Skip to comments.
Evolving Double Standards
National Review ^
| April 01, 2004
| John West
Posted on 04/01/2004 11:17:06 AM PST by Heartlander
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: NC28203
Bubba, the world rests on the backs of four great elephants, who in turn stand upon the back of a giant turtle. From there, it's turtles all the way down...
21
posted on
04/01/2004 1:19:20 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Heartlander
But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution. This is one big reason why I'm an evo-skeptic. The proponents seem to use techniques more akin to marketing or propaganda than detached science.
What would be the big crisis in the advancement of knowledge if the idea was doubted that every living thing descended from the same cell via undirected events?
22
posted on
04/01/2004 1:22:13 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(Arlen Specter supports the International Crime Court having jurisdiction over US soldiers)
To: ThinkPlease
23
posted on
04/01/2004 1:22:46 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Junior
Just remember the turtle moves.
24
posted on
04/01/2004 1:27:23 PM PST
by
Sinner6
To: Gritty
You are the one who inserted the story about the Iroquois turtle myth in an attempt to discredit via absurdity rather than try and refute or even discuss any of cowgirls's comments. Instead, you chose to use a lame aside. Nothing "lame" or "absurd" about it. He's making the perfectly valid point that there are thousands of religious creation stories out there, and any argument for including one as an "alternative" explanation to evolution can equally be applied to all.
To: Sinner6
Well, yeah. There are "philosophers" that claim the turtle walks on the bottom of the crystal sphere in which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are embedded. Like a giant hamster wheel, this causes the sphere to rotate around the Earth and accounts for the rising and setting of the above objects.
Of course we know that such "philosophers" are heretics. It's definitely turtles all the way down.
26
posted on
04/01/2004 1:33:02 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Cowgirl
We did not evolve from nothing which is what the textbooks say happened. No textbook says that we "evolved from nothing".
Please try to develop at least some understanding of evolution theory before you try to attack it.
27
posted on
04/01/2004 1:33:53 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: old3030
But, of course, darwinism/secularism/materialism/socialism is not a religion, Correct.
it is a philosophical worldview consistent with the scientific method; hence not covered by the First Amendment's Establishment clause.
Also correct.
That only applies to grubby fundamentalist Christians.
Incorrect -- it applies to the other kinds too, as well as to other religions.
To: Dimensio; Cowgirl
D'oh, I screwed up my formatting. My post should have been more like
We did not evolve from nothing which is what the textbooks say happened.
No textbook says that we "evolved from nothing". Please try to develop at least some understanding of evolution theory before you try to attack it.
29
posted on
04/01/2004 1:36:52 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
To: Heartlander
Disappointing that National Review can't see through the Discovery Institute, which will never discover anything except that the latest real discovery needs a rebuttal.
To: VadeRetro
Disappointing that National Review can't see through the Discovery Institute ... Disappointing, but not surprising. I once went a-Googling to see if I could find Buckley's views on evolution. He's ambivalent at best. Surprisingly, this debate took place a couple of years after the Pope's public announcement on evolution: PBS's Firing Line creation/evolution debate.
31
posted on
04/01/2004 2:04:56 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(FreeRepublic is a jealous mistress.)
To: Sinner6
Just remember the turtle moves. BLASPHEMER! We StationaryTurtletarians denounce your cult of false prophets, and call upon the Great Tortuga to furiously smite those who would spread these heathen lies, and cast them into the Frogpond of Everlasting Fire(tm).
And please visit our website on "Scientific Turtleism", which has nothing whatsoever to do with our religious beliefs, honest, and is only a purely objective review of the overwhelming evidence for the existence of a giant Earth-supporting T*rtle, which cannot possibly be denied unless you're a deluded member of the vast antiT*rtle conspiracy.
To: Dimensio; Cowgirl
If creationists cannot get the simple things right (such as what exactly the theory of evolution covers), what makes you think they can tackle more complex issues?
33
posted on
04/01/2004 2:15:47 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Ichneumon
One need only point out that modern religions are simply perversions of the one true religion, "Turtleism." For instance, the concept of "hell" as a region of the dead beneath our feet is simply a corruption of "shell" which, because of its relationship to both the Earth and the elephants, is also beneath our feet.
So, to the heretics, infidels and non-believers I say, "Go to Shell!"
34
posted on
04/01/2004 2:20:38 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Sinner6
Just remember the turtle moves The Big Question is: Is the turtle male or female? This might become even more acute if we sight another turtle.
35
posted on
04/01/2004 2:31:47 PM PST
by
balrog666
(A public service post.)
To: PatrickHenry
Sounds like our side was very effectively represented in that one, anyway. The ID all-star team plus Buckley took it on the chin.
To: balrog666
The Big Question is: Is the turtle male or female? This might become even more acute if we sight another turtle. When worlds collide...
"Baby, did the Earth just shift for you, too?"
37
posted on
04/01/2004 3:51:48 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Junior
"Baby, did the Earth just shift for you, too?" WARNING! Adult cosmological content: Click if you dare.
38
posted on
04/01/2004 4:18:07 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(FreeRepublic is a jealous mistress.)
To: general_re; All
Is everyone happy that the NCSE is mixing religion with science and using our tax dollars? Is this OK because it is
your religion?
Gravity Constant = 6.6739 10-11m3kg-1s-2
Neo-darwin Constant = humans arose from happenstance void of intelligence and design?
Neo-darwinism is essentially garbage all the way down with many
turtles as just part of the equation. Its kinda funny isnt it? Garbage all the way down and here we stand on all of it
Garbage all the way down! What a crazy belief system. LOL! Hey lets make fun of it. Nah, it wouldnt be right to make fun of someones religion or set up a straw man to tear down. Lets see if we can keep religion out of science:
The National Association of Biology Teachers [NABT] in their 1995 Official Statement on Teaching Evolution stated the following:
"The diversity of life [all life] on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."
It took seven years of prodding from conservative groups before they revised the statement. According to the NABT's executive director, the change was made ``to avoid taking a religious position'' that might offend believers. The two words that were removed from their statement were; 'unsupervised' and 'impersonal'. These two words made the NABT's statement religious and faith-based. To illustrate, change the words to 'supervised' and 'personal'. Either way, both statements would be outside the purely 'material constraints' that science now (ironically thanks in part to Darwin) currently imposes. Their statement boldly claimed that there was no intelligent cause (force, etc.) behind mankind and all existence.
Anyway, let's look at a college textbook and see what it has to say on the subject:
According to Douglas Futuyamas widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology(1998), Darwins theory of random, purposeless variations acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new answer to almost all questions that begin with Why? Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous, and thereby provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism that is now the stage of most Western thought.
Well, we can't use this because it is a religious statement. I guess we should look at a required/recommended reading book for college biology:
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between . . . watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in the mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparent purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (p. 5)
-Richard Dawkins
Another religious statement? Hmmm
The National Association of Biology Teacher's, college textbooks, and required/recommended reading material.
Maybe it's just human nature (human nature? Humans - intelligent -- nature stupid </Frankenstein mode>)...
If things that people detest exist in religion i.e. --- dogmatism, conceit, mockery, intolerance, and power-obsession, --- why would we not expect to see it in science as well?
Especially when science becomes religion.
To: Heartlander
I'm having real trouble putting this under any heading other than "be careful what you wish for". This looks remarkably like creationists reaping what they have sown, and once I stop laughing my butt off and wiping the tears from my eyes, I'll probably suggest - once again - that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. Whether anyone will take that to heart and learn anything from this episode remains to be seen.
40
posted on
04/01/2004 4:59:51 PM PST
by
general_re
(The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson