Darwinists top the censorship food chain

Townhall.com ^ | December 27, 2004 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Safrguns]

FYI, I don't really consider evolutionists liars.
I consider the theory of evolution a lie.
To believe in a lie does not necessarily make one a liar... only decieved.

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.
I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history) indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart so that no-one will have an excuse.

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe... especially by those who are not willing to question the limits of their own understanding.

[Dataman]

Prove that your mention of Johnson was nothing more than attempt at self-aggrandizement.

[Dimensio]

FYI, I don't really consider evolutionists liars.

I never said that you did. Another non-sequitur, because you're unable to address the fact that you lied.

I consider the theory of evolution a lie.

So? You've demonstrated that you know nothing of it, so your opinion really doesn't count for much.

To believe in a lie does not necessarily make one a liar... only decieved.

Ah, so when you claimed that all who accept evolution do not believe in God, you were just being decieved, is that it?

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

No, I find that many creationists as out of touch with reality as you can have any number of bizarre and unrealistic beliefs.

I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history) indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart so that no-one will have an excuse.

Uh-huh. And it just happens to be the "God" that you believe exists. Not the "God" of the Hindus, not the "God" of the Muslims, not one of the gods of the Olympic pantheon, it's all about you.

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe

I don't call you a liar for what you believe, I call you a liar for repeating a lie. Specifically, you are repeating the lie that all who accept evolution do not accept the existence of God. That is a lie. You are a liar for making the claim. You seem, however, utterly incapable of responding to anything, instead replying to some hypothetical post that no one made because you're afraid to address reality.

[judywillow]

With impeccable documentation, Weikart demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers of the pre-Hitler era believed -- and celebrated the fact -- that Darwinism overturned traditional Christian ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.

That's a fact. Evolution is the perfect philosophical basis for being an asshole.

[Ichneumon]

I consider the theory of evolution a lie.

In what way, exactly?

You might also find it interesting that I believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

Then you're wrong about that as well.

I say this because God's Word (which has proven itself to be the most accurate historical document in human history)

Oooookay...

indicates that the knowledge of God's existence is written on every man's heart

And this means what, exactly?

It doesn't really bother me to have people call me a liar for what I believe...

We don't call you a liar for what you beleive. We call you a liar for making transparently false claims.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution is the perfect philosophical basis for being an asshole.

You're not sounding too mannerly yourself, hon.

[Safrguns]

I find compartmentalization extremely fascinating... like the ultimate rubics cube to unlock... and yet the key does not lie with that which we can understand, but rather that which we cannot.

[Dataman]

Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution? They'll tell you it's for the sake of science or some such obfuscation, but the following is more likely:

Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.

But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That's what happened in Canada.

Any assault on Judeo-Christian philosophy should be fought.

"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil without a strong, traditional foundation that clearly defines right from wrong.

source

[Ichneumon]

Prove that your mention of Johnson was nothing more than attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Right after you "prove" that you're not a serial killer.

Hint: "Proof" is a very difficult thing to provide. Try restating your request in a more sensible manner, with more modest goals, and in a less confrontational way.

In short, you're *still* behaving like an ass. And yes, I do at times myself (mostly as a result of responding-in-kind), but it's not *all* I do on these threads, unlike (*cough*) some people. In years past you at least *attempted* to discuss the topic. Lately, though, all I've seen you do is lob terse, snottily-worded stink-bombs into these discussions.

Why bother?

[Trinity_Tx]

You are outright calling him a liar?

And suggesting he must prove his innocence?

I've watched your posts for a while and learned to blow them off, but you've finally hit rick bottom with this.

Read the thread he linked to. It refers to those earlier threads - threads which, along with millions of others, are not archived.

Combined with Ichneumon's obvious mastery of the subject, I don't believe any intelligent or reasonable person would honestly doubt him. I wont speculate openly as to why you would claim to.

[Safrguns]

Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution? You just hit the nail on the head... right from wrong. There are only two ways to deal with guilt... rejection or resolution. It's not really about defending science... it's about ignoring the consequences of sin.

[Ichneumon]

Don't you wonder what the real motive is for their defense of evolution? They'll tell you it's for the sake of science or some such obfuscation, but the following is more likely:

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one's not very good. In fact, it's downright goofy.

And for you to claim that it's "more likely" than the obvious explanation (i.e. that we object to bogus attacks on evolutionary biology -- and other sciences -- because we hate to see science education in this country "dumbed down" further than it already is), is just a *really* poor reflection on both your mental and emotional state.

