[Zionist Conspirator]

And now the piling on by the atheists, libertarians, Randians, age-of-reason addicts, worshippers of progress, economical absolutists, and various other misfits will begin. No ping necessary!

[Right Wing Professor]

If you're going to post stupid, provocative material, of course people are going to respond.

[samtheman]

Darwinism as a philosophy

It's not a philosophy. It's a theory that explains descent through natural selection. Those who see it as a philosophy (for whatever reason, pro or con) are nitwits.

[x5452]

What concerns me is the teachers who use darwin as an excuse to preach the ideals of athiesm in the classroom.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

atheists, libertarians, Randians, age-of-reason addicts, worshippers of progress, economical absolutists, and various other misfits

If you're going to post stupid, provocative material, of course people are going to respond.

Not only posting stupid, provocative material, but immediately following up with stupid, provocative name-calling.

[Skooz]

A couldn't care less.

[WhiteGuy]

Sorry, I still can't force myself to care.

I'll try again later.

[ovrtaxt]

In economics, Malthus's view leads to the dismal belief that people are merely consumers, competing with one another for scarce resources. Similarly, Darwin's theory teaches us to think of life as a fierce struggle against others. It thus subtly undercuts the healthy belief that seeking wealth means providing a service to people rather than a way of robbing them. Speaking as someone who knows more about economics than science, I have to agree. Darwinism holds as barren a future as the radical homosexual agenda, or the big government control freak agenda, or the Islamofascist agenda.

All you pro Darwin conservatives may not want to admit it, but you're playing into the hands of people like this with your beliefs.

[Right Wing Professor]

First of all, Klinghoffer is clearly ignorant about modern evolutionary theory, which does not encourage us to think of life as a fierce struggle against others. In fact, it teaches us that cooperation is frequently a better way to succeed than competition; but that we should cooperate carefully.

Second of all, this is a particularly stupid sentence Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.

So we should teach them something we know to be unscientific, in order to improve their moral stance. Then why stop with evolution? Why not teach them, contrary to relativity, that there is a fixed an immutable frame of reference? Why not teach them contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, that order does arise spontaneously from disorder in a closed system?

[RoadTest]

The whole purpose of Darwinism, which, I assume, is synonymous with the term evolution, is to remove man from any relationship to God, especially accountability.

[narby]

In erasing God's role from the history of biological existence, Darwinism erases a primary motivation to pursue scientific discovery.

That's just bunk. God had just as much a role in creating biology on earth as He did in creating hurricane Katrina. Which means you can believe that God created both, or neither, take your pick.

But if God created the biosphere and all creatures in it, then He did it with a very elegant creation we call "Evolution". The evidence, particularly in the microbiological information trail between species, says that's what occured.

[jennyp]

The moral impact: In "The Descent of Man" (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life's history down a different path.

If things had been different, then things would be different. Yeah, I can see how if THAT ever got out, it would undermine society's moral fiber!

So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, "We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience."

I have read several times, right here on the crevo threads, creationists defend the rampant incest in Adam & Eve's family because at that time human bodies were still nearly perfect, and so the real-world biological consequences of incest were infinitesimal. IOW, creationists here were defending incest precisely on physical, biological grounds.

If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.

This is like complaining that 32 ft/sec/sec isn't so secure a foundation for physics, because it only applies on the Earth. Sheesh!

[Coyoteman]

And now the piling on by the atheists, libertarians, Randians, age-of-reason addicts, worshippers of progress, economical absolutists, and various other misfits will begin. No ping necessary!

And perhaps comments by evolutionary scientists too? Did you forget us? (And who you callin' a misfit?)

[trisham]

bookmark for later reading

[wallcrawlr]

We can expect more battles about Darwin before school boards across the country. But who cares?

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[From many - one.]

Check back to see if thread evolves.

[muir_redwoods]

"ID theorists find evidence in nature of an intelligent purpose shaping life's history."

Evidence? Really? Are you sure? Care to post any of it?

[freespirited]

Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.

1. ID is not a scientific theory.

2. There is nothing particularly noble about trying to sell something as a true scientific theory when its not actually one but a list of complaints about a real scientific theory.

3. The purpose of a scientific theory is to determine the truth, not be palatable to this or that existing philosphy (as he puts it avoid "Darwin's drawbacks.") A theory's value is not a function of how well it uplifts the spirit or avoids drawbacks but how well it helps us explain observed phenomena. On this count, neo-Darwinism has endured for decades. ID is hardly its peer. I'm still waiting for these folks to propose some falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and publish the data with analyses.

4. Persons who prefer to surround themselves with uplifting thoughts and to avoid those that have "Darwin's drawbacks" have that option. They should not become life scientists. However, they should not ask that the life sciences remake themselves in their image. The cost to society would be huge.

[jocon307]

"No ping necessary!"

LOL! That is for sure!

I always enjoy David Klinghoffer's writing. Let me bump this thread with thanks for posting a really interesting piece, from the Seattle P-I even, WHO SAYS THERE ARE NO MIRACLES?

[Windsong]

And now the piling on by the atheists, libertarians, Randians, age-of-reason addicts, worshippers of progress, economical absolutists, and various other misfits will begin. No ping necessary!

With the biggest losers being the Libertarians, both politically as well as spiritually.

[Rudder]

On the other hand, one can hardly deny the sad coarsening of our culture.

Science should restrict itself to only uplifting findings? What a bunch of crappola!