Posted on 08/10/2005 7:41:13 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist
And for those of you still wondering how I became a right-wing atheist...this article explains it very well.
BTTT
Furthermore, Luskin's job certainly is "a filthy job, but somebody has to do it." As part of the effort to keep the pressure on the New York Times (and for that matter, on Princeton University) to force them to become at least slightly more honest, Luskin's work is a fine, public service.
Congressman Billybob
Good post. Thanks.
I will add my request here for any ID advocate who wishes to have ID taught as an alternative hypothesis under the umbrella of science.
Please list the elements of ID that are compatible with mainstream biology. I am looking for a positive statement that will serve as a bridge.
To actually have to read Krugman's articles repeatedly, trying to fact-check them and identify their sources....it's just too painful to imagine. No wonder the Times doesn't have anyone doing it.
So where does the Conservative Christian Economic Theory fit in? There's no detail of this in the article. Surely you do see the difference between Right & Left wing Christians?
Very interesting article, thanks for posting it.
Liberalism is a faith based phenomena...
... It takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe Krugman has any credibility.
Read his books on Economics... He's fine right up until he starts drawing his conclusions, which is where he loses his credibility.
Hey, one can call Liberal economics, "Faith Based Economics". That is, "Trust us... If we take most of what you make, and give it away to people who don't work, the unemployed will buy more products, ensuring that you can keep your job. The more we give them, the more they spend."
Well if you know better, than sorry for you.
Does it explain how you became an atheist? Or how you became a right-winger? And what were you before?
Check it out, last paragraph. Someone from National Review is citing the von Mises blog. Doesn't NR consider that a site for unpatriotic conservatives? If they are indeed no longer considered unpatriotic, that is quite a relief.
ID suggests that evolution is not random. It works as an addendum to Darwin's Theory, not a replacement. Even Darwin notes that evolution is not the definitive answer but another piece of the puzzle.
Chaos theory and the science of synchrony also postulate that there is underlying order to the universe - that from chaotic exchanges matter orders itself. How? We don't have to pretend to know all the specifics nor could we ever really.
Science as we perform it is done in a moment in time incapable of giving the definitive answers we look for. Examples:
1. Where is the missing link in evolution? The anthropologists keep finding new species of almost-humans...but none are that missing link that would turn evolution theory into evolution law.
2. I have a personal beef with so called weak and strong force in atoms. Exactly how are the mysterious "strong" and "weak" forces that hold atoms together on the micro scale different from the forces of gravity that hold celestial bodies together on the macro scale. Should our perception be the scale? Should we make allowances for our perception being the scale?
3. Ever wonder why the periodic table keeps growing as we *make* new elements? That seems fishy to me. And schools don't even test on those man made ones. Just the ones that were here before we arrived on the scene. I bet it keeps growing though as our technological ability to force subatomic particles together under certain conditions expands.
4. And speaking of particles, first there were atoms, then there were neutrons, protons and electrons. Now they're just making them up as they theorize along...there's a photon and graviton...Seems to me we could just keep theorizing on and on.
I bring these questions up because it's important kids understand science is an excellent tool, but scientists don't have all the answers. The next question should always be asked. And if the next question asks why the molecules of life arranged in such a way as to promote evolution, then an underlying order of the universe as argued and supported by chaos theory and synchrony a valid theory. And certainly as valid as any other theory that can't make an important missing-link connection.
You don't have to believe in an Almighty that conjures up preconceived notions to believe there is order in the universe. Although once you believe in order, it's a short trip via faith to believing in an ethereal intelligence.
But you have ignored my request to list the points that ID has in common with mainstream science.
But Marx explained the science of human history and the superiority of atheism. How could you believe anything else? Darwin's own belief in the Almighty was obviously delusional.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel every now and then.
That is not what I'm saying at all. Both the left and right have equally invalid reasons for criticizing evolution, with the reason being that their criticisms are not supported by the facts and the scientific evidence. I am not saying that evolution should be supported simply because some factions of the left reject it, although the only reason some on the left speak in favor of it is because a vocal and ignorant contigent on the right continue to oppose it in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you were to ever bother to actually read what I and others have written, you wouldn't consistently make such stupid and boneheaded comments.
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.