Skip to comments.
Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution
Original scene from the show... Friends. ^
| NA
| NA
Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 2,721-2,723 next last
To: Mr.Atos
Religious history is all very nice but beside the point.
Completely.
It really revolves around the issues of state financial support for religion, and state endorsement of religion.
This is an area of law that has some grey areas, but the bright lines are quite well drawn and have been for many years.
101
posted on
07/25/2003 2:30:54 PM PDT
by
CobaltBlue
(Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
To: CobaltBlue
cb ...
the bright lines
fC ...
the ' brights ' ... overlords --- troll GODS !
102
posted on
07/25/2003 2:34:11 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: whattajoke
not really worth the time or effort... but ... Well, I haven't been following this thread, but everything counts for something, I suppose.
103
posted on
07/25/2003 2:37:16 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(When rationality is outlawed, only outlaws will be rational.)
To: Mr.Atos
Historically speaking, that would suggest (at least form a cultural anthropological standpoint) that Christianity had a significant influence and supremacy of Western Civilization. Sure. Whether it was overall a positive or negative influence is not an easy question. You weigh Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal on on side, the Thirty Years War on the other....
philosophical notions that contributed to defining the primacy of individual existences as ultimately manifested in the Constitution (The pinnacle document in human civilization) were not possible in absense of Christian tradition.
Hmmm. That's a 'what if'. What if Greco-Roman civilization had been uninfluenced by Christianity? Hard to say. To what extent was the philosophy of the enlightenment an outgrowth of Christian tradition, and to what extent an antithesis? Were the Founding Fathers acting in that tradition, or were they shedding it in the essence and holding on only to the superficialities? And what if Christian tradition had never been there at all? I consider this point to be unproven.
To: exmarine
Neither was William Jennings Bryan - who more than held his own during the questioning in the Scopes trial. In fact, no evolutionist would dare take the stand in that trial. Cowards that they were.The defense called numerous scientific witnesses. The prosecution objected. The judge didn't let them testify. Who would you say was cowardly?
To: CobaltBlue
When you include God with religion your ideology goes too far ... especially when you replace God with evolution - ATHEISM --- breaking the establishment clause with a stealth religion - ' science ' !
No way ... separation (( YES )) of ideology - religion - whacks --- not God !
Something we all should consider is the founding fathers did not escape tyranny to perpetuate another tyranny - MONPOLY ... we were founded upon God AND religious liberty and defending it is our obligation --- EVO liberals have made God and right and wrong - freedom - speech a thought crime and themselves ACLU whacks evolution NAZIS - our overlords - us slaves !
Watch those senate confirmation hearings and if you publicly state your beliefs and sincerity you are vetted - crucified ... there is supposed to be no religious - ideological special interest test or PLEDGE for office and now the supreme court has established a liberal CARTEL - clergy - priesthood ... abortion - pornography - evolution ONLY monopoly ? - gun control - racial - sexual preferences especially !
106
posted on
07/25/2003 2:53:57 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: Right Wing Professor; All
The moment the GOP adopts an anti-evolution platform is the moment I vote for the Ass party" 81 posted on 07/25/2003 3:15 PM CDT by Right Wing Professor http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/952079/posts?page=81#81
Sounds like you already do.
RINO ALERT!
107
posted on
07/25/2003 2:59:01 PM PDT
by
ALS
(http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
To: Right Wing Professor; unspun; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; RadioAstronomer; js1138; Junior; Nebullis; ...
I also resent any implication that evos gravitate to Dawkins politically. I admire his writings on evolution. I despise his politics. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me for saying this, Professor, BUT -- Dennett's/Dawkins' hateful political ideology is perfectly "cognate" with materialist theory in general, and Darwinist theory in particular, on all principal points.
If you doubt me on this, then perhaps that only means you aren't paying attention "to the details" -- of the theory itself, or of the socio/cultural ramifications/purposes to which "expert science" is being subjected, and which are playing out in quite alarming ways, these days.
For what it's worth, guy.... I do wish you well in all things.
108
posted on
07/25/2003 2:59:17 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
To: ALS
Liberal missionaries (( evos )) trying to ' save ' the FR ... nothings changed !
109
posted on
07/25/2003 3:03:35 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: ALS
Rightwing - gulag - professor ... patrickgulaghenry too !
110
posted on
07/25/2003 3:06:09 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: betty boop
I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me for saying this, Professor, BUT -- Dennett's/Dawkins' hateful political ideology is perfectly "cognate" with materialist theory in general, and Darwinist theory in particular, on all principal points. Christianity has found itself quite compatible with slavery as well as the anti-slavery movement; with marxism and with conservatism; with polygamy and with celibacy. The lesson, it seems, is that religion, which makes ethical statements, really is orthogonal to political philosophy; all the more reason why science, which makes no such statements, is even less coupled to any particular brand of politics.