For pete's sake, man -- if we were "really" motivated by some evil desire to destroy the United States, we'd sure as hell be able to find more direct routes to that goal than, *gasp*, DEFENDING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (*swoon*)... The horror, the horror...

Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth...

[Dataman]

Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth...

I like your scientific approach to your opposition. It's what makes you stand out. If you followed the link to Fox News, you'd see who wrote the material. Are you accusing Bill of being on meth?

You're too easy... which is another reason your "debate" with Johnson doesn't ring true.

[Ichneumon]

Darwin conceded that "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what he was actually saying in that passage, but hey, why start being accurate now?

"Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" He figured it was just because the fossil record was incomplete.

Among *OTHER* reasons which you "forgot" to mention.

That was a long time ago. Where are the transitional forms?

Here are several hundred for you, and there are thousands more where those came from.

Let me guess -- you were under the impression that there were "no transitional fossils" because you believed the lie in the creationist pamphlets, right?

[Dataman]

Hint: "Proof" is a very difficult thing to provide.

You make a claim and then qualify it with the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." You can't have it both ways: You can't sing the praises of proof, evidence, and the scientific method while suggesting we believe you had an on-line debate with Philip Johnson but you forgot to save a copy and can't give us the link.

It's an arrogant double standard-- not unlike the one that says creationists question evolution because they are ignorant but evolutionist question creation because they are intelligent.

[Ichneumon]

[Please *THINK* before posting, and step *away* from the crystal meth... ]

I like your scientific approach to your opposition. It's what makes you stand out.

Thank you.

If you followed the link to Fox News, you'd see who wrote the material. Are you accusing Bill of being on meth?

No, please work on your reading comprehension -- I'm accusing *you* of being delusional for *your* linkage of O'Reilly's point with (*gasp*) the defense of evolutionary biology (and other sciences). That was all *your* fantasy, O'Reilly made no such connection, most likely because he's *not* a paranoid maniac on the topic of evolution, unlike some people I could name.

Are we clear now, son?

You're too easy...

Clearly, you're a legend in your own mind.

which is another reason your "debate" with Johnson doesn't ring true.

Let me get this straight -- you think it's somehow wildly beyond credibility that when Phillip Johnson dropped into talk.origins a few times in the early 1990's (established fact) when I was posting there during the same period (also an easily established fact), I managed to exchange posts with him on the subject of the newsgroup?

I repeat -- step *away* from the drugs, and attempt to *think* before you post, lest you continue to make a fool of yourself.

[Dataman]

Let me guess -- you were under the impression that there were "no transitional fossils" because you believed the lie in the creationist pamphlets, right?

You're just playing dumb, right? Do we need to bring out the quotes of evolutionists denying that there are any transitional forms? Besides, if there were actually a transitional form, that would be proof for evolution, wouldn't it? And if you had proof, it wouldn't be a theory any more, would it? Evolutionists could get rid of the peppered moths from the texts then as well as Haekel's embryos, and a dumpster full of other bogus "evidence."

Or aren't you playing dumb?

[Trinity_Tx]

"It's not really about defending science... it's about ignoring the consequences of sin."

LOL Why would that motivate me? I don't sin any more now that I believe there is evidence for evolution than I did in my most devout Christian walk. And I still spend time on other sites fighting "secular fundamentalists".

Sorry, guys. Some of us just happen to have studied both sides and simply concluded that, so far, the evidence is best explained by the theory of evolution.

[Zeroisanumber]

It's hilarious that FReepers who are hyper-critical of any political or social poll critical of conservative goals have so whole-heartedly embraced this poll "proving" that most Americans don't believe in the Theory of Evolution.

That aside, it's not censorship to demand that scientific fact and not religious dogma be taught in public school science class. As for being allowed to criticise evolution, hell you can criticise all you like. Biologists criticise and refine the theory all the time, and it's quite simply the best explaination we have for how species developed.

If you can come up with something better than "God did it", I'll happily switch to that. Until then, don't accuse me of censorship for wanting to keep your religious beliefs out of my child's education.

[Dataman]

Let me get this straight -- you think it's somehow wildly beyond credibility that when Phillip Johnson dropped into talk.origins a few times in the early 1990's (established fact) when I was posting there during the same period (also an easily established fact), I managed to exchange posts with him on the subject of the newsgroup?

Now it's devolved from a debate to an "exchange of posts." Ok. I can imagine you possibly submitting a question but I can't really imagine Johnson responding unless-- once upon a time-- you were civil (and that does take some imagination).