Sorry folks, I've been out "pounding sand" to make my daily dough, now let's see if I can help straighten out some of your thinking. ;-)
Btw, I like to keep posts as short and to-the-point as possible, so instead of one long post, you'll see several, each addressing a main point.
Now I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned, most recently Cayoteman.
Well, I'll keep going until I get banned too. Then we'll know something about Free Republic that I didn't know before, won't we?
And, we should take note of the fact that the first "free republicans" were our Founding Fathers, and it's their views on things that I've tried my level best to reflect.
In this regard, we should note that our Founding Fathers were almost all Christians (Thomas Paine is the only athiest name which comes to mind), some very devout, but most not really.
Remember, Jefferson and Adams are often accused of being Deists. Washington was a sincere Christian, but also a Mason, along with many others, which means they were in no way devoted to any particular church's doctrines.
And Benjamin Franklin, the elder statesman among our Founders, was the world's preiminent scientist. So, in defense of our Founders, I will also defend science.
I'll note once again that among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.
Finally, I'm being told the reason Free Republic opposes the theory of evolution is because it's a product of "atheistic science." Well, here is a source for my claim that most scientists DO believe in God:
OK. Now that you’ve played the martyr (in advance), could you address his post?
Buy a clue. Don't mouth back at the owner of the site, and you'll be OK to start with.
Then we'll know something about Free Republic that I didn't know before, won't we?
Like what? What do you think it would tell us?
I have just finished reading David McCollough's magisterial biography of our second President. If Adams was a Deist, McCollough didn't notice it. On the contrary, Adams — of Puritan stock — was a deeply religious man God-fearing Christian who, probably more than any other president we've had — took God's Law as the standard for his public and personal actions. And his dear wife, Abigail, was likewise.
As for Jefferson, who knows what he really thought and believed? Not for nothing is he called "the American Sphinx." But if someone wants to call him a Deist, perhaps that's not too far off the mark. Certainly he was a child of the Enlightenment.
BroJoeK, you wrote, "I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned...." It seems to me Coyoteman didn't ever do too much "defending" of science here; mainly he specialized in launching spitwads. But FWIW, I'll miss him anyway.
Don’t have a lot of time to reply to all of your posts but I’ll take just a moment to reply to this.
You can’t get banned from Free Republic for what you believe.....only for your behavior. While This is the first thread in which I’ve decided to participate in a very long time I’ve been lurking for at least 8 years.
People get banned because they are obnoxious, insulting or foul-mouthed, one of the three.
The Evolutionary side of the argument on this web site incessantly does that.
I think that’s what Karl Marx said to Frédéric Bastiat. I think that’s what the Reds and the Anarchists said to the people of Chicago at Haymarket. I think that’s what the IWW said to our Mid West farmers while tossing phosphorus cakes in their wheat fields (see Zane Grey’s The Desert of Wheat). I think that’s what ‘Uncle Joe’ said to Trotsky before he had someone bury a hatchet in old Leon’s head. I think that’s what Mark Rudd &c said while bombing banks and murdering cops. I think that’s what his Soviet masters said to Solzhenitsyn when they threw him in a gulag. I think that’s what we are more and more hearing today from one Buraq H Obama and his minions. And, I know that’s the kind of Liberal schtick I’ve been hearing for sixty years.
But I’m going to assume that you meant that remark in a kindly and good-humored fashion. As a matter of fact, I would like you to straighten me out on a few things; that being questions I’ve asked, which you’ve never answered, and which were keyed directly on assertions and accusations you’ve made. They’re contained in the next four paragraphs with post numbers so you can check the thread for context (context is important; we know that because we’ve been told so by our betters, who lecture us severely on the subject anytime we confront them with an issue they find uncomfortable – uh . . . when they don’t just run away):
#1509 - What credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?
#1496 - You are a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur, yet you seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world (Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can.
And again – In pointing out differences of behavior from one venue to another, I asked you if you had exercised any great care in familiarizing yourself with how scientists characterize their own discipline.
And again – In response to your complaint that science was being accused of ‘suppressing alternate views,’ I asked if you had discussed the data and the logic with the accusers, or if you had merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike.
So straighten me out on those issues, if you can.
”Now I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned, most recently Cayoteman. [sic]”
Do you ever check what you’ve been ‘told’? Or does little old blue-eyed innocence you just swallow whole anything you’re fed? Coyoteman committed suicide by moderator. He engaged in behavior towards JR that he knew would get him banished. He was a FReeper Kamikaze. He wanted DC immortality, and he knew how to get it. I’m sure there was a silk scarf and sake ceremony over at DC before his final flight into FReeper oblivion.
And, what you’ve been ‘told’ in no ways accounts for the considerable number of ‘fundamentalists’ who were tossed off FR several years ago for behavior similar to coyoteman’s. But none of your informants knew anything about that, did they.
”Well, I'll keep going until I get banned too.”
Yes, and you’re such a brave, brave fellow too. My heart swells with admiration. We’ll speak of you with fondness and regret for years (decades even). [sniff]
”And, we should take note of the fact that the first "free republicans" were our Founding Fathers, and it's their views on things that I've tried my level best to reflect.”
You’re failing.
”In this regard, we should note that our Founding Fathers were almost all Christians”
You’ll get no argument from me on that score. But, do you understand how many of the scientists you passionately defend would vehemently deny this last statement? They dare not admit that Christianity’s influence had any part in the founding of the United States.
”Washington was a sincere Christian, but also a Mason, along with many others, which means they were in no way devoted to any particular church's doctrines.”
What are you talking about? Washington was for many years a vestryman at Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. My grandfather was a 32nd degree mason and a Presbyterian. So what? Have you a conspiracy theory you would like to share for the thread’s amusement?
”So, in defense of our Founders, I will also defend science.”
I don’t know what you genuinely believe you are defending, but it isn’t science and it isn’t the Founding Fathers.
”. . . among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.”
What do you mean “taught”? Do they spend twenty minutes each week in Conformation or Sunday School teaching something called “theistic evolutionism.”? Or at the Wednesday night prayer gatherings? My grandson attends a parochial school, and they teach Science, not “theistic evolutionism.” And there’s none of this business that Evolution somehow proves that: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (per Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). As a matter of doctrine a good number of denominations may, indeed, subscribe to the validity of science, but when certain religious, philosophical, or moral conclusions are derived from science facts, that’s when the fur starts to fly.
”Well, here is a source for my claim that most scientists DO believe in God: 2/3 of scientists believe in God”
You cite MSNBC as the source for your claim? The first thing I note about that is that it is MSNBC. That’s like asking me to take VP Biden seriously. The second thing I notice is that social scientists have to be included to give a boost to the number of ‘scientists’ who believe in God (God or a god?). Do you understand in what scorn social scientists are held by those in FR who count themselves as scientists or who claim to speak for scientists? This is hardly credible.
To counter your claim, I offer an equally unreliable source: Time, 5 November 2006, God vs. Science which reports considerably less belief in God on the part of genuine scientists, and considerably greater tension between science and religion. Guess these two 'sources' had differing agendas at the time they produced their respective reports.
But don’t let us get you down. Address schaef21’s post and keep of FReeping.
(Courtesy ping to JR)