Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[freedumb2003]

Without intelligence, you assume a GODLESS state. See the problem it has with Christianity?

No, you assume God-neutral.

Just like atronomy. If you take Genesis literally, you better get ready to defend a 6,000 year old Earth. Which nothing in any science that deals with anything historical (astophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropololgy, agronomy, archeology) agrees with.

[A0ri]

Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism.

[StJacques]

"But for the core curriculum, they need to be taught hard science, hard math, hard chemistry, hard mathematics."

Of course. But they must also be prepared to gain entry into college and critical thinking is now a part of the entrance placement process.

"Do you really want to open the door on Creation when they are learning about the red shift? That the stars we see are billions of years old, but there is a contravening idea that says they are only 6,000 years old?"

That "idea" is put in front of many of them when they are about 10 years old or so. I cannot envision simply trusting that they will have it undone in science class. They need to develop rational skills alongside of it.

Please remember, I'm only talking about two hours of discussion in an entire school year here. No more than that.

"Do you want to apply "critical thinking" for little children to use very adult-level philosophy to try to apply silly psychobabble in looking at hard facts?"

Do you really want to deny them that background and then see them tested on it when they prepare to go to college?

This is bulleted item #1 from the SAT scoring explanation is for a top quality essay:

• effectively and insightfully develops a point of view on the issue and demonstrates outstanding critical thinking, using clearly appropriate examples, reasons, and other evidence to support its position

And then on top of that students must face an entire critical reading section.

How can you not prepare them?

[b_sharp]

"You must not be capable of reading. I myself accept evolution, you fail to specify which type, you fail to regonize that some Christians are idiots and break the "norm".

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is nothing but accumulated micro evolutionary changes. This is articulated quite clearly in the SToE.

What 'norm' are these 'idiot' Christians breaking?

"You are foolishly trying to have me state the wrong ideology that the two cannot go hand in hand together, and you foolishly fail to recognize that they cannot go hand in hand together because of flawed moral dillemmas.

So, the 'wrong' ideology is that the two cannot go hand in hand? Why then do you follow up by stating that they cannot go hand in hand? Are you admitting that you adhere to the 'wrong' ideology?

Your idea that there is a logical contradiction between Evolution and religion is based on a poor understanding of the SToE. Evolution needs a preexisting species to create a new species. It does not suggest that a new species originates from nothing. It says nothing about the origin of life.

"Again, you fail to recognize what I had written. I think this is because you fail to understand what it means to be a Christian. Catch up on basic religious knowledge, then get back to me."

I can only go on what I read. If you insist on equivocating your terms I can only surmise you are having trouble getting your thoughts straight.

I come from a long line of creationists. My father married into a whole family of re-born Christians. I have a fair idea of what it means to be a Christian.

[curiosity]

What is it about "In the beginning God created[...]" that isn't "intelligent factor" to you?

Sure it's intelligence, but that's not what ID is.

ID, at least as proposed by the leaders of the movement, has nothing to do with the beginning. It's all about the supposed inadequacy of evolution to explain what happened AFTER the beginning.

If you wanted to write some ID scriptures, they'd sound a lot like this:

It's more like this:

"200-300 million years after the beginning, the designer thought it would be really cool if bacteria could swim. Unfortunately he also saw that they were having trouble evolving their own means of locomotion. So the designer, in all his benevolence, decided to give them irreducibly complex flagella.

"After another 3 billion years or so, the designer decided that natural evolution was failing to produce enough phyla for his liking. So he set to work desiging all kinds of new body plans, resulting in the Cambrian explosion!"

ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology.

[b_sharp]

You can take over for me. I have to take off for the evening.

[A0ri]

Hello? Who said most Christians do not take such as is?

The last time I read my highschool biology textbook on evolution, it said "in the beginning there was a cosmic explosion, caused by such and such particles because of such and such properties, because of such and such dimensional workings". Not once did it say "God".

Who is to say God did not desin Earth to look 4.5 odd billion years old? Amazing how evolution removes such theories from the picture.

[freedumb2003]

Well, curiosity just helped me kill the cat. ;)

A0ri, you are now on record agreeing with my definition of God's influence on the Universe.

And, since I was crystal clear, it means you have put yourself in a position where you either have to admit you don't understand what ID is or become a proponent of TTOE.

Or you can say you didn't understand what you were agreeing to (I am quite magnanimous). But then you have to determine which part of my definition fails.

I will even accept a prima facie argument (I am magnanimous).

Nice pick up curiosity!

[Coyoteman]

Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc [sic] isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism.

You are pretty firm in your opinions of how FR should be run, for a newbie (2006-05-08).

You a retread?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism."

Since you are almost certainly a retred banned creo, that's funny.

If you really mean it, take it up with JimRob. I'm sure he'll find your opinion interesting.

[andysandmikesmom]

You know, FR as a conservative site, has allowed the CREVO debates for years, so long as they remain, as much as they can, civil...

There have been others before you, that have whined and complained that, "Gee whiz, this cannot be a really conservative site, they allow atheists and those who support evolution"...and Jim Robinson has completely answered such whinings and complaints....

If you so object to who is and who is not allowed on FR, maybe you should take it up with the authorities here, and see what occurs...

[labette]

".. I think flooding a poster, 6-1 is spreadin the poster's resources a bit thin..."

One of their common tactics. The more blocks and tackles you have to make on the fly increase your odds of error...Which allows them shovel even more $^%! your way enabling even more gloating and misdirection.

Still, you're pretty impressive for a rookie. Welcome to one of the few bloody trenches on Free Republic.

[b_sharp]

"It is easy to argue the atheist standpoint with TToE."

So? That doesn't make the SToE inherently atheistic.

The SToE is religiously neutral.

[StJacques]

"The last time I read my highschool biology textbook on evolution, it said 'in the beginning there was a cosmic explosion, caused by such and such particles because of such and such properties, because of such and such dimensional workings'"

Auri, I would be very surprised if your high school Biology textbook listed a cause for the Big Bang. That subject is the basis for some of the most advanced Theoretical Physics that exists.

[curiosity]

Look at your own definition:

a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed

I have no problem that nature itself was designed. Lots of scientists believe it. It's the second part that I take issue with: the idea that complex biological structures were designed.

Why do I take issue with it? Because there's strong scientific evidence that complex biological structures evolved.

This isn't about whether God created. I firmly believe he created. It's a question of HOW.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The last time I read my highschool biology textbook on evolution, it said "in the beginning there was a cosmic explosion, caused by such and such particles because of such and such properties, because of such and such dimensional workings""

No it didn't.

"Not once did it say "God"."

Name just ONE scientific theory that does.

"Who is to say God did not desin Earth to look 4.5 odd billion years old?"

Anybody who doesn't worship a trickster, lying God.

[andysandmikesmom]

OH, thanks...not sure about how up I am for arguing these same points, over and over and over and over and over again...its never ending, isnt it? Ah, but there are other posters and lurkers watching, and they matter a great deal, as they are no doubt watching this debate...

Have a very good evening...I had my fun during the day...

[Senator Bedfellow]

...I would be very surprised if your high school Biology textbook listed a cause for the Big Bang.

I'd be tolerably surprised to see a title, author, or publisher named for this mystery text.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"One of their common tactics. The more blocks and tackles you have to make on the fly increase your odds of error.."

Translation: Creationists can't stand the heat.

"Still, you're pretty impressive for a rookie."

The odds are that this ain't no *rookie*.

[andysandmikesmom]

Is Mystery Text, something like Mystery Meat?