Darwin's Pyrrhic victory

WorldNetDaily ^ | December 28, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Doctor Stochastic]

Do you have evidence that the ones who do aren't liberal when it comes to nearly all other issues besides religion in schools?

Only the testimony of several dozen and no dissenters. Of couse, that's only anecdota, not data.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Rather than being a circular argument, it's closer to a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some Jewish conservatives (delegates to the 1992 GOP convention) have left the party because of Buchannan's speech thereunto. It will be a couple of generations before Pat's damage is undone in this area.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, only the big-spending, big-government, nanny-state, conservatives are left in the GOP since 1964. Many GOP politicians are unreconstructed Democrats that changed their hats.

[Oztrich Boy]

You claim we would only go back to the 1960's. Why should they stop there? Why not to 1700?

1709? By then America was no longer hanging "witches"

[Alain Chartier]

One route to wider public acceptance for an intrusive role of religion in government is to obtain control of public schools. The American people, right now, would not accept the stoning of disobedient children or the execution of homosexuals and apostates. But they did once, and there's no reason to believe that their attitudes, having been changed once, could not be changed again.

Uh, no, they didn't. Even Hester Prynne wasn't stoned to death.

Two can play this game. You want to attack religious believers? Well then, the Communists are your allies. Don't like being tarred with that brush? Then you should take a bit more care in your distinctions.

[Right Wing Professor]

Uh, no, they didn't. Even Hester Prynne wasn't stoned to death.

The Scarlet Letter is a novel, guy. Try to separate your fantasy world from reality.

Two can play this game. You want to attack religious believers? Well then, the Communists are your allies. Don't like being tarred with that brush? Then you should take a bit more care in your distinctions.

I'm not attacking religious believers. I'm attacking fundamentalists. And your 'logic' is pretty much what I've grown to expect from them.

[inquest]

Of couse, that's only anecdota, not data.

I would think so. Given the very large numbers of very liberal Jews in this country, contrasted with the fact that there were no dissenters in your sample, this has "selection bias" written all over it.

[inquest]

Some Jewish conservatives (delegates to the 1992 GOP convention) have left the party because of Buchannan's speech thereunto.

And where did they go? To the Democrats or the Libertarians? If the former, then I got news for you: they were never conservative to begin with.

[inquest]

I'm not attacking religious believers.

Other than substituting the Klan for mainstream religious organizations in a statement I made and pretending that the same logic applies, like you did at #275, no, you're not attacking religious believers or anything.

[Doctor Stochastic]

To the libertarians (with a small l), as did other non-Jewish GOP members. Buchannan did as much as Perot to defeat Bush and give us Clinton.

[Right Wing Professor]

Other than substituting the Klan for mainstream religious organizations in a statement I made and pretending that the same logic applies, like you did at #275, no, you're not attacking religious believers or anything.

You made an argument from analogy. I gave an example where your analogy fails. Logic is logic, and applies everywhere. On the other hand, analogy is the weakest form of logical reasoning.

Now you've abandoned logic, and embraced hysteria. Predictable.

[inquest]

To the libertarians (with a small l)

That's answer is a non sequitur. Small-l libertarians are not a political party. It's like saying that somebody left the U.S., and when asked where he went, you say, "to the movies".

Once again, what political party(-ies) did they go to after leaving the GOP? And keep in mind that you yourself just got through saying that many Republicans are just unreconstructed Democrats.

[Right Wing Professor]

mainstream religious organizations

Oh, by the way, do you consider the Unification Church a 'mainstream religious organization'? How about the Church of Scientology? A simple yes or no in each case will suffice.

[GOPPachyderm]

That's an interesting proposal. But wouldn't you have inequity between schools across the country?

[inquest]

I don't think I've ever seen a post more saturated with projection than that one. It was you who made the very weak analogy about the Klan. And the analogy did indeed fail, based as it was on hysteria.

And by the way, I addressed it at the top of #279 to show specifically where your logic went wrong. Predictably enough, you ignored it, the same way you ignore all points that are inconvenient to your position.

Logic is logic, and applies everywhere.

A statement which could only be made to support the use of analogies. But then, as you did earlier when talking about Turkey, you immediately segue into:

On the other hand, analogy is the weakest form of logical reasoning.

So you were for analogy before you were against it?

[inquest]

Oh, by the way, do you consider the Unification Church a 'mainstream religious organization'? How about the Church of Scientology?

If those are the only organizations receiving federal funds, and if you honestly are saying that you don't object to federal funds going to mainstream religious organizations, just as long as they don't go to any of the "weird" ones, then your point would be worth addressing.

[Antoninus]

One of Pat's better efforts of late.

The fact that Darwinian evolution needs to be protected from competing theories by men in black robes (the high priests of our secular culture) does not bode well.

What it says to me is that the Darwinian dogmatists are having a hard time dealing with the raft of irreducible complexities that the ID folks are floating at them. Better to have them declared null and void by an extra-scientific judge than to have to tediously address them one at a time.

In the not-too-distant past, scientists would have jumped at the chance to write paper after scholarly paper defeating ID irreducible complexity arguments. Heck, based on the popularity of the topic here on FR, dozens of new journals could be started to address just this issue. Yet for some reason, they can't be bothered. Perhaps they're too busy trying to find new uses for aborted babies or figuring out how sodomy is actually a superior form of sexual expression.

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't think I've ever seen a post more saturated with projection than that one. It was you who made the very weak analogy about the Klan. And the analogy did indeed fail, based as it was on hysteria.

You made an analogy between the federal government paying religious organizations and the federal government paying employees. I pointed out the federal government can (and in fact must) pay employees even if they're Klansmen, but few would approve of the federal government paying the Klan. This was to illustrate the weakness of your reasoning.

I'm terminating this discussion, because you're clearly out of your depth, and you're getting all hot and bothered. But a parting question for you - is Pat Robertson 'mainstream religious'?

[inquest]

In the not-too-distant past, scientists would have jumped at the chance to write paper after scholarly paper defeating ID irreducible complexity arguments.

The standard objection that you hear a lot is that introducing ID will make kids "ignorant". But in reality, introducing it as a competing theory and examining the different arguments could just as easily result in a fuller treatment of the subject.