Captain, there be trolls here!
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
Hear! Hear!
History itself has shown that proponents of genocide based their practice upon the "scientific" application of Darwinian ideas. Now, that does not make guilt by association a good argument as to whether Darwinism is true or not. Nevertheless, it is not inconsistent to apply the theory in a manner that treats human kind as no more valuable than a mice, or birds. To this day there are people, namely liberals, who teach this very thing. I'm sure you are not inclined in that direction.
"For those interested, in which post number did you give the non-tautological reformulation?"
You haven't shown where I made a tautological definition.
That is because I am not a Hitler, or Stalin, or Sanger. I believe the sanctity of life militates against Darwinism and its intentional application to the human species. You apparently would not be convinced of the connection betrween Darwinism and genocide even if you were to crawl inside the heads of those who practiced it. Even those who practice it would say, "Genocide? What Genocide? A bunch of people are dead. So what?"
Now, if you'd care to go back and read #842 all the way through you might see where I agreed in part with what you would like to say, namely that guilt by association does not make a good argument when it comes to science.
I am glad you pointed that out. The Left is still blaming Christians for most of the genocide in the world's history (someone who calls himself a good Catholic tried that on me the other day). It's actually Communism that's responsible for more deaths than any other philosophy.
In short, you can't, or perversely won't, make an explicit statement of a manifestly non-tautological formulation to replace Fester Chugabrew's parodic tautological description of natural selection.
This is exactly the kind of behavior from defenders of neo-Darwinism that feeds into the success of your opponents: bluster in place of serious engagement with their points.
*I* pointed out that the public defense of modern evolutionary biology has been ham-handed and incompetent, and that the description of natural selection used in polemics is tautological. You were confronted with a tautological version by an opponent (FC, not me), and have made yourself an poster-child for incompetence in defense of science by refusing to demonstrate how what you mean by 'natural selection' is not tautological. Pathetic.
One looks more like any designer was drunk than does the other.
Viral infection scars in the genomes in exactly such a way as to look like a forensic trail of common descent. Vestigial features. Suboptimal design.
Maceplarker
Linnaeus was a creationist. However, man's clear affinities to the other primates apparently troubled him.
It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none. If only someone would tell me one! If I called man an ape or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to scientifically...
It is the morphological similarities between men and simians that leads to conjecture regarding their relationship through history. Maybe simians are descended from humans who rejected the biblical texts as authoritative and accurate.
I hear two stories regarding evolution in general. One tells a story of progress from simpler to more complex creatures. The other says there is no such thing. Which story do you believe?
*You think Jonas a "metaphor."
Unable to harmonise that personal opinion with Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium you appear to have sturck out on an anfractuous route as a way to dodge the responsibility you have to retract your idea and admit your error.. It is clear to me you won't admit your error and it ought to be just as clear to you that I am not following you down your long and winding road.
BTW, your ideas about Jonas do harmonise with such men as John Spong, FWIW
OK.
Before we had other lines of evidence, we only had the morphology, but now we have molecular trees and transitional fossil series evidence all saying that the morphological evidence is just what it looks like. That's no real problem, of course, since you simply discard all that without worrying about how big the discard pile is growing.
So, maybe in Fester-think a red squirrel monkey is a fallen descendant of Adam but a non-simian lemur is a separate created kind?
Why? Such a conclusion is an enormous leap, especially since you cannot justify the assumption on the morphological gap distances. That's without even considering the other lines of evidence, against which it makes not the tiniest bit of sense at all.
So busy laughing at your first paragraph I forgot this. I only hear one story of evolution in general.
I don't mind you being born again, Fester, but do you have to show up dripping with placental juices on every thread?
There's only one pile of evidence, yes. You can say "God might have left it looking like that" about anything at all, yes.
But you're only denying that evidence means anything.
One suggests long periods of time with fluidity, or progress, between and among life forms.
This is the one that has the evidence and is being further investigated by science.
The other suggests a relatively short period of time, with a limited amount of change.
This is the realm of cultists.
From the standpoint of relative truth neither position should be entitled to special protection by law.
From the standpoint of what goes into science class, the science version is in and the cult version is out.
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.