Just a reminder: Darwin works have always been exempt from the purges of the multiculturalists because he serves as the foundation of their whole worldview.
Oh, and, Dr. Myers, `od 'Avraham 'Avinu chay, and there is not a scientist or atheist living whose name will ever shine as brightly. Sorry.
For your interest.
Nor can fate and freewill coexist, but they do.
Excellent post. This court case wasn't so much about science, as about competing religious viewpoints. This decision also came down to the musings of an activist judge.
Does nobody see G_d in Darwin's work except me? Can't we just all get along?
Only because the anti-science industry is determined to define study of God's creation a "religion" and are determined to make money off the false dichotomy. Christians in the sciences don't look at it that way.
"In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God."
I don't think this is true. Although "some" "Darwin advocates" are atheists, by no means all are.
I think the only generalization one can make in this area is that it is true that Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Biblical literalism. But many people who believe in God (including many Christians) are not Biblical literalists. Not being a Biblical literalist is hardly the same thing as "negating religion."
I went to Catholic schools though high school. In biology class we studied evolution. We discussed God's role as creator in philosophy and religious studies classes.
One of the principal scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, btw, was a practicing Catholic.
Blatant misrepresentation in the first sentence.
It`s JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ,
at it`s worst.
And the FR Evos Will defend it.
Since recycling, resource conservation and other 'green' activities are tenents of the earth mother and wiccan 'religions', does this mean that these gov't mandated programs are in violation of the Constitution?
David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History.
Discovery Institute...I'm shocked!
This guy is a freakin' braindead nut.
So let's see: if we take everything that exists, which we used to believe was created by God and as such was supposed to be evidence of God's existence, and then come up with a way to explain its existence 100% without reference to God, so that suddenly everything in the universe can be understood without the slightest attribution to God as its creator, this does not "in any way" diminish in our minds' the notion of God as its creator????????
Where the heck did this guy get his law degree? Some sort of mail-order Evolution U?
So we've got a creator who never created anything? Or maybe he creates things somewhere else, just not in our universe. Or maybe he creates them and destroys them again really quickly where no-one can see them. Or he creates things in a way is massively inefficient, morbid, and actually doesn't require his involvement at all, and then tells everyone to look at it as evidence of his existence an greatness?
I'm starting to think this entire ruling was posted by someone from scrappleface. If I was that dumb I'd shoot myself.
My guess is that they are sitting it out. Especially the feministas, who probably dont like intelligent design any better than neo-Darwinism. Both are anathema to their fairy tale that sex roles are socially constructed.
Nonsense. Darwinian evolution makes no assertion, positive or negative, about the possibility that there is a supernatural reality. It simply declines to rely on that notion (as it must, to remain within the purview of science).
By this silly line of reasoning, a policeman who gives you a ticket for driving down the left side of the road in Manchester, New Hampshire is denying the possibility that there is such a place as Manchester, England (where driving down the left side of the road is perfectly acceptable).
Bring evolution down to a molecular level and it falls apart. Randomness. Exactly how do you get from A-1 to Z-2000 through random events? The downfall of Darwinism. Darwinist look at coincidental yet somewhat similar structures and draw the conclusion that A became Z. Phenotype trumps genotype in their world.
Funny, but a whole load of Founding Fathers were exactly that kind of Christian (Deists), and they still had no trouble believing in God and the Natural Laws that make our system of government possible. The Either-Or logical fallacy is a lousy way to start an argument...