Posted on 06/08/2006 9:57:58 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
One pingy-dingy....
|
Shouldn't be controversial since even biblical creationists don't claim that evolution within a species doesn't occur.
Yeah... but I'm still getting the popcorn.
<< Shouldn't be controversial since even biblical creationists don't claim that evolution within a species doesn't occur. >>
But the article dared to use the word "Darwin." That'll be enough to set the caterwauling in motion.
Thanks for the post!
There is an editorial from the NEJM from October 6, 2005 that makes many of the same points.
Faith Healers and Physicians Teaching Pseudoscience by Mandate
Robert S. Schwartz, M.D.
www.nejm.org
What is interesting is that the article used Darwin wrong, really.
This is more a sociobiological perspective. Writers use evