Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
My thoughts exactly.
Eccl. 1:9 :)
Y're wroung thair, laddie. My grandad, from the pure Highlands of Scotland, would nae maer purch hisself on such wee rockies than he would forgo a dram!
I agree, but from a Conservative stance, I have seen Evolution thought processes used to justify Liberalism. Especially in younger parties. The community needs to mature -- though, as a large portion of Liberals supporting the community, I do not see this happening in the distant future without strict guidelines to include the heavy Christian Conservative population.
I view Evolution (non-micro or ID based) as an atheist philosophy by standard -- this is accepted true by non-liberal Christians.
I view the Christians as generally Conservative.
I see a large statistic of Conservatives as Christian.
What happens when Christianity is removed?
Any stats to back this up? In my experience, most creationists are black and D*m*cr*t. WJ Bryan was hardly a free market advocate. Darwin was.
Islamfascists too?
Then please allow me this attempt to "enlighten" {rant?} without sounding insulting.
To summarize;
Author claims "Darwinian science" is the enemy of leftists.
Post #34- I make light of Arnhart's claim by suggesting a simple observation.
Post #50- You respond by sarcastic sleight-of-hand i.e."That's a great idea! Let's determine what the content of 150 years of modern biology is by taking a poll of the citizenry's bumper stickers!" {Please note that you changed the subject here.}
You continue:
"No where else in the world do Conservatives have the anti-science stance which a small (but rather vocal) group of American social conservatives do. It's a pity, because we are otherwise all natural allies over issues of substance."
And may I point out..: If we are so "small but vocal", How did a few ignorant, anti-science, Bible waving hicks manage to roll the House, the Senate, and the Presidency while simultaneously battling our own party's liberals?
You and others seem to show some disdain for those who are the foundation for the conservative movement in America. We rightfully claim that position. We believe our rights are gifts from God, not government.{Lefties really hate that one.} It was a small group of social Christian conservatives who founded this country. Now I don't claim to know what constitutes a conservative in the "Queen's English", But let me assure you we aren't liked by leftists over here. I don't hear Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, or the RINOs wailing over "blue-blood and moderate" republicans, libertarians, or those Reagan democrats.
We may not like "divide and conquer" games, but we know how they are played.
I do believe you are wrong here. The only organism that can truly be said to be capable of deliberately choosing changes is Man. Since Larmarck claimed his principles applied to all living things, he could not have meant to apply it just to humans.
Anyway, the Commies meant to use it to create changes in all humans under their control, not just those who deliberately chose to go along.
Although you are correct that Larmarckian theory would in general fit better with Intelligent Design. It would allow us to design ourselves.
Certainly.
Which is why so many Christians have spent so much time and energy pointing out where exactly these are misapplications.
Any idea or ideology can be misapplied.
"You seem to believe that Christians are defined as Christian by not believing Evolution."
I do not know where you found me makin such claim, because this would be incorrect.
"You state in a post that you are an IDist. I hope you are aware that most IDists say they believe an alien race could be the designer. How does that fit in with your definition of IDist?"
In the least IDists integrate an intelligent force. They do not decline Evolution, but they do not decline an Intellient force. Evolution makes no such claim to protect Christianity, but defines life through various natural or random causes. Evolution has not implemented a protective layer for religion. (The generic Evolution theories that I have seen, or been forced to read in my educational process.)
"and there is no new thing under the sun"
What about this article or thread made you decide to move it to chat?
Name a single atheist who supported slavery.
Name a Christian or Muslim who did (or does).
Name a single Darwinist who supported slavery.
Name a creationist who did (does).
Name an atheist who is or was antisemitic.
Name a Christian or Muslim who is.
Name a Darwinist who is or was antisemitic.
Name a creationist who is.
"Because, ultimately, they really aren't conservatives at all? Sounds like blackmail."
Post 15 is what I was responding to:
"The Creationists/ID-iots are an embarrassment - and a clear, present danger - to the Conservative Cause. The primary difference between knowledge and ignorance is that knowledge has limits."
I responded to the first sentence, which I think is totally absurd, with a what if question. Creationists make up a good percentage of conservatives and all I was saying was what if they got up and left the conservative cause. We're not going to step away from conservatism at all.
Yet that view is incorrect.
It seems very odd that you are defining Christian by political view rather than by belief in Christ. Why are you arbitrarily inserting politics into religion? Is there no separation?
"What happens when Christianity is removed?"
In what context?
No, I have no stats, but every Creationist advocate I've ever seen on TV was a black guy wearing a suit. I've never seen a single black person promoting the idea.
Probably because the MSM loves to portray anybody challenging evolution as an idiot, and it is verboten to portray black people as idiots.
It is pretty obvious to me that most people who intentionally get involved in the Creationist issue are fundamentalist Christians. I have no stats, but I suspect blacks are pretty sparse among this group.
OTOH, the stats others have posted here make it pretty clear that most Americans, given the choice between evolution and creation, reject evolution. Personally, I believe most of these would be more than happy to accept the compromise that God can have used evolution as a tool in his Creation.
The general portray of evolution in the media is that it requires disbelief in God, which of course is totally untrue.
"I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true." ~ C. S. Lewis
"No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution." ~ Ann Coulter -- P.277 Godless
"The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant." ~ Kurt Wise
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.
"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."
Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research. Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski... "With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..
*
A couple of items I found on the web regarding Kurt Wise:
[1] 7/3/2003: "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. .." ~ Kurt Wise
Post # 7:
"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."
"It seems very odd that you are defining Christian by political view rather than by belief in Christ. Why are you arbitrarily inserting politics into religion? Is there no separation?"
Take note that the particular religion and its values play a grand role in defining the Conservative party. In the context that it is removed, or in the context that the common non-Christian populated evolution and Liberal stance -- shows that something is wrong here.
Why are Evo's supporting a "strong" means that supports the conservative party?
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.