Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The trouble with Darwin (Bush's I.D. comments changed Australia's Educational Landscape)
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 24 Sept 2005 | Damien Murphy

Posted on 09/24/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by gobucks

The brawl between evolutionists and religious neo-conservatives over how life began is coming down to the survival of the slickest.

For about 150 years Charles Darwin's evolution theory has held sway. But a new American theory, intelligent design, is getting a lot of press as scientists and intellectuals rush to the barricades to dismiss intelligent design as little else than "creationism" rebadged.

Already a DVD featuring American scientists claiming intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and life has become Australia's biggest-selling religious video and intelligent design is starting to permeate school courses.

Next year, hundreds of Catholic schools in the dioceses of Sydney, Wollongong, Lismore and Armidale will use new religious education textbooks that discuss intelligent design. At Dural, year 9 and 10 students at Pacific Hills Christian School have begun learning about intelligent design in science classes.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, says it is inevitable other schools will follow suit. Until last month, few Australians had heard of it. But debate broke out internationally on August 1 when the US President, George Bush, told reporters he supported combining lessons on evolution with discussion of intelligent design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," Bush said.

Last month, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, gave intelligent design ministerial imprimatur, telling the National Press Club he thought parents and schools ought to have the opportunity - if they wished - for students to be exposed to intelligent design and taught about it.

Nelson's office said his comments were unplanned.

But his interest had been pricked by a parliamentary visit on June 20 by Bill Hodgson, head of the Sydney-based campus Crusade for Christ, who left a copy of a DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life with Nelson.

The DVD featured a US mathematician, William Dembski, and other leading American intelligent design proponents claiming the complexity of biological systems is proof of an organising intelligence.

"ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence," Dembski said.

The DVD is distributed in Australia by a Melbourne-based Christian group, Focus on the Family. Its executive director, Colin Bunnett, says until Nelson's comments only 1000 copies had been sold over four years. "But it's taken off. We've sold thousands in the last few weeks," he says.

The intelligent design debate has more resonance in the US, partly because teaching about the beginning of life is problematic. A Harris poll in June found that 55 per cent of American adults support teaching evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in public schools yet many who favour a literal interpretation of the Bible found it difficult to accept Darwin's The Origin of Species.

One teacher, John Scopes, was convicted for violating a Tennessee ban on teaching evolution in 1925's famous "monkey trial". It was not isolated legislation. In 1968, when the US Supreme Court struck down similar laws, some states began pushing the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution.

In Australia, the issue has been less hard-edged. The last tussle was in 1978 when Queensland's Bjelke-Petersen government bowed to creationists' opposition to social science courses. Of late, leading scientists have rebuffed intelligent design. The Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Doherty says it has no place in a science curriculum and the physicist Paul Davies rejects it as creationism in disguise.

Dembski, an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University in Texas, the world's largest Baptist university, said it should be taught with evolution in schools but not be mandated.

"Evolutionary theory and intelligent design both have a scientific core: the question whether certain material mechanisms are able to propel an evolutionary process and the question whether certain patterns in nature signify intelligence are both squarely scientific questions," Dembski says. "Nevertheless, they have profound philosophical and religious implications."


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: allcrevoallthetime; anothercrevothread; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; enoughalready; evolution; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Yes you did. You made up the extra people who you claim also survived the Flood with Noah and his family. I think you should name your new book *Genesis- The Untold Story*"

Wrong, I gave you the scripture that tells about who were taken on that Ark. You have a reading comprehension problem, Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life. Sorry only a blind, sottish mind can ignore these words.

"That's nice but it doesn't speak to why you decided to add to Genesis with new people. BTW, science ignores the soul because there is no way to test for or against it. Science (and evolution) does NOT say that souls don't exist. It just says there is no known soul-test, no way to observe a soul."

ADDDDDD WHAT EXACTLY. The words of Genesis are all I used, and what is described are two different days of creation. Well golly gee, science hasn't figured out how to observe a soul. Look in the mirror.

"We are both trying to convince the other they are right. I am using evidence and logic, you are using your feelings and a very hit or miss reading of the Bible (when you don't invent people in it)."

Well from this point forward I am not trying to convince you of anything. Guess you might call it a seed of truth and it is up to you and the Heavenly Father if that soil your brain is fertile ground. Parable of the Sower.

