Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.
Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.
The astute reader is invited to go back and read my post, and see for himself just how laughably bad Cicero's misrepresentation of my position is -- *and* note how much he snipped out between the two sentences of mine he quoted, including:
"Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just stop lying about it, and stop trying to dishonestly push religion into schools in a Trojan Horse with "science" scribbled on the side, when it isn't."Whether his gross distortion of what I actually wrote is due to his gross dishonesty, or a reading comprehension so poor that it would embarrass a gradeschooler, is left as an exercise for the reader.
In any case, this sort of thing is unfortunately extremely common when having discussions with AECreationists. I invite lurkers to ponder the reason why.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/12/godless_pride.html
Why have so many fundamentalist religious leaders formed politically-active organizations? Who are they, and how successful have they been? To begin, consider the Reconstructionists, arguably the most fanatical of the Christian Right groups. According to them, says William Martin, author of With God on Our Side, “Christians have a mandate to rebuild . . . all of human society,” and “they contend that the Bible . . . offers the perfect blueprint for the shape a reconstructed world should take.”
Reconstructionists are also known as Dominionists, as in Genesis 1:28, which calls on them to: “Fill the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.” As “agents of God’s unfolding plan,” they are working to establish a theonomy, or “rule of God,” which leaves no room for toleration of other points of view. According to Martin, “a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning.” Since these ethical principles reflect the will of an immutable God, Reconstructionists reason, they apply to all people, in every era. R.J. Rushdoony, the founding father of Reconstructionism, regards pluralism as a heresy, since “in the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions.”
Frankly, it is highly unlikely that Reconstructionists will suddenly seize political power. Their ideas are simply too extreme. Leaders of the religious right have been cautious about showing any interest in this radical movement. Still, Reconstructionists have clearly been influential. Fundamentalist ministers Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. An anonymous member of the religious right undoubtedly spoke for many when he confessed, “Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.” While most religious right activists have discarded the more unpalatable aims of Reconstructionists, they have embraced their underlying theory that the Bible provides a blueprint for running government. Jay Grimstead, leader of the Coalition on Revival, expressed the sentiment of many conservative Christian leaders when he argued that while they may not be in full support of a theonomy, it is still their desire to rebuild a Bible-based America.
An opposing view is at
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html
Looks like this article about defensive Darwinists brought a few of them out of the woodwork. It's hard to argue against intelligent design when so much evidence for it is all around. For every atom that does not disintegrate or change properties randomly they have to give an answer that has the appearance of science. Actually, they do not have an answer other than a catch-all answer: anything-but-intelligence! Faith is a good thing, but not when it's blind.