Posted on 12/08/2005 7:57:08 PM PST by curiosity
What's to explain? Virtually everything he said there is some sort of generalized rant about the right, and yet when he starts talking about using evolution for political gain, you take it to be him revealing some sort of secret left-wing plan. It seems far more likely that it was a continuation of his rant against the right, that he was complaining that some element of the right was attempting use the issue for political gain. But, of course, there's no context to that phrase, so it's impossible to know for sure - imputing one or the other to him is simply hearing what you want to hear, in the absence of further information. Says more about the listener than the speaker, really.
OK, you agree with me, thanks.
You should have stuck with "I don't understand" - it was your most cogent comment thus far.
IOW, science must be atheistic or it ain't science.
I'm saying that that conclusion does not follow from the material here.
Or you could say you don't know.
Giving up on post 41, then? Wise move.
I noticed the evos rejoicing over putting Dems in office.
Then I noticed that none of these evos have much going on in FR other than bashing the religious right, with evo being the cassus beli right now.
I notice that they work in coordinated ways that freepmail and fr-surfing would not support. They do work in ways that being connected by IM would support.
I think libertarians, and those conservatives who don't like "social conservatives"--can be easily used by leftists by the leftists playing on the distaste for religious conservatives.
I don't see why it wouldn't happen here. There are a lot of Dems with money and time on their hands.
And they don't like religious conservatives, either.
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple and straightforward question?
Again, are you saying he or the left don't want to use evolution for socio-political gain?
I don't know what he meant at the time by talking about evolution as a political issue, whether right or left. Neither, I suspect, do you, but if it makes you happy to do this sort of tapdance to get away from that, be my guest.
MithrasDidit placemark
OK. Forget this guy for now, in general, do you think the left want to use evolution for socio-political gain?
In general, I think there are elements of both right and left that seek to exploit the issue for political gain.
I agree.
So, back to this KU guy. He is clearly a hard leftist in the Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, liberal dem lefty mold. Do you think his reasons are not for socio-politcal gain or purpose?
If you have evidence of same, I'm always happy to have a look. But this article, on its own, isn't it.
Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Many Christians do not interpret Genesis literally and thus do not encounter contradiction; you can claim that they're not real Christians, but they would strongly disagree.
If evolution could be proven (and it can't and won't)
It can and has been proven to the same degree as the theory (yes, theory) of gravity.
it would and should be devastating to any religion that attempted to explain the presence of the universe differently.
Correct. Just as Galileo's discoveries were devastating to Biblically-inspired geocentrism.
So don't keep me in suspense. Which camp am I in?
That's not an answer. Yes, no or I don;t know or maybe etc... Those are answers.
Wow. An all powerful God, whoops, all powerful except that He cannot create evolution.
Pretty ballsy of you to have determined what God is and is not capable of.
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.