To: Mr.Atos
This reminds me:
How do you keep an idiot is suspense?
To: Right Wing Professor
religion, which makes ethical statements, really is orthogonal to political philosophy; all the more reason why science, which makes no such statements, is even less coupled to any particular brand of politics. Right. The problem with Stalin's evolution was that they tried to use bequeathal of acquired characteristics, which is the point of education and tradition in society, as some kind of effective tool in the bio-inheritance world. That was the problem, why the process fails, it's being used to measure a phenomenon of a different axis, maybe orthogonal or not, but a different axis. Maybe Stalin knew that, who can say, but many others would not get it.
113
posted on
07/25/2003 3:20:35 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Destroy the dark; restore the light)
To: Right Wing Professor
Don't you think that YOUR religion (( atheism // evolution ONLY )) ...
replacing all religion and even God (( neutral - generic )) ---
is too far over the line (( ESTABLISHMENT // monopoly of religion - IDEOLOGY )) ?
ATHEIST ' science ' republic ...
would you allow an agnostic ' thinking- learning ' FREEDOM republic ---
your ideology - science wouldn't allow that ?
Evolutionists doen't even think - know or learn what a conservative is !
114
posted on
07/25/2003 3:30:46 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: Right Wing Professor
115
posted on
07/25/2003 3:37:40 PM PDT
by
ALS
(http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
To: Mr.Atos
The difference between people who believe in evolution and people who believe in G-d is simple.
Those who are into evolution are fascinated with lower life forms.
116
posted on
07/25/2003 3:48:25 PM PDT
by
Jeremiah Jr
(Free Your Mind...5:15 DEBARIM)
To: Right Wing Professor; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; Nebullis; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; ...
Christianity has found itself quite compatible with slavery as well as the anti-slavery movement.... [yada yada yada] Dear RWP, it appears you have chosen to resort to "cheap debating points" rather than directly engage the issue I raised. IMO, one doesn't clarify debating points by resorting to the tactics of "moral equivalency" where such do not apply/obtain. The argument is clear enough, as long as you don't "smoooodge it" with too much irrelevancy.
Just to restate it: "Dennett's/Dawkins' hateful political ideology is perfectly "cognate" with materialist theory in general, and Darwinist theory in particular, on all principal points."
Please don't run a whole of "spun history" by me here. Just refute the proposition, if you can.
117
posted on
07/25/2003 4:01:13 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
To: Jeremiah Jr
The difference between people who believe in evolution and people who believe in G-d is simple. Your classification ignores the vast number of people who believe in God, and still accept the theory of evolution as good science.
To: betty boop
Dennett's/Dawkins' hateful political ideology is perfectly "cognate" with materialist theory in general, and Darwinist theory in particular, on all principal points." As it stands, it's an unsupported assertion, and one that begs way too many questions:
- Darwinist theory is necessarily materialist (I think it is of necessity naturalist, but not materialist; I've previously expressed doubts about determinist theories of mind, for example).
- That Dennett and Dawkins have a particular 'bright' political ideology. I don't see it. I chased down Dennett's article, and it simply said they were a group of naturalist rationalists. To tell you the truth, after trying to argue with our own troup of fundamentalist know-nothings (and you know that doesn't include you or a few others here, but it includes a lot of posters on crevo threads), I'm seriously thinking of joining these folks, if only to make sure they have an appropriately conservative counterweight.
Maybe we can have a caucus of bright FReepers.
BTW, I will post the Dennett article, when I get time.
To: Right Wing Professor
As it stands, it's an unsupported assertion, and one that begs way too many questions.... LOL, RWP!!! Maybe that's the reason I invited you here, to just "knock it all down!" (Which you chose not to do at this time, I gather.)
I'm all up for "a caucus of bright FReepers" to deliberate this question. What forum could conduce to that end? That wouldn't end up with the main argument of debate being hauled, kicking and screaming, into the Smokey Back Room -- hardly a serious archive of "serious thought" here, or anywhere else?...
I'm always looking forward to anything new from Dennett. He seems to make sense about a lot of things, often enough. (But I still "lose him" on grounds of logic, reason, experience, world view in the longer run....)
I'm looking forward to anything of his you wish to post here, RWP. (I'm sure I'd find some way to have "fun with it," one way or another....)
Good night, and thanks in advance!
120
posted on
07/25/2003 6:50:06 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 2,721-2,723 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson