Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[wyattearp]

Read the article.

I did, nimrod. I don't see any behavior even remotely resembling the Nazis or the Third Reich. That is why I said "name one".

Still waiting, by the way.

[AndrewC]

Problem is, none of this had in the least relevance, since the OSC admitted it had no jurisdiction

I guess that makes it OK.

[AndrewC]

we draw the line.

Who died and made you king?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The evolutionist version of "agnostic" is any and all teaching that rejects the "supernatural." How's that for saying, "we don't know?"

"We don't know, but only one side of the argument is allowed a hearing in the classroom."

[Liberal Classic]

Why is it that evolutionists are obsessed with creationists/IDers? That is one question I've been asking of evolutionists, but in vain. They invariably skirt the question. Why do they have this desire to improve us? Do they think, perhaps, of themselves as God, or do they have an ulterior, hidden nefarious agenda? Like, the destruction of Christianity, its culture and the enslaving of its people?

Speaking of the "destruction of culture," I'm still waiting for you to repudiate Sam Francis and the quote by him you had on your profile page before we New Jacobins noticed it.

"Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself."

You've had ample opportunity to defend this quotation, or to repudiate it. Since you have chosen only to dance around the issue, I can only come to the conclusion you support the idea as expressed but lack the intestinal fortitude make a positive declaration publicly.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The evolutionist version of "agnostic" is any and all teaching that rejects the "supernatural." How's that for saying, "we don't know?""

Since the supernatural is not observable, testable, or repeatable, excluding it from scientific theories is the only logical course to take. Science doesn't say the supernatural doesn't happen, only that it's methodology is incapable of determining if it has or hasn't happened. This has been the accepted limits of science since Galileo and Newton.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Did you try flowers and candy?

Have you found them to be better than an ape?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"osing federal grants and your ability to further dubm down our naive students. "

That's it, we want to *dubm* down our native students. lol

BTW, why do you care if they are *native* or not? :)

[wyattearp]

If you believe that all clergy actually BELIEVE and preach the word of God, you are sadly mistaken.

Right. Only YOUR pastor preches the TRUE word of God. I get it.

[Junior]

So that's what you're afraid of - losing federal grants and your ability to further dubm down our naive students.

When was any mention of federal grants made?

Dawinism has been proven to be pure mythology.

Really? Citations please. Oh, I forgot. AECreationists don't actually back up their claims. Divine revelation, and all that.

[Right Wing Professor]

The Smithsonian declined to cooperate with the investigation once it was determined OSC lacked jurisdiction. It was therefore an entirely one-sided opinion by McVay about a case which he shouldn't have investigated, and to adjudicate which he was unqualified. Its merits should be evaluated accordingly.

[ml1954]

BTW, why do you care if they are *native* or not? :)

Considering that deleted quote he had on his profile page about the horrors of racial inter-breeding, it must be a 'Freudian' slip.

[Liberal Classic]

BTW, why do you care if they are *native* or not?

This may have been a Freudian slip in the Sam Francis vein. If they're not native, then they're immigrants.

[Junior]

One does not need to be "king" to state where he or she would "draw the line."

Please bring back the original AndrewC. You're a pale substitute.

[Liberal Classic]

We are on the same wavelength.

[wyattearp]

Modern evolutionary theory has grave weaknesses, the most grave being its inability to account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms.

There is no way to scientifically "account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms". That evolutionary theory doesn't address the unaddressable is not a weakness, it is a strength.

Intelligent design dares honestly to confront this compelling and vital evidence.

There is no evidence, vital, compelling, or otherwise. Therefore, Intelligent Design is dishonest.

[ml1954]

'Great Minds' and all that. LOL.