Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
"The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.”
First of all, Jefferson's views here are the same as mine. But more important, they are the same as ancient philosophers going back to Aristotle and before. It is the philosophical principle of the First Cause.
But this discussion was always considered part of the higher philosophies -- or metaphysics = beyond physics. It was never part of mere "natural philosophy" which today we call science.
And that is the crux of the argument I've been making here over these many, many posts.
From your link.
As to Adam's wording in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Musselmen, IIRC this was inspired by the situation of the Barbary Pirates. The U.S. needed help from Tripoli which, of course, was/is Islamic. It seems to me Adams' language can be understood as pointing out that the institutional government of the United States was not officially Christian. Which under the doctrine of separation of church and state, it was not, and is not.
But that is hardly a declaration that Christian philosophy is not embedded in our founding experiences and documents.
It’s just one of several studies that I have read that suggest that the higher a scientist progresses through the ranks of the secular science establishment, the greater the likelihood that they will identify themselves as atheist.
I have a slender little volume of TJ's writings. But Burgh looks like the "mother lode!" Wow. In 19 volumes, no less! I hope my local library has it on their shelves.
Thanks so much, YHAOS!
When someone starts off by declaring that he’s going to “straighten” me out, a smiley face doesn’t make it all better.
”Everyone including scientists has personal opinions, which we are free to express any time.”
And that is the sum of your argument. It’s a personal opinion so attention need not be paid. Well, that’s your personal opinion to which I need pay no attention. Go “pound” some more sand.
When a scientist makes a public statement, he stakes his reputation on his assertion. When he enjoys a certain public celebrity based on his already known reputation, the stakes are raised. Therefore, he is counting on his reputation as a scientist to lend credibility to whatever he says (even what he says in private may come out and become a part of the public narrative). In no manner can it be taken that he is expressing a “personal opinion.” Otherwise he would not be making such statements at news interviews, on radio debates, or at academic seminars. He is delivering his professional opinion and staking his professional reputation on its credibility.
Richard Dawkins: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no” (emphasis mine).
In response, you run away and hide, excusing your behavior on the shibboleth “personal opinion.”
Now it’s time for you to blow great bellowing clouds of smoke, and deny, deny, deny.
He has examined his own internal state and also examined how you treat serious conversation. He has concluded his choice of words were perfectly elegant, as it turned out.
I thought I was carrying on a conversation with a fellow FReeper. I should have known I was talking with a Barney Frank who will use anything to political advantage. Oh well, the monkey never learns.
Your exact words (see post #1464). Mischaracterization is your gig.
More smoke. I know exactly what I’m talking about. That’s what bothers you.
”Of course I understand your concerns”
You understand nothing about me. You dare not understand anything about me.
Oh my. The earnestly anxious, sincerely baffled. Ye are legion.
”Anyone knows that whenever you take a poll”
Bada be . . . bada ba.
Great bellowing clouds of smoke.
Your local library likely does not have it. Google ‘Constitution Society’ and click on ‘Liberty Library.’ It’s #99 as I recall.
My pleasure, Dear Lady.
If you can cite me actual words from John Adams himself that he repudiated Christ and the Holy Spirit, I would consider that as dispositive of the matter. Short of that, I'm not willing to "speculate."
For insights into the man, consider the language of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, written by John Adams himself.
The 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, drafted by John Adams, is the world's oldest functioning written constitution. It served as a model for the United States Constitution, which was written in 1787 and became effective in 1789. (The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution were approved in 1789 and became effective in 1791). In turn, the United States Constitution has, particularly in years since World War II, served as a model for the constitutions of many nations, including Germany, Japan, India and South Africa. The United States Constitution has also influenced international agreements and charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Let me just quote the Preamble and the first sections of the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth or Massachusetts, our bill of rights:In 1915, the President of the American Historical Association stated, "If I were called upon to select a single fact or enterprise which more nearly than any other single thing embraced the significance of the American Revolution . . . I should choose the formation of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. . . ."
PREAMBLE.And so forth.
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness....
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship....
Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law....
Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.
Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
It seems to me (see para. 3 of the Preamble) that John Adams definitely thought we are a nation "under God." The Massachusetts Constitution was written under His "auspices" — while invoking His Power to sustain the government the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts created, in ratifying Adams' magnificent handiwork.
Thank you so very, very much kind sir!
It's an unedited scan (or at least it was the last time I saw it), so it condenses down quite a bit, but it's still a huge load. I've had people take several months before they could forgive me for putting them unto that site. You'll notice that there's a whole lot of other good stuff at that site. You can spend weeks just window shopping.
Not just Wiki, dear lady, but all Atheist web sites (ptooie!). Friend BroJoe stands in desperate need of genuine hardcore research.
I’ve not had an opportunity to address your recent posts to me but rest assured that I will.....hopefully have some time this evening.
Stay tuned.
OK....
That last post was intended for BroJoeK.....
****Here’s what would impress me: these same scientists, who are both knowledgeable and doubtful of evolution, have done research and published scientific articles which express in scientific terms actual research results that could effect our understand of evolution (or not evolution).****
Have you heard the expression Catch 22?
We’ve trod this ground before.....they won’t publish any research done unless it meets with the evolutionary paradigm. I’m sure you know the case of Richard Von Sternberg and what happened to him.
He’s got 2 PhD’s - Biology (Molecular Evolution) and System Science (Theoretical Biology) - and has had 30 articles peer-reviewed and published. He is not an ID proponent. His mistake was peer reviewing an ID article and publishing it in “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.”
The last I heard he was still looking for work.
Would you publish something if it cost you your cushy tenured job making 6 figures with no chance (other than moral terpitude) of ever getting fired?
A little off the point but is a big part of what we are discussing:
ID theory and Creation are two different things. ID doesn’t put forth that God did it....just that since biological systems appear to be designed (and just about every scientist will say that they do), it is a legitimate basis for inquiry. As far as ID is concerned it could be Aliens or Goober the Trained Creator Dog. They just want to investigate design.
Creationists, like myself, go further and get more specific.
The God of the Bible created all things just as He tells us He did in the Bible.
Here’s a Richard Dawkins quote from his book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Here’s one from Francis Crick’s book “One Mad Pursuit”:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
There’s only one reason you’d have to keep that in mind....because it looks designed.
Scientists are more than willing to say that it looks designed but in spite of this they won’t allow anyone to go down that path because at the end they might find God there.
“It looks like a steaming pile of dog relief but since I don’t want any dogs around here, I’ll just go ahead and step in it.”
In short....they ARE stepping in it..and the more science advances, the more they are going to figure that out.
****Not at all. In my mind, a “serious scientist” is doing actual research in his or her field, and publishing peer-reviewed results in recognized journals.
The importance of this is, when that happens, THEN you have an actual “scientific debate” going on. But now you don’t. All you really have now is some obviously religiously motivated people lowdly shouting, “we don’t want to believe what science is telling us!”****
Research is being done but nothing is being published and you know why....its in my previous post.
****Obviously religiously motivated****
This is obviously garbage. Many secular scientists are casting doubts and asking questions. Google David Berlinski (just one example), who has no religious ax to grind and see what he says.
****”we don’t want to believe what science is telling us!”****
By the way, for a lot of people (including a lot of scientists) it’s not that they don’t want to believe science, it’s that they believe the evidence for macroevolution to be specious and unconvincing.
So do I.
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.