"No I am not. I am defending the use of reason against mystical subjectivism. You claim that evolution is a lie and evolutionists are trying to overthrow God but all you have as evidence is your feelings and your very subjective interpretation of the Bible. I never said you were insane."


I am not the holder and planter of mystical 'subjectivism'. That "hot" bowl of primordial soup is the bed of mystical 'subjectivism'. No evolutionists are not going to overthrow God, reject him, yes they are, but that is NOT a new thing, had you understanding you would find it written that flesh man's purpose is as result of one who rebelled and attempted to overthrow God and a third of God's children, called Sons of God followed that one. Just a replay in the flesh going on again.

"I am quite sure I was being truthful, but you seem to have no idea what I meant. You were calling for a separate creation for different races, and I was showing that what we consider races is arbitrary from a biological standpoint. You can pick a number of different traits as the basis for a race and they will all be different, though there will be overlaps with what we call race from skin color. As people intermix more and more, these distinctions will just disappear."

Ah well now two different days of creation described, two different purposes given, and the story turns out about the seed line to Christ, whom it is that is the key for all to gain salvation. Sadly there are people who do indeed seek to claim some are more fit than others based upon their races. Darwin himself promoted that theory. Now the Heavenly Father is pure in His judgment, very unlike we in the flesh and He will ultimately judge and there won't be anybody going before Him without restoration of full memory and opportunity to choose after instruction is given.

A person who has never had the opportunity to be taught Christ is NOT held accountable on the same standard as those who with opportunity turned their backs.

"Again, when you have no answer to a question, you just throw a *Well, you weren't supposed to know anyway* at me. Did you ever think it may have been YOU who lacks the understanding?"

What possible words can I say to you, I quote you verbatim what is written and you accuse me of adding, I can't even begin to explain what you are missing because you will not accept what foundation is given. So what other possible explanation can I possibly use. I show you two different days of creation written, the differences, I tell you what is written and you just plainly do not have the mind to accept.

It is not a non-answer, it is the only answer cause you are a cement head.

"So you are admitting you have no idea what Genesis really said. Very interesting."

Actually what I am telling you is that you would be SHOCKED, red faced upon learning what is actually said, since you reject what is pointed out to you, thought maybe one who is fluent in the original Hebrew could better than I point out to you what is actually written. I am comfortable with what understanding I have and I can look up words from the KJV in the Strongs to learn what meanings are hidden. Now I do keep studying because I know that I do not have full understanding, no human flesh being can. At least I have a foundation and do not have to follow silly man's traditions or another whole new path.

I know it has nothing to do with an island, but that is the place where old Darwin got his dark ideas.
261 posted on 09/25/2005 2:14:58 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Wrong, I gave you the scripture that tells about who were taken on that Ark. You have a reading comprehension problem, Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life. Sorry only a blind, sottish mind can ignore these words."

Um, sorry, but that verse is talking about the ANIMALS, not the people. The scripture you gave tells of WHAT was taken on the ark, not WHO was taken. There were more than two people taken onto the ark, according to Genesis. Noah and his family. You on the other hand, chose to invent other people around the world who somehow survived the Flood along with Noah, even though Genesis makes no mention of them and the whole story makes no sense if the Flood was a localized event.

" ADDDDDD WHAT EXACTLY."

See above.

"The words of Genesis are all I used,..."

That and some other stuff you made up about people other than Noah surviving the Flood.

"Well golly gee, science hasn't figured out how to observe a soul. Look in the mirror."

Two points: 1) That's not a very Christian statement. 2) How do YOU suppose we go about detecting souls?

"I am not the holder and planter of mystical 'subjectivism'. That "hot" bowl of primordial soup is the bed of mystical 'subjectivism'. No evolutionists are not going to overthrow God, reject him, yes they are, but that is NOT a new thing, had you understanding you would find it written that flesh man's purpose is as result of one who rebelled and attempted to overthrow God and a third of God's children, called Sons of God followed that one. Just a replay in the flesh going on again."

A whole paragraph of mystical subjectivism. Impressive. :)

"Sadly there are people who do indeed seek to claim some are more fit than others based upon their races. Darwin himself promoted that theory."

I notice you ignored my argument that race is not a biologically meaningful category for people. As for Darwin, his views on race were just like 99% of the population at the time. It's almost impossible to find whites in the 19th century who believed that blacks were their equals. Darwin did however believe that slavery was an evil, and he almost got kicked off the Beagle voyage over a dispute on this point with the ship's captain, who was pro-slavery.

