Teaching Darwin

Weekly Standars ^ | March 21, 2005 | Paul McHugh

[metacognative]

I'm not a fanatic like you and your darwingang.
I don't want to "take out the competition".
Your belief system is unfit and will dwindle and die.

[Junior]

To a religious person, arguing quotes is par for the course. Half the commentaries on Scripture deal with interpretations of what someone was saying. However, such rhetorical tricks do not translate into scientific debate, but your average creationist isn't capable of seeing that.

[Liberal Classic]

What does it take to be considered a "fanatic" and a member of the "darwingang?" Disagreeing with you?

[Junior]

Creationists have been claiming that "evolution will eventually die" since 1825. You're batting zero, but if it makes you feel better...

[bondserv]

Some circum-shrubbery pummeling going on here.

I personally have no authority to discredit Evolutionary Theory. But I do know one who does, and I made referral to Him. His comments are straightforward on the topic.

As to will a person be condemned for believing in the Theory of Evolution; only if it causes them to reject the provision Jesus Christ made on the cross for their sins and that the eternal future is based on Jesus' resurrection from the dead, thus conquering death for us all.

I will say that a "believer in Jesus Christ" that preaches evolutionary origins for mankind can't read the Bible without being very confused by what it says. This tends to make them an ineffective advocate for a Creator God.

[donh]

It all ties together scripturally.

In your head, if not under a microscope.

When Isaac Asimov was confronted with true believers, such as yourself, depending on how annoying they were, he used occasionally to launch into a vastly entertaining proof, during which he would not let himself be interrupted, that animals spoke the King's English 10,000 years ago. Being who he was, He had a huge inventory of suggestive correlated evidence from ancient texts, veterinary science, and archiology, and he would pursue these individuals relentless across the meeting room floor, insisting that they listen to him.

Let me politely suggest that scientists don't generally invade your church to teach Darwinism, and reciprocating that favor would be a fairly polite thing to do when discussing the nature of science in a public forum.

[metacognative]

Calling dissenters 'creationists' is a big clue.

[Modernman]

Being healthier and more productive is mandatory for devolved humans to survive, if in fact thats true, maybe THEY got sick LESS

Our ancestors got sick a lot more and died a lot younger. Their quality of life compared to us was much lower.

Technology is just widgitary filigree and has no relation to quality of life

Increases in things like nutrition, sanitation, medicine and infant mortality are all due to technological increases. What, exactly, do you measure quality of life by?

Really.. Name the study from some devolved human

I have no idea what a "devolved" human is. The word really has no meaning.

[donh]

And by the way, Patterson's retreat [if that's what it was] shows he's afraid of your type of character.

You really are shameless, aren't you?

Calling names merely shows your insecurity and low character.

Proof is an adequate defense against charges of slander.

[hosepipe]

[ Except maybe the proper use of apostrophes and ellipses. BTW, "devolution" means nothing in biology. "Evolution" literally means "change"[.] No matter how you perceive a specific change, it is still evolution. ]

I see... Sooo, you like proper speeling and puncuation and are a stickler for good sematics and sofostry.. And probably hate made up words.. especially by your lessers..

(shining my finger nails) d;-}~

[Liberal Classic]

It ain't slander if it's true.

[bondserv]

I understand that when it is a layed out before us, it often hurts when it disagrees with our worldview.

I'd prefer going with that other Issac when investigating origins. Sir Isaac Newton had much to say on the topic which contradicts Messier Asimov.

[TalonDJ]

You have to keep things in evolutionary perspective. Homo spp. are believed to have originated to a warm climate. There would be no need for "fur covering". Any adaptation that requires energy input (as in fur) that did not provide a selective advantage, could easily be lost.

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it. The premise that we never lose 'good' features is clearly flawed. Unless you are willing to invent elaborate reasons why indevidual features were kept or discarded without any evidence for those reasons except that they feature is or is not still there. The other posters premise was that that the program he watched was using false information about evolutionary theory. I think his point stands.

Current biology text books do not use Haeckle's embryo's.

What the poster said was that the program he watched DID use it so someone somewhere is still using that idea.

[Junior]

...and sofostry...

I assume you mean "sophistry."

[donh]

I understand that when it is a layed out before us, it often hurts when it disagrees with our worldview.

I understand that taking a superior attitude is a helpful tactic when you're playing a bust hand.

I'd prefer going with that other Issac when investigating origins. Sir Isaac Newton had much to say on the topic which contradicts Messier Asimov.

No amount of facile quote mining stands up as modern scientific evidence. As one of my favorite shaggy dog stories has it--"It's not the you're right, It's not that you're wrong--It's that you aren't even in the game".

[js1138]

Oh HORROR!! Someone might actually be able to verify what I said!!!

And manufacture quotes from personal correspondence, complete with omissions that cannot be verified.

What kind of diseased mind thinks a scientific argument can be won by quoting people out of context to make it appear they believe something they do not in fact believe?

If you think this is a valid form of argument, then a few out of context quotes from the Bible will support rape, genocide, incest, and slavery.

Think about the intellectual provery implied by quoting out of context. You don't like it when atheists do it, so why do you support doing unto others what is wrong when done to you?

[atlaw]

I think he meant "sofastry", which is the practice of bafflegab while kicked back in a La-Z-Boy.

[Junior]

Well, when you couch it in those terms...

[bondserv]

I understand that taking a superior attitude is a helpful tactic when you're playing a bust hand.

I presented irrefutable Biblical data that God created Adam and Eve as mature adults. If you refuse to see it, how can I trust your judgment regarding the data associated with the Theory of Evolution?

No amount of facile quote mining stands up as modern scientific evidence.

Correct me if I am wrong. You believe there is no discussion to have on this topic because the modern scientific evidence leaves no room for dispute? There are a lot of greater minds than ours engaging in a heated debate on this topic. I will even acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is not fully idiotic if one forces oneself to totally disregard a supernatural intelligent designer. But in so doing, the totality of reality is not on the table. Jesus' resurrection ends that possibility.

Jhn 2:18-22
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

[furball4paws]

"a different shade of bacteria?"

As a microbiologist, I'd like to know what this means.