Posted on 04/13/2008 5:17:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Are you referring to John Rennie?
He can grab almost any lame thought and run it into the ground.
You’ve got to be kidding me!
Run by a bunch of homosexuals and PRO EVOLUTION to an EXTREME. No, there is no “balanced view” by that magazine. It’s pur propaganda. At one time it was a scientific magazine. It is not now.
Your rant on homosexuals has nothing to do with the accuracy or balance of the review.
Or are you equating those who study the theory of evolution with homosexuals?
Care to try again, without the invective and personal attacks this time?
perhaps we'll see Darwinists beheading people over this blasphemy
Translation: I don't like this review, so I am going to change the subject.
The head editor... is he the one with the dirty knees?
Regardless of who might have done the outlawing of DDT, you can be assured it would be a leftist.
I subscribed for 15 years, until about two years ago, when I couldn't take it any longer.
It's about as Scientific these days as Al Gore.
LOL—everybody loves Ben Stein! That’s why they buy Alaskan seafood.
Ask Bjorn Lomborg about how “objective” Scientific American has become.
Stein is not taking on science, from what I'm reading, he's about Ideas and History and Free Inquiry.
There is nothing extreme about finding the roots of Darwinism in the Holocaust--the "Master Race" was about exterminating "inferiors"--Darwinism gone mad, but Darwinism nonetheless. Margaret Sanger, eugenicists--all from an Idea.
The Dawkin bunch are attempting to suppress dissent--powerful scientist often do. Look at how the climate change crowd tries to shout down skeptics so they can cash in on carbon credits.
What has any of that to do with the review I posted?
It appears that you don't like what the review says so you are attacking the source in which it appears.
That's more of a leftist tactic than a conservative one.
Care to try again, with reference to the review this time?
I offered you the review of Bjorn Lomborg to make that claim look as thouroughly silly as it is.
You call that a leftist tactic.
I laugh.
I called the review I posted a "more balanced" review.
At least try for some accuracy in what you post.
Am I reading this thread correctly to understand that homosexuals have evolved from the apes to end up as editors of Scientific American?
That was a balanced review?
They admit they are hardcore neo-Darwinists from the outset. They are also missing the point of the movie too. Buried in page 3 or 4 of the review is the defense of their position on the issue of not being able to explain the origin of life, “We don’t know yet.”
Not a tenable position from which to lob criticism at those that suggest that an intelligent designer, and even perhaps God, may have lit the match after all. Evolution may have been a way of explaining the development of species, but there’s still a lot of it, beside the question of origin, that is something less than settled fact.
More to the point of the movie, secular humanists are using neo-Darwinism to replace God with Man as the Supreme Being in the United States. He links it with Nazism because every crackpot that manages to set up a dictatorship uses some aspects of Darwinism to go eugenic on their own population, and those of their neighbors.
If science doesn’t know yet, it should say so, if only to ensure that some dangerous autocrat doesn’t hijack the theory to wipe out a race of people. It should readily say, “The origin of life COULD be God, and it could be a Martian, and it could be somebody else, because at this point we don’t know.”
It certainly has less than concrete ideas on WHY species evolve in the manner they do.
Stein posits that there is less-than-reasoned reactive vitriol to any position that may admit the presence of a God anywhere in public life within academia. He posits the dangers of this tendency, and provide evidence that Atheism, a massively untenable belief system in its own right, has made its home in our most prominent institutions of higher learning in the US.
I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if he makes his case. I have always looked at science as the attempt of man to decipher the language of God. I don’t see the two as incompatible at all, Science and Religion. If any thing, I believe the penduluum on this matter has swung all the way across the arc from it’s opposite apogee, marked by the trial of Galileo. That’s my bias.
I think the people waiting for the ‘singularity’ and the people who react to ID’ers like dracula to a crucifix ought to camp out. That would be a fun documentary to film.
Now try to define "more balanced" to mean something other than more objective in the context you used it.
I'm in the mood for a few laughs from the intellectual elite here at FR.
Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism's Manufactroversy
Enjoy.
Don't ever do that again, I have a severe allergy to left wing moonbats.
Like you! :-}
Or are you equating those who study the theory of evolution with homosexuals?
Care to try again, without the invective and personal attacks this time? “
No “rant” but I suppose to you overly sensitive liberals it appeared to be a “rant”.
The editor in chief is a rabbit homosexual. Scientific American is no longer a “science” magazine. It is liberal propaganda. As a liberal, I don't expect you to see that. You can not get more biased on evolution that Scientific American. Enjoy the godless world and magic black box of fellow atheist. Now don't get upset. I don't mind if your religion is evolution.
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.