Darwin's Pyrrhic victory

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

[aumrl]

r u saying all accidentalists r athiest? and only Christians believe in a designer? hmmmm what u been smokin mon?????

[djf]

I wonder how many folks who ever come to these threads have ever read one single page of Darwins works.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Judaism is also based upon ID.

Oh yeah? Well it was Christianity that built the car. My computer is Christian, too. In fact, anywhere matter has been crafted into a human implement, it is by definition a "fundamentalist Christian" entity.

[forsnax5]

If there are people who are attempting to establish strictly Christian public schools, then they are misguided and should be opposed even by law, because the law prohibits favoring the establishment of any particular religion.

It would appear that Mr. Buchanon would side with such people:

"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America."

Pat Buchanan, at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines, Iowa, February 11, 1996

[BagelFace]

The physical evidence is indirect and resides in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. From it science is free to undertake inquiry with the assumption it will find order throughout the universe. Without it science would have nothing to observe in the first place.

A textbook example of circular reasoning!

[Ichneumon]

How many times do we have to restate this:

Until you stop posting grossly erroneous nonsense, and actually learn something about the subject for a change.

1. Mutations are random.

Not entirely, but close enough.

2. Mutations are primarily lethal to the host.

Wrong. Try reading some science journals for a change, instead of those creationist pamphlets. In study after study, the majority of mutations are neutral, beneficial and detrimental mutations come in second, and lethal mutations are in a distant last place.

3. A single mutation confers no cellular advantage to the cell or over other cells.

Why, because you say so? ROFL! Sorry, you're wrong again. Try cracking open a biology book before you spout off about a subject you know next to nothing about (and most of the little you do "know" is wrong).

There can be no pressure to "select" this mutational aberration over other normal cells.

That's going to come as a big surprise to the tens of thousands of researchers who have directly observed selection in action. Are you sure you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about?

4. Random events do not and cannot predict an endpoint.

Could you try that again while making a coherent point?

5. Darwinists are stuck on stupid arguing incomplete fossil records and homologous appendages.

No, they're not -- is there any special reason you "forgot" to mention the vast amount of evidence along multiple independently cross-confirming lines? Oh, right, because your creationist pamphlets don't like to talk about that. They're not only "stuck on stupid", they're "stuck on dishonest".

Cell change occurs at a molecular biochemical level.

...which have effects on the organism as a whole. Duh.

6. Darwinists are secularists. The abstraction called "Nature" is there God. They are anti-God, anti-religious, pompous, self-absorbed, arrogant, self-deluded zealots who quiver in fear that anyone should discover the flaws of their beloved Theory, the Theory they genuflect to.

You haven't a clue -- the *majority* of American "Darwinists" are Christians.

Try again when *you* get beyond "stuck on stupid", ignorant, misinformed, and obnoxious.

[Coyoteman]

A textbook example of circular reasoning!

I always wanted to see in the index of a textbook:

Circular reasoning. See "Reasoning, Circular"

Reasoning, Circular. See "Circular reasoning"

[Just mythoughts]

"You do realize that the standard way to become a Christian is to declare yourself one, then make some dogmatic statements about what everyone else should be believing, regardless if it is truly Biblical, or even based on the teaching of Jesus."

That is the apparent intent to make the audacious claim that most evolutionists in this nation are Christians. While I am not the judge of anyone soul status, I can plainly read what Christ said and what path He established. Evolution is anti-Christ and some of those practitioners of evolution know darn well what they are selling.

But hey it is Written that what is going on would be going on and not my job to change minds, as the master evolutionist's has said many times, these threads are for the LUrKERS!!!!

[Gribbles141]

Just remember, anyone who questions evolution is a troll! But please note another meaning of "trolling" is to go out picking up women. In any event...

[tpeters]

No, I don't think the only people who infer intelligent design are Christians. To postulate that things are too complex to evolve therefore there there must exist a creator who is vastly more complex and intelligent than His creations, but does not Himself require a creator more complex and intelligent than Him, just proves that Aristotle may have been right all along. Some people do use their brains to cool their blood, not all of them have to be Christian.

[tallhappy]

The joint action of random variation and natural selection is not random.

So you are saying it is planned or designed?

It produces a convergence upon adaptation to current conditions.

This is incoherent.

Sounds like Art Bell or something.

[AmishDude]

When you believe in the great pie in the sky, you can just make everything else up as you go...

Are you talking about stem cell research?

[darkocean]

Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and American Civil Liberties Union atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.

ACLU stands for Anti-American Communist Libertine Union. Anybody who still believes in evolution ought to belong to it.

[tallhappy]

Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life; that, through natural selection, rudimentary forms evolved into more complex forms; and that men are descended from animals or apes

Buchanan makes no sense. his i.e. does not accuratley refer to his statement "matter evolved from non-matter".

I think he means to say life evolved from non-life.

Matter from non-matter is cosmology or something like that, not "Darwinism" or biological evolution.

[Virginia-American]

There are computer textbooks that have:

Recursive: see Recursive

[tallhappy]

Lots of people understood evolution before Darwin published his doorstop of a book

His grandfather in fact said in one paragraph what Darwin is famous for writing in a lot more than one paragraph.

[zeeba neighba]

LOL. Scientists never lie...lol

[Fester Chugabrew]

It would appear that Mr. Buchanan would side with such people . . .

<Sigh.> I don't have any friends.

Actually, it would be best not to have public schools at all. But as long as they're there and we're all paying for them it is necessary to prevent any particular religion from gaining favor over another, whether it's atheism, or any one of the hundreds of religions out there.

The difference between evolutionist and creationist thought is dichotomous enough, and the intrusiveness of either view in a science curriculum innocuous enough, that grownups ought to be able to work out a both/and scenario in public schools.

The controversy is best reserved for the later years of education when the evaluative faculties of the student are developed to the extent they can express the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. It will teach them to respect not only the various ways science can be undertaken but also the people who do science either way.

Alas, however, we have Judge Joneses out there, along with his following, who are as zealous in establishing atheism by law as certain others are in establishing Christianity. Allowing a generic theological approach along side an atheistic one is probably, from a practical standpoint, the best we can do.

[VadeRetro]

So you are saying it is planned or designed?

Are you saying anything unguided is random? I've come to consider that a purely creationist useage.

This ("It produces a convergence upon adaptation to current conditions") is incoherent.

Can't imagine where you're having the problem.