Tom Bethell Puts Darwinism on Defense

Human Events ^ | 12.17.05 | Pat Buchanan

[Coleus]

Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science

[dread78645]

pong.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, this will endear Pat to the "list".

[tallhappy]

PIG to Science is a great book.

Very well done as usual for Bethell.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping, but this article isn't worth disturbing the more than 330 intelligent, conservative people on the evolution ping list.

[GLDNGUN]

If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith -- and it is -- is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can't scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?

There you have it. Evolutionists say their theory is science, while creation is religion because it's based on faith. As Pat points out, evolution comes down to faith as well, so it is no less a religious belief than creation. This is why ID and creation have as much right to be taught as theories in the classroom as does evolution.

[Oztrich Boy]

Very well done as usual for Bethell.

nah! Still half-baked.

[js1138]

This one is too stupid to be worth a thread. Jus a rehash or old stuff from creationist websites,

[Arthur McGowan]

I love the way you parody the name-calling and non-arguments of the Darwinians!

[js1138]

The arguments will be along, and then creationists will complain that they are too long and detailed.

The assertion that there are no intermediate fossils is simply a lie. The author of the article should be ashamed for breaking the commantment against lying.

The lack of fossils for a particular lineage -- particularly one with fine and delicate bbones -- is a rether flimsy reed to place ones hopes on. It took a while to find transitional fossils for whales, but when found they were as expected.

The most amusing thing about the article is the admission that micro-evolution is indisputable. All evolution is micro-evolution. There is never a situation in which a child is a different species from its parents.

[tallhappy]

nah! Still half-baked

Have you read this book by Bethell?

[Oztrich Boy]

I read the article by Bethell which generated the original thread. More that enough to tell me he was full of it.

[Cicero]

I've come to the conclusion that Darwinists are invincibly ignorant. Nothing will persuade them.

Not only that, but their basic position is that no discussion or or argument should be permitted in public forums or in public schools schools. It must be all Darwin and only Darwin, period, no questions allowed.

[tallhappy]

Interesting. You revel in your anti-curiosity and anti-intellectualism and your know-nothingness. -- Ironically in the name of intellectualism and knowledge!!

[tallhappy]

I've come to the conclusion that Darwinists are invincibly ignorant

I know what you mean, but it has nothing to do with Darwin. There's another common denominator.

[Oztrich Boy]

I read the article, which was vitually a publisher's blurb for the book, written by the author.

It killed my curiosity when I realzed "intellectualism and knowledge" was not the market Bethell was aiming for.

[tallhappy]

It killed my curiosity when I realzed "intellectualism and knowledge" was not the market Bethell was aiming for.

What is the "market" Bethell is aiming for?

Put simply, you've never read Bethell, don't know who he is or what he writes or where he writes.

You are ignorant of a lot more than just biology and science.

Is there anything you do know other than to make smarmy attempted insults?

[Oztrich Boy]

Put simply, you've never read Bethell, don't know who he is or what he writes or where he writes.

So who wrote the article for him?

[tallhappy]

In "the original article" what do you think most well demonstrates how he is "full of it"?