" What possible words can I say to you, I quote you verbatim what is written and you accuse me of adding,..."

Because you DID add things. Quote the chapter and verse where Genesis says that people other than Noah and his family survived the flood.

"I show you two different days of creation written, the differences, I tell you what is written and you just plainly do not have the mind to accept."

The two different days don't have anything to do with the invented people in Noah's time you claim survived the flood.

" It is not a non-answer, it is the only answer cause you are a cement head."

Don't hold back, tell me what you really think. :)

" I know it has nothing to do with an island, but that is the place where old Darwin got his dark ideas."

Genetic Bottlenecks have NOTHING to do with Darwin. Nada.
I notice you have ignored my argument that it is impossible for the pair of animals taken on the ARK to have been the only ancestors of today's animals because of the massive genetic bottleneck. I guess it either went over your head or else it just didn't fit into your mystical subjectivist world view.
262 posted on 09/25/2005 2:46:41 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: js1138
No..........disease is the result of sin. There was no disease in God's original creation until man rebelled.

Look, js..........we don't have any common ground here.

You don't believe the Bible is God's word, and I do. You will reject anything I say based on Scripture, because you trust science first and foremost, and I look at scientific discovery in the light of what God has revealed in His word.

It's probably best that this discussion end.

263 posted on 09/25/2005 3:00:52 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Very presumptuous of you.

No, it's not. If you go back and reread your post, you will see your rejection not only of what I said, but of straight, uninterpreted Scripture. That is God's word, not mine.

And taking God's word for what it actually said is anything but an insult to Him. I would rather trust His word to be true and be proven wrong when I come face to face with Him, than reject it as 'mysticism' and come face to face with Him, and find out that I had rejected the truth of the God who created me.

It would be best if you didn't use God as part of your argument against creation, since you have shown that You don't believe the Bible to be His word and infallible, and He has told us that it is. That doesn't put you in a very good position to be determining what is, or isn't an 'insult' to Him, since You have chosen not to believe what He has told us.

You are, of course, free to reject whatever you like..........God created you with your own free will...........but don't claim that you are honoring God by rejecting Scripture.

Science is your priority. You've made that very clear. But it would behoove you not to ridicule those of us who have God's word as a priority, and understand that science is man's quest for truth, and prone to great error, while God's revealed word is without error.

264 posted on 09/25/2005 3:12:47 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Um, sorry, but that verse is talking about the ANIMALS, not the people. The scripture you gave tells of WHAT was taken on the ark, not WHO was taken. There were more than two people taken onto the ark, according to Genesis. Noah and his family. You on the other hand, chose to invent other people around the world who somehow survived the Flood along with Noah, even though Genesis makes no mention of them and the whole story makes no sense if the Flood was a localized event."

Wrong as the words breath of life, same words use to describe what it was that gave The Adam life, when he was formed.

No I did not invent anybody. I read what is written and accepted what is written ignoring the traditions of man that make the word null and void. You have the reading comprehension problem.

Further I stated was given the purpose of the flood, and who it was fit to "survive" (saved) was Noah and his family.

Noah was described "a just man and perfect in his generations and Noah walked with GOD". Now this word generations = family history, perfect, without blemish as to breed or pedigree. All flesh corrupted but Noah's family Now Genesis 6:2 says "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men (word should actually be =the man Adam because the Hebrew form of The Adam is set apart with an article attached to Adam) they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

That was the purpose of the flood.

Given that the flood was to destroy all corrupted flesh, is what sets the parameters of where the flood waters would flow.

You don't believe the story to begin with, let alone try and make sense of it, who are you trying to kid.

"Two points: 1) That's not a very Christian statement. 2) How do YOU suppose we go about detecting souls?"

Given what you believe you are hardly in a position to know what is Christian and what is not.

A follower of Christ, is the method and the tool to detect the status of ones soul. Remember Christ was killed for what He had to say, and how many stayed with Him when He was killed. Might call that a measuring of what is to be expected these days.


"I notice you ignored my argument that race is not a biologically meaningful category for people. As for Darwin, his views on race were just like 99% of the population at the time. It's almost impossible to find whites in the 19th century who believed that blacks were their equals. Darwin did however believe that slavery was an evil, and he almost got kicked off the Beagle voyage over a dispute on this point with the ship's captain, who was pro-slavery."

