of Orangemen terrorists, killers and kooks are creationists.
Additionally:
TE = theistic evolutionist
ID = intelligent design
Saves a lot of time typing when these come up so often!
What is a "midrash" ??
New word to me...
Cheers!
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.