Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 16 October 2005 | MICHAEL RUBINKAM

[WildTurkey]

I don't know enough about the specifics Intelligent Design Or evolutionary theory.

[cornelis]

The only thing that doesn't change is the assumption that nature doesn't cheat

Actually, StJacques here has pointed out another. There is a working assumption that involves the scope of nature. Does nature exclude human nature? Previous discussion also reveals that we make assumptions on the correlation of scientific thinking and the actual essence of nature.

[Matchett-PI]

Yeah, right ... I "didn't understand what I posted." You are a reeeeeeal piece of work.

You origionally spoke of "THE" theory of evolution and stated that the pope was in agreement with it.

I then showed you that the pope spoke of "several" theories of evolution - not "the" theory of evolution.

Then I showed you what Darwin's opinion of his own theory was, and added as back up the statement from the Encyclopedia Britannica which states: "There was no place in Darwin's world for divine intervention, nor was mankind placed in a position of superiority vis-a-vis the rest of the animal world. Darwin saw man as part of a continuum with the rest of nature, not separated by divine injunction."

Then I backed that up with statements from well-known highly respected "scientists" who also embrace "Darwinism".

In light of what Darwin believed ... neither you, nor the pope could legitimately / logically embrace the evolutionary theory known as "Darwinism".

[PetroniusMaximus]

***What systems are based on evolution. Be specific.***



Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’


***

“Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles—including those of urbanized society.”

Burton H. Wolfe, Author and priest in the Church of Satan. Introduction of “The Satanic Bible”, San Francisco, December 25, 1976

***

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm


***


Some have suggested that the bloodthirsty deeds of Stalin were an ‘aberration’ from the revolution’s ideals. However, it was Lenin, the ‘father’ of the Russian revolution, who ‘perfected the science of mass killings,’ and total, merciless brutality as the ultimate method of political control.4 Evolution was the chief tool used to brainwash communism’s masses into ‘scientific atheism.’ If everything just evolved, then everything is at the whim of the most powerful, and there is no Maker to whom to be answerable. Hence Stalin’s belief that killing millions of people was no worse than mowing your lawn (grass is our cousin in evolutionary doctrine).

Mao’s reign of terror and lies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. It is no coincidence that his two favorite books were by the evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. With millions dying from his forced famine, his physician records that Mao said, ‘We have so many people we can afford to lose a few.’5 His successors have since persecuted and killed hundreds of thousands more.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp


***

The Darwin/Trotsky connection
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/darwin_trotsky.asp

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp

[csense]

Whatever. Instead of concentrating on putting words in other people's mouths, you might want to concentrate on the noise coming from your own mouth.

[Gumlegs]

Gumlegs: Darwin's theory directly contradicts your interpretation of the account of Genesis.

Though you man not be aware of it, you're using typical liberal methodology - It doesn't really "mean" what it "means". It must be "interpreted" to mean something other than what it clearly states - namely, "In the beginning, God created..."

Are you saying here that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? You must believe, then, that locusts have four legs, that rabbits chew their cud, and that wearing linsey-woolsey shirts and rounding the corners of your beard are offensive to God. You must believe that slavery is okay as long as you follow the rules outlined in the Bible for the treatment of slaves. You must believe that witches not only exist, but you must kill them whenever you find them.

Are you in full compliance?

BTW - evolution also contradicts the historic position of the Church. Church fathers had the Greek version of evolution to contend with and discarded it.

Take it up with the Pope.

Gumlegs: I'll concede your point if you can demonstrate you have a direct link to God.

My link to God is via Christ and the Scriptures. Scriptures which He wrote to humans in words that humans can understand.

That's not a "direct link." I was thinking more of something along the lines of your own personal phone line or emails from God Himself. Otherwise, you have no more authority to speak for the Almighty than anyone else.

To repeat myself, you're assuming your interpretation of the scriptures is correct. If you are right, and it's so mind-bendingly obvious, why are there so many denominations of Christianity? Every denominatin argues that they've got it right and all the others are wrong. Why should we believe you?

Gumlegs: What are you doing on the internet, by the way? The Electromagnetic Theory is just as atheistic as the Theory of Evolution.

I'm intrigued. How so?

