How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[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.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Thanks, metmom!

[Mr. Silverback]

Did you read the article cited?

If you haven't, I'll wait until you do. It's very brief.

[Waits.]

OK, now that you've read it...

You're telling me that a person pledging to eliminate all forms of belief except his own is not practicing a religion?

You're telling me that a person who believes the best thing he can do for the human race is to promote his belief to the exclusion of all others is not practicing a religion?

You're telling me that someone suggesting a book that agrees with their views should receive the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion is not making a religious statement?

If a Catholic left a meeting of Catholics and said that the only topic under discussion was "should we bash Protestantism and Judaism with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat” would you think they were discussing their religion, or that they were discussing the proper way to rotate their tires?

There are people who maintain that such a religion exists, but all known religions have self-professed believers. As far as I know, no one professes a belief science as a religion.

Imagine how stupid you would think I was if I showed you a video of a Catholic Mass, and then told you that none of those people are really Catholics if they say they aren't. Doesn't matter if they were baptized, doesn't matter if they go to confession, doesn't matter if you just saw them take communion at Mass, if they walk out of the church and say "I'm a Methodist" that means they aren't Catholics. Period. End of discussion.

If someone believes that "natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences," one believes Scientism, whether one says he believes it or not.

If you doubt, that, tell me what it is that the folks in the article believe that isn't scientism.

[tpanther]

Just wow is right, coyoteman is perhaps the very worst hypocrite I’ve ever seen!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You quoted my claim to being a practising Christian and then called it into question, based upon an anecdote about my dog on a thread about eugenics.

[DieHard the Hunter] "I don’t know much about Eugenics, haven’t seen much presented on it before... Why is Eugenics discredited?"

[ECO] "Because there is no gene for prostitution, "hereditary pauperism" or "feeble-mindedness". And the studies (e.g., Jukes) were fraudulent."

[DieHard the Hunter] "If I want a female German Shepherd who is good with children, overtly affectionate, agile, medium-sized, good around guns and loud noises, strong bite and obedient, I can go to a breeder and have that precise dog produced. I know that for a fact, because I did exactly that, and she’s licking my face right now... a breeder can select a male with a bloodline that produces some of these characteristics, and a female whose bloodline supplies the rest, cross the two and bingo! There is the dog, custom-built to order.... So why not people?"

[ECO] "Because people are not dogs"

[DieHard the Hunter] "I guess where I am getting to in my learning on this thread is that Eugenics isn’t “bad science” or “false science” that has been proven scientifically to be false"

[ECO] "Hereditary pauperism"? Of course it is bad science. Ellis's article should be illustration enough."

[DieHard the Hunter to bronxboy] "I am not aware of being “flippant” about eugenics. I knew next to nothing about it, so I asked questions and drew conclusions."

[DieHard the Hunter] "But I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to suggest that humans cannot be bred like dogs... Therefore, Darwin is probably correct."

The first point: these exchanges should be sufficient to rebut any pretence to scientific rigor on your part, should you try to mount that pedestal against someone in this thread.

Why does it call into question your "I AM a Christian"? Because you believe man is made in the image of dog.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> The first point: these exchanges should be sufficient to rebut any pretence to scientific rigor on your part, should you try to mount that pedestal against someone in this thread.

That doesn’t follow. I asked questions, I received answers, I drew conclusions. All on a branch of science I was unfamiliar with: applying animal husbandry concepts to human beings.

The conclusion I arrived at is that while it might be technically possible, it isn’t morally supportable.

How any of that gives you license to climb on a high horse about my status as a practising Christian is less obvious.

> Why does it call into question your “I AM a Christian”? Because you believe man is made in the image of dog.

Show me where I said that. What a ludicrous thing to say! No wonder Atheists laugh at Christians: people like you give us all a bad name.

I’ve heard your best shot now. It was pathetic and unconvincing. We’re done.

[tacticalogic]

Do they profess a belief in the religion of Scientism?