There are allll methods and manner of slavery, we still have slavery this day. Ones mind can be enslaved to a belief system. Well 99% of the population had it wrong BIG Time now didn't they, the majority has never been on the side of "RIGHT" since the beginning. I have even had some preening evolutionists accuse me, being Christian a supporter of the slave system.

"The two different days don't have anything to do with the invented people in Noah's time you claim survived the flood."

Well given that we are told the specific reason why there was to be a flood and Noah was the only from the Adam perfect in his generations, does not remove what we are told about two different days of creation.

"Genetic Bottlenecks have NOTHING to do with Darwin. Nada.
I notice you have ignored my argument that it is impossible for the pair of animals taken on the ARK to have been the only ancestors of today's animals because of the massive genetic bottleneck. I guess it either went over your head or else it just didn't fit into your mystical subjectivist world view."

Gee, and look what happened to your mind when I said my belief does not hinged upon the flood literally covering the whole earth. I can easily accept, given what is evidence here this day, and what is known about DNA saying what is possible and impossible. Obviously those creatures taken and given the size of the ark present some limitations upon what we find here this day, correct.

So what if I blindly believe that all of what is here today came off the ark, you call me stupid, or recognizing that based upon what we are told things need be examined, you tell me I am adding things.

But hey I am not the one preaching a whole different way.


Then again maybe this earth is filled with "bottlenecks", after all the preservation of the seed line was for the purpose of Christ. Man does have a habit of muddying the waters.
265 posted on 09/25/2005 3:20:11 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
"And taking God's word for what it actually said is anything but an insult to Him."

When you ignore the physical world around you, you are rejecting His Word. That is a slap in God's face.

"It would be best if you didn't use God as part of your argument against creation, since you have shown that You don't believe the Bible to be His word and infallible, and He has told us that it is."

You believe your interpretation of the Bible, and I will believe the world around me.

"but don't claim that you are honoring God by rejecting Scripture."

Don't claim you are honoring God by rejecting His Creation.

"But it would behoove you not to ridicule those of us who have God's word as a priority, and understand that science is man's quest for truth, and prone to great error, while God's revealed word is without error."

Your interpretation of God's revealed word is most certainly with error. The debate is over what should be taught in a science class. You are free to believe whatever you want, but it would behoove you not to confuse your mystical subjectivism with science.
266 posted on 09/25/2005 3:23:59 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Incredible twists of rational thought went into that post, CG, to allow you to think that man-made science reflects God's truth more than His revealed word.

If I didn't read it for myself, I wouldn't believe that anyone could contort truth to such an extreme.

And even though I didn't bring up the subject and you have inserted it into the discussion, I believe that objective truth should be taught in science class, and not propaganda. That means that when legitimate scientific research is presented that supports ID, it should be openly discussed in science classes so that students aren't given only one side of a two sided discussion (Never did I suggest that Biblical creation should be taught in science class).

Now.........as much fun as it's been, I no longer wish to debate with an intellectual Houdini such as yourself, so I'm leaving this thread.

Perhaps you can contort enough to debate the issue with yourself after I'm gone. You're only a few short steps from it right now......

Bye now. :)

267 posted on 09/25/2005 3:39:02 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
" Wrong as the words breath of life, same words use to describe what it was that gave The Adam life, when he was formed."

Not the point. The verse you quoted spoke of how two of each kind was brought onto the Ark. That was talking about animals, not people, unless you think Noah brought on two of each *kind* of people too? :)

" No I did not invent anybody."

Sure you did.

" Further I stated was given the purpose of the flood, and who it was fit to "survive" (saved) was Noah and his family."

Then why did you make up other people who you claim also survived? Where is it stated in Genesis that ANYBODY other than Noah's family survived?

" Given that the flood was to destroy all corrupted flesh, is what sets the parameters of where the flood waters would flow."

Are you trying to say there were people of *uncorrupted flesh* living at the time of Noah who were not descended from Adam? Are they still living today? (They would not get old and die since they would be *uncorrupted flesh*. Death is supposed to be one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin; these *uncorrupted flesh* people would not have that problem.

Why do you get to make that up? Genesis says the Flood covered the Earth and killed everybody but Noah and his family.

" You don't believe the story to begin with, let alone try and make sense of it, who are you trying to kid."

