[MrB]

Cue the “not this sh!t again” guy.

And I’m an anti-Darwinist.

[RightWhale]

Why does this issue keep showing up on a political BBS?

[SoldierDad]

Because it’s easier to ridicule those that do not hold to the evolution belief.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Continental Soldier]

“...there may be some kind of guiding intelligence...”

Yes, there, certainly, may be. But the problem is that we have no way of really knowing. All of what we know is determined in our brains. Those brains are really very, very small — in our universe, smaller than an individual grain of sand on all the seashores of the world. Maybe that’s why I am always amazed at those who claim, in one way or another, to know the mind of God.

[Coyoteman]

This blog is nonsense.

Practically every day, for the past 150 years, evidence reputed to ‘prove’ Darwinism has been shown to be invalid or fake...

I would challenge the author to name five fakes in the past 150 years. I'll even spot you two as a starter: Piltdown and Archaeoraptor.

It should be easy to come up with three more fakes if they are occurring "practically every day" -- that would leave a population of some 25,000-30,000 such examples to choose from.

[Rippin]

In the public discussions, the shouters on both sides leave little room for good discussion. Check this as one of the few I’ve found ...

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho13.htm#Author

[MEGoody]

If anything is subject to ridicule, it is the answer that the world’s leading proponent and defender of Darwinian dogma, Richard Dawkins, gave to Ben Stein when Stein asked him about the origin of life.

I gotta admit. . .I had to hold both hands over my mouth to stifle my laughter when I saw this in "Expelled".

[GladesGuru]

Have you considered that just maybe, many are not going to seriesly consider another Hugh post in the ongoing battle between the “evos and the crevos?”

[alloysteel]

Darwinism ranks right up there with global warming as part of the new mythology, which presumes to use the guise of “science” to cover its obvious huge gaps in deductive logic, reasoning that the existence of one set of circumstances must necessarily apply to another similar set of circumstances. But in jumping from one position to what is supposed to be its logical procession of reasoning, there are just too many things that must be taken on faith alone. Why, for example, should there be more CO2 in the atmosphere, and at the same time, the oceans and atmospheres are warmer? The same dichotomy appears with trying to explain the rise of two similar but different species from a common anscestor. This may in fact happen, but maybe not by the mechanism that the Darwinists insist it must. Simply “natural selection” by “survival of the fittest” is not sufficient.

Which comes back to some agency directing “intelligent design”. For some reason, this concept scares the bat crap out of the devout Darwinists, who insist it “can’t happen that way”. To them, it threatens the ascendency of mankind.

Which means, a LOT of what they believe is in fact based on a lie. And maybe, if some of it is a lie, it is ALL a lie.

Nobody is more wretched or pathetic than a True Believer who has lost the basis of core beliefs.

[ml/nj]

Look. I believe evolution is a crock. But so is the notion that Darwinism was the "underpinning," as you say, of Nazism. This puts you firmly in the moonbat category so far as I am concerned, and any arguments you put forward would only embarrass thinking people who believe Darwinian evolution is a flawed concept. You would best keep your ideas to yourself.

ML/NJ

[allmendream]

Why? Because it is a productive theory to Science.

Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Genes and Development
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Genome Biology
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Infection, Genetics and Evolution

All journals filled with articles full of productive work based upon a productive theory. That is why Science keeps “bothering” with it.

[mjp]

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel.

[Caramelgal]

Why Do You Keep Boring Us with Darwinism Religion?

[freespirited]

Not only was Darwinism the underpinning for Nazism and Soviet Communism, it is the underpinning for modern liberalism and socialism

Darwinism, or more accurately, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, is the underpinning of modern biology. It is unclear to me why you feel necessary to link it to Nazism and Soviet Communism; my impression from the beginning of your piece was that you are interested in the truth of evolution. Surely you would agree that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether evil persons abuse it.

That said, I do not believe your statement about Nazism and Communism to be true. It is common to hear such assertions, but I am sure that the Holocaust would have happened even if Darwin had never written a word.

The Soviets practiced ridiculous deviations from modern biology for decades. Devotees of modern evolutionary thinking they were not. Fortunately, that period of lunacy is behind them.

Ben Stein is under the erroneous belief that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. It is not. It is about change in the gene pool of populations over time.

[Caramelgal]

If anything is subject to ridicule, it is the answer that the world’s leading proponent and defender of Darwinian dogma, Richard Dawkins, gave to Ben Stein when Stein asked him about the origin of life.

A lot of folks are claiming this is the great “gotcha” moment of the movie Expelled - silly atheist scientist exposed – he actually believes in space aliens!

But that’s not exactly what Dawkins said:

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could...

Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.

I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity...

Of course Dawkins’ full comments were left on the cutting room floor because they did not serve the purpose of the film. I think Expelled would have been a much more interesting and important movie if Stein and the producers would have offered a more open and honest dialogue between creationists (ID’ers) and evolutionary scientists and not interviewed the scientists like Dawkins and PZ Myers under false pretenses and used Fahrenheit 9-11 – Michael Moore style “documentary” techniques mixed with a bit of Borat style lame attempts at humor. It might have also been more interesting to hear from evolutionary biologists who are not ardent atheists, like Francisco J. Ayala who wrote the book “Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion” – “Ayala points out that science and religion perform different roles in human understanding: science offers a way of knowing the material world, but matters of value and meaning—the core of religion—are outside of the scope of scientific investigation”.

As far as attempts to link evolution and Darwin with genocide, anti-Semitism, abortion and homosexuality, I would point out that all these existed long before Darwin was born.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why Do You Keep Boring Us with Darwinism?

Does all science bore you or just evolution?

[Amendment10]

I’ve written several columns about my skepticism regarding Darwinism. Each time I do I receive snooty comments attesting to my stupidity and my ignorance. The Darwinists never seem to want to discuss any of the points I have tried to make, just to ridicule the very thought that there may be some kind of guiding intelligence behind the structures, the amounts of information, the complexities, the fine balance and the mysteries of life and our universe.

Don't be fooled. Darwinism is a scientifically disguised attack on Christianity which is why it is not going away.

From a related thread...

Unfortunately, based on everything I've heard about Mr. Stein's much needed movie, even Mr. Stein seems to be unaware of the broader problem of the USSC's unlawful stifling of free religious speech in public schools.

In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.

If anybody wants to see the USSC's bogus separation of church and state disappear before their eyes, a politically correct perversion of our constitutional religious freedoms that was wrongly legislated from the bench when the Court decided Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, then please read the following post. Note that while the post concerns a 10 Commandments issue it is also applicable to this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992174/posts?page=22#22

Note, for instance, that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussion on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.

The bottom line, as mentioned in the referenced post, is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state powers, particularly where the wrongly ignored 10th A. power of the states to address religious issues is concerned, power now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The people then need to get in the faces of renegade justices and do a major spring cleaning where USSC respect for our religious freedoms is concerned.

Lincoln put it this way.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas), 1858.

[Sun]

What really gets me is that only the ET theory is allowed to be taught in the government schools, and ID scientists get persecuted for even mentioning ID.

Gonzalez said” if they value their careers, they should keep quiet about their ID views”

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php