Do you consider being able to profess your own religious beliefs, rather than have someone else declare them for you to be an exercise of your freedom of religion?

I don't agree with what they're saying, but I consider the tack of trying to make it a religion an abuse of theology, academically speaking.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

[Coyoteman]

Homo ergaster

By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations.

H. ergaster had a rounded cranium and a prominent browridge. Its teeth were much reduced in size, especially when compared to Australopithecus. Several features that distinguish H. ergaster from H. erectus are thinner bones of the skull and the lack of an obvious sulcus, or depression, just behind the browridge.

By 1.6 million years ago, an advance in stone tool technology is identified with H. ergaster. Known as the Achulean stone tool industry, it consisted of large cutting tools, primarily hand axes and cleavers. Originally thought to be responsible for the spread of early humans beyond Africa, it is now known that the migration out of Africa predates this tool industry. Source: Smithsonian Institution

Source

[Just mythoughts]

Kind of makes you wonder why it's OK for them to force their views on others (via litigation), but it's not OK for others to force their views on them.

Given the randomness of their claims one would think they would at least practice what they preach. IF their doctrine of evolution were in fact a truth they would accept whatever crawls forth from the primordial pots of hot steaming pond scum. Their scientific reasoning demonstrated by their art work and modeling clay has brought forth their 'new' age a Bama nation. They have the 'law' protecting their claims and even have by law required their doctrine to be funded and increased year in and year out. So they children of ridicule still feel threatened by those who have paid attention to the facts on the ground results of their doctrine.

Yet interestingly enough none of the technology has yet to match that 969 years (not quite a day with the LORD) of flesh living before God repented he put man in flesh and cut flesh life span to a mere 120 years. Oh, can't you just hear the jeers and sneers of quoting Genesis.

[Citizen Blade]

The latter part of this thread 200+ is a good example of the toxicity that flows from the evos in the name of science.

Um, the posts that have been pulled on this thread were all by a creationist poster. Did you miss that?

[GladesGuru]

“Pass the milk please”

Can I ask for a extra large serving of Otter Paws ice cream, instead?

[Citizen Blade]

Darwinism is a religion

The only people who consider Darwinism a religion are people on the fringe of those who do not accept the TOE.

I've never known anyone who accepts the TOE who considers Darwin anything more than one of history's greatest scientists and the TOE anything more than a scientific theory. Furthermore, I challenge you to tell the millions of Christians and Jews and other religious people who accept the TOE that they are apostates to their religion. They'd look at you like you were crazy (and rightfully so)

Calling something a religion doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[DevNet]

A monopoly on interpreting the Bible you don’t have.

[DevNet]

Who has forced their views on science using litigation?

[Fawn]

You don’t see human beings progressing from protozoa to man? You don’t think we evolved from apes?

[metmom]

Those evos and atheists who bring lawsuits against public schools for parents wanting to have creation and ID taught in addition to evolution.

And the evos on this forum throw their weight behind that, giving it their full approval. They support the litigation and argue in favor of it, along with the support of government control of curriculum.

Supporting the ACLU and NEA is a tough way to show that one has conservative values.

[metmom]

A monopoly on interpreting the Bible you don’t have.

That's funny coming from the group who insists that we accept THEIR interpretation of Scripture, as if they have a monopoly on it, when they tell us that the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

So how can they tell us how to interpret Scripture when by their own admission, they have a self-imposed ignorance of it?

And this is the same group that claims a monopoly on defining and interpreting what science is and how it's done.

[DevNet]

It isn’t that creation - which version? - is being taught that gets them sued. It is that they are teaching it in science class.

Something tells me that you would be the first to sue if your local school was teaching islam during science class.

[DevNet]

Who says I support the NEA and the ACLU?

[Alamo-Girl]

So how can they tell us how to interpret Scripture when by their own admission, they have a self-imposed ignorance of it?

Indeed. Great catch!

[tacticalogic]

Indeed. Great catch!

A very good point, if you start with the premise that to be a scientist you must abandon any religious beliefs in your personal life.