You are using Noah as a bludgeon to argue your case, and yet you have to invent new plot lines to the story. How is anybody supposed to take your position seriously?

" A follower of Christ, is the method and the tool to detect the status of ones soul."

I wasn't talking about measuring the status, I was talking about detecting the existence of a soul. How does one go about it?

" Given what you believe you are hardly in a position to know what is Christian and what is not."


I know when someone is throwing an insult when they have no rational argument.

" "Well golly gee, science hasn't figured out how to observe a soul. Look in the mirror."

And I do know that that is not being very Christian. You presume way too much about my knowledge, or my background.

" There are allll methods and manner of slavery, we still have slavery this day. Ones mind can be enslaved to a belief system."

Like creationism.

"Well 99% of the population had it wrong BIG Time now didn't they, the majority has never been on the side of "RIGHT" since the beginning."

Nice evasion of the point. You implied Darwin came up with Natural Selection because he was a racist; I showed that the vast majority of people in his day were racists. His views on human race (which were fairly enlightened for his time anyway) had no impact on the formulation of his theory.
Instead of trying to answer what I wrote, you start talking about how *the majority has never been on the side of *Right* since the beginning*.

That is the most difficult thing about posting to you; you never seem to understand what is being asked you. If you think I make YOU frustrated, you should walk a mile in my shoes.

"Gee, and look what happened to your mind when I said my belief does not hinged upon the flood literally covering the whole earth. I can easily accept, given what is evidence here this day, and what is known about DNA saying what is possible and impossible. Obviously those creatures taken and given the size of the ark present some limitations upon what we find here this day, correct."

Then you don't believe what was written in Genesis. You can't take a few pieces here and there and ignore the rest.
Most people realize the whole story to be metaphoric, and don't attempt to try and include Noah and the flood as a literal event. If it was a literal event, you have no business rewriting it. You have every right to believe whatever you wish, but when you call people who disagree with you liars (that is your word for evolution) and tell them they are believing things that they aren't, don't expect us to just sit by and be insulted. You want to get into a debate, you have to be willing to have your position scrutinized.

"So what if I blindly believe that all of what is here today came off the ark, you call me stupid, or recognizing that based upon what we are told things need be examined, you tell me I am adding things."

I didn't call you stupid. Stubborn to the point of blindness, certainly. But I didn't say stupid.
268 posted on 09/25/2005 3:59:41 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
So ... do you believe sin is real?

Yes.

269 posted on 09/25/2005 4:12:28 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
"Incredible twists of rational thought went into that post, CG, to allow you to think that man-made science reflects God's truth more than His revealed word."

First you have to demonstrate your interpretation IS his revealed Word. You take it on faith (no evidence) and expect that to impress everybody. If I hadn't read it again, I wouldn't believe someone could think such a weak argument was a checkmate. Mystical subjectivism as an arguing point! And we're supposed to be impressed!

Just because you want to ignore the World doesn't mean the rest of us want to, or should be made to.

"I believe that objective truth should be taught in science class, and not propaganda."

Good. That counts ID out.

"That means that when legitimate scientific research is presented that supports ID, it should be openly discussed in science classes so that students aren't given only one side of a two sided discussion."

When that day happens, I agree. It hasn't happened yet.

"Now.........as much fun as it's been, I no longer wish to debate with an intellectual Houdini such as yourself, so I'm leaving this thread."

Well, if you can't handle the material, I certainly understand. It requires objective thinking, not appeals to feelings and emotion. Nobody faults you for backing away.

Have a great night!

Please don't ping me again on this thread. I won't ping you back.
270 posted on 09/25/2005 4:16:12 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: JNL
Since when? The whole ID movement is based on attacking Darwin. It paints evolution and Darwinism as controversial when it really is not.

It attacks the claim that the variety of life can be explained entirely by undirected forces. If you are a Christian, you don't believe that anyway.

271 posted on 09/25/2005 4:23:36 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
That's cute. You say outrageous things and then tell me not to ping you back. Really cute.

Let me just remind other readers of this post of yours....

"Romans 12:2 - Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

This is a call for subjective mysticism over objective evidence. Only when you throw off this world (reality) for some inner subjective reality can you discover God's will. It is a call for the death of reason.

What I wrote........the passage from Romans in quotes.........is a direct quote from Scripture with no interpretation of mine in it. Just the words of the Apostle Paul, inspired by God.

