What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?

The Post Chronicle | 8\07\05 | Patrick J Buchanan

[RepublicNewbie]

In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.

But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.

[R. Scott]

Yep – gotta balance out the vile humors!

[R. Scott]

All the while, the average person is going to believe what s/he believes no matter what the current "wisdom" proclaims.

Correct – and I have no problem believing the God used evolution as His way of doing it. I have no problem believing that He used something akin to the Big Bang to create the Universe.

[R. Scott]

The shape of the earth may already have been known in Isaiah's time. Ancient astronomers could determine that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses.

The common mariner or anyone living or working by the sea would also see that the Earth was a ball by noticing that when a ship leaves port and proceeds to sea the hull disappears before the mast. I think the Flat Earth was an attempt by the Roman Church to restrict education to only what they approved of.

The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22:

Revelations 7 speaks of the four corners of the Earth – how can a ball have four corners?
I think the Flat Earth was an attempt by the Roman Church to restrict education to only what they approved of, and there was a time when Revelations was held in very high esteem. Some still pay more attention to Revelations than other chapters.

[Vaquero]

A little BITTER, are we? Sheesh. Maybe you still have some evolving to do, Vaquero.,

Humanist
1. An atheist trying to fill that God shaped void in his soul.



Bitter?.....nope. evolving? we all are....even those to blind to see it.....

Humanist??....not me...don't confuse me with a liberal.

God shaped void? It would be easier to be ignorant.
Belief systems are, I am sure, comforting. Sometime we have to grow up though and be a man (or woman) and face the realities.

[bvw]

You are right. The statement "You are a liar ... Hell for it" is factually untrue. It is most curious that you brought it up.

[The Red Zone]

And his name means Killer

[arasina]

Whatever floats your boat, Vaquero. You created yourself. You are omnipotent and have all knowledge. ("It would be easier to be ignorant.") Funny that you can't seem to control the world, including me and my 'comforting belief system'. Why did your hackles rise when you thought my words may have insinuated that you are a liberal? Is your own belief system not comforting?

God and science are not incompatible. What does the word conscience mean?

[Fester Chugabrew]

You propose "design" but can't test for it.

Science does not test for its givens. Evolutionism is afraid to state or acknowledge its givens, and thus ends up dressing a tautology in scientific language.

[A. Pole]

A Solomonic solution. Let parents choose between having their kids spend a year in biology class cutting up those poor frogs and being indoctrinated in evolution ideology -- or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics

I would like the third choice - doing both (with evolution theory presented as a theory and not absolute truth).

[A. Pole]

government schools? Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth

We live in a constitutional republic and not in a scientific theocracy where scientists are the priests of the nature worship. So if the parents/government wanted to teach that the Earth is flat or if they wanted to close all schools and move back to the farms THEY HAVE RIGHT TO DO IT.

The last time science was put above all else was Soviet Union (political economy) and Nazi Germany (darwinism).

[VadeRetro]

Answer the question, if you can. How many animals, including homo sapiens, died wbile awaiting the evolution of the blood clotting cascade.

It will stun you to learn that Homo sapiens appeared after the evolution of multicellular features such as the nervous system, blood, and blood clotting. Seventeen primitive bilaterans bled to death wishing they had blood clotting before it evolved.

[Fester Chugabrew]

My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme.

That's another way of calling it a philosophy. When Popper uses the words "I changed my mind," the preceding sentence speaks of its value as a "reasearch programme." He changed his mind regarding its "testability and logical status." Which way he changed his mind is not clear, but it is clear that without a guiding point of view, i.e. an acknowledged set of assumptions, imagination can indulge any whim and still call it "science." Evolutionism in the wide sense makes a caricature of science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

LOOPDY DOOPTY PLACEMARKER

[bluepistolero]

lol

[walden]

You can find people who believe anything, and it can be difficult for a non-Christian to sort through Christian writings and beliefs for the orthodox view. Heck, it's difficult in the best of times even for Christians, and these are not the best of times. There IS an orthodox view, however.

The orthodox writers are spread across denominations, but they all refer to and expand upon each other's thoughts. They also stand the test of time-- if a Christian writer is still being read by Christians in many denominations decades or centuries after his or her death, you can bet that those writings reflect the orthodox view. False doctrine falls by the wayside over the years, but that which is true remains.

If you're interested in who those orthodox writers might be, I would be pleased to post a list of those I have read.

Oh, and by the way, doesn't it strike you as profoundly illogical that the King James version fanatics deny the biblical texts in the very languages that would have been known to and studied by Jesus Christ? The King James version is, in my opinion, the most beautiful language, but I know that it is not necessarily the best translation. However, that has no bearing on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis-- the KJV text uses "day" just as the modern texts do, and in English, the word "day" can refer to an era.

I find this whole issue exasperating-- in my day, young people studied the English language in school so that they would become literate adults and not have these silly sorts of arguments. ;)

[Bunchy]

God and science are not incompatible. What does the word conscience mean?

It means "to use 'confidence man' techniques on science." Maybe you're thinking of "Godscience", which is conscience with a cold.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

No, the direction of the change in his position is explicit. His earlier position was that while it was a very successful and useful metaphysical research program, natural selection was not testable and probably a tautology. He says he based that on a misreading of the popular writings of a few well known evolutionists. He says that he himself was a culprit in spreading this misrepresentation. You refuse to acknowledge what Popper plainly said. Again, you are either illiterate or a practiced *Liar for the Lord*. Either way you have shown yourself time and time again to be beneath rational discussion.


"Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection."


He says,

"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. "

He rejected this after careful attention to what the theory of evolution said. He says that it can be tested, although the tests are very difficult. Fair enough, nobody said it was easy. You however, because you desperately need to cling to the creationist lie that Popper never changed his mind about the logical nature of Natural Selection, refuse to accept what is plainly laid out for you in English.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You however, because you desperately need to cling to the creationist lie that Popper never changed his mind about the logical nature of Natural Selection, refuse to accept what is plainly laid out for you in English.

If you read my posts you would see that I have acknowleged it is fully within Popper's capacity and prerogative to change his mind. Frankly I don't care which direction. This quote does not make it clear. I know how to read. It is not "plainly laid out." I further said that this would be typical of a philosophy that fails to acknowledge, let alone state, it's presuppositions.

Meanwhile you should understand that I hardly consider Karl Popper to be the sole spokesman for what does, or does not, constitute science. To the extent he embraces an "amoeba to man" history of the biosphere (if, in fact he even does) he is outside the bounds of science in the strict sense anyway, whether he realizes it or not.

[R. Scott]

We live in a constitutional republic and not in a scientific theocracy where scientists are the priests of the nature worship. So if the parents/government wanted to teach that the Earth is flat or if they wanted to close all schools and move back to the farms THEY HAVE RIGHT TO DO IT.

I am well aware of that. My hope is that there are enough rational people that religion taking the place of science will not happen. If some want that kind of education, there are private church sponsored schools. The can even set up a madaris type school if they so wish.

[R. Scott]

Oh, and by the way, doesn't it strike you as profoundly illogical that the King James version fanatics deny the biblical texts in the very languages that would have been known to and studied by Jesus Christ?

It is also beautifully written in my opinion – very poetic and easy to memorize passages – but it tends to lose something now and then.

I find this whole issue exasperating-- in my day, young people studied the English language in school so that they would become literate adults and not have these silly sorts of arguments. ;)

Just as many today are confused by the language of our Constitution. It was beautifully written and simple enough that every American could understand it, be they farm hand or lawyer. Just as some will twist the Holy Bible to justify their own view, some will twist our Constitution for the same reason.