Electromagnetic theory no more takes God into account than any other scientific theory, including the Theory of Evolution.

[js1138]

Science doesn't deal in essences. It deals with what it can observe, and that would include any observable aspect of humans.

[WildTurkey]

Whatever. Instead of concentrating on putting words in other people's mouths, you might want to concentrate on the noise coming from your own mouth.

I guess I will have to try harder. I got a much better response (see below) from you when I shot you down on another thread ... This one's a keeper!

Good lord, why did I even come here today. Someone please pass me some aspirin...

[shuckmaster]

Behe said he was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a skeptic after reading Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

Behe was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a charlatan after seeing how much money Michael Denton's book made off suckers.

[balrog666]

Are you blonde?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

[WildTurkey]

Behe was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a charlatan after seeing how much money Michael Denton's book made off suckers.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[js1138]

Looks like the equivalent of using one's position as editor of a peer reviewed journal to slip in a little creationist bomb -- just before one's term of office expires anyway. No point in allowing disciplinary action to be suggested.

[StJacques]

"Yeah, right ... I "didn't understand what I posted." . . ."

With regard to your quoting of the Pope, yes; I am convinced you did not understand what you posted, as I'll explain in a moment. But I never told you that the "Pope was in agreement with it." No; I told you precisely the following:

". . . what is really interesting is that two Popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, have pointedly stated that 'If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God,' which John Paul II further built upon in saying 'The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory,' which makes clear that some of the most religious men of recent times have seen evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution as valid, . . ."

What part of the above-quoted statement do you find flawed? The quotes I use are copied and pasted in from the original sources and they do show that the two Popes saw the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution as "valid." You challenged me on my statement by referring to the three theories of evolution Pope John Paul II discussed, but that is only a useful rejoinder on your part if either [or both] of them are held as competing with the Darwinian theory, which is NOT the case, since none of them were presented as an alternative to Darwin's theory but rather as separate paths of philosophical inquiry and the Pope's clear assessment that the cumulative findings of science regarding [Darwinian] evolution were a "significant argument in favor of the theory." That is not an "embracing" of Darwin's theory by the Pope, because the Catholic Church will not embrace any scientific theory. It doesn't even embrace Newton's Laws of Motion for that matter. But it is a public statement that the best findings of recognized science up to this point support Darwin's theory. It's just that those findings are within materialist philosophical inquiry and are therefore a matter of no great concern for the Church, whose duty is theological inquiry.

So Matchett, if you have argued that Pope John Paul II has presented or praised an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution as explaining the material origins of the form of man, which is what I read in your post, then I charge you with not knowing what you are talking about. If you are arguing something different, then state clearly what that is.

[StJacques]

LOL @ "how much money Michael Denton's book made off suckers."

Sometimes, the truth tickles. ;-)

[Oztrich Boy]

The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi,

As you say "atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi". Is that a good authority?

Escpecally when devout Christian anti-Darwininans like Father Coughlin, Reverend William Bell Riley, and Reverend Gerald Windrod said nice things about Hitler and noted no such evolutionist tendencies.

[cornelis]

The observable is more than appearance. Human intelligence already thousands of years ago realized that the eye of the mind sees much more than appearance. We make inferences to make statements about what is not observable.

[curiosity]

Interesting that the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers

Neither Kenneth Miller nor Keith Miller are atheists, and today I'd say they're more prominent than Dawkins. Both are devout Christians and evolution popularizers. Kenneth is a Catholic and Keith is an evangelical Protestant.

[curiosity]

No true Christian takes the word of science over the words of Christ - pope or not.

I was not aware that Our Lord ever said anything about evolutionary biology. You mind giving me a chapter and verse?

[js1138]

The observable is more than appearance. Human intelligence already thousands of years ago realized that the eye of the mind sees much more than appearance. We make inferences to make statements about what is not observable.

True. But science limits itself to inferences that can be put to the test. The kind of test dependes on the subject matter and practicality, but the more tests an inference passes, the more weight it is given.

Inferences that have no predictive power are not part of science.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I was not aware that Our Lord ever said anything about evolutionary biology.***


"And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

Jesus, Matthew 19:4

Mankind was made male and female FROM THE BEGINNING. They were not created as asexual blobs.