You, in response, called God's word "a call for subjective mysticism over objective evidence," and the "death of reason."

And after you completely dismissed the direct quote (among others), you claim to know what 'insults' God.

Intellectual Houdini-ism. May I call you Harry? Can you show me your straightjacket and locks sometime? :)

(I know that you're not reading this, but I can imagine the irrational arguments and insults you would be mounting if you were.....probably a good thing that you're not going to reply. Wouldn't want you to further embarrass yourself......)

272 posted on 09/25/2005 4:27:06 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Ohiofan said:

"That's cute. You say outrageous things and then tell me not to ping you back. Really cute."

Just following your lead. You dropped crap and ran. I was just returning the favor.

"What I wrote........the passage from Romans in quotes.........is a direct quote from Scripture with no interpretation of mine in it. Just the words of the Apostle Paul, inspired by God."

There is no evidence it was inspired by God, it is your assumption. That is the whole point, you make assumptions based on faith and treat them as facts not to be disputed. You expect that to count in a scientific discussion.

" You, in response, called God's word "a call for subjective mysticism over objective evidence," and the "death of reason."

No, I called the quote from the Bible (written by men) a call for subjective mysticism and the death of reason. Last time I checked Paul wasn't God.

You want us to ignore the physical world (the word of God) whenever it contradicts your interpretation of your book. That is the death of reason and a direct attack on Man's mind.

"And after you completely dismissed the direct quote (among others), you claim to know what 'insults' God."

Denying His creation insults Him.

"Intellectual Houdini-ism. May I call you Harry? Can you show me your straightjacket and locks sometime? :)"

I wouldn't make jokes about straitjackets with the wacky arguments you have been using.

"(I know that you're not reading this, but I can imagine the irrational arguments and insults you would be mounting if you were."

Projection isn't working well for you. You have already demonstrated your ability to imagine all sorts of irrational arguments.

BTW, I never said I wouldn't read your post. Or that I wouldn't respond. That reading comprehension thing isn't working for you either. I just said I wouldn't ping YOU.
273 posted on 09/25/2005 4:49:53 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
"Do I have your permission to copy it for future reference?"

Of course! Sorry I'm so late in replying.

274 posted on 09/25/2005 7:22:00 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thank you, sir! I love the straight facts! Awesome.


275 posted on 09/25/2005 7:36:36 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs

ID is far more scientific in its approach than Darwinism and survival of the fittest. Just hearing "survival of the fittest" sounds comic.

You guys had better stop retreating in the musty past. Science is not static. Scientific inquiry should not be stuck in the mud of Darwinism.


276 posted on 09/25/2005 7:41:59 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Matchett-PI
LOL! Don't talk to yourself TOO much, son. The nurses might come and give you stronger meds. ;)

In the mean time, I wouldn't keep making up your own 'religion' like that. It's more dangerous than you realize.

Matchett..........thanks for posting to me on this thread............otherwise I wouldn't have gotten to watch Carolinaboy twist himself into a pretzel like this.

MOST amusing.....

277 posted on 09/25/2005 7:44:50 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

"Matchett..........thanks for posting to me on this thread............otherwise I wouldn't have gotten to watch Carolinaboy twist himself into a pretzel like this. ... making up [his] own 'religion' like that..." ~ ohioWfan

You're welcome. Michael Crichton can tell you why he makes up his own religion. LOL Read on.

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton
San Francisco, CA. September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.

Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does inbdeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call "the force of nature." They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there---though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html


278 posted on 09/25/2005 8:17:54 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman


Forget about Genesis doesn't apply to you anyway.


279 posted on 09/25/2005 8:46:44 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

I notice you never have any actual arguments, just insults, son. I didn't ping you because it wouldn't matter. I post for the lurkers, who can see through your evasions.

"In the mean time, I wouldn't keep making up your own 'religion' like that."

I didn't. Learn to read, son. You're the one ignoring God's creation.

Your saying *You are illogical!* is not proof. You actually have to demonstrate things, son. You have done no such thing. I take your refusal to respond with an argument as a
confession you knew you lost. Sad thing is you are so ignorant you think it's a win. That's what happens when you are a mystical subjectivist (I know those words are too big for you to understand, too bad) like you.



280 posted on 09/26/2005 4:31:58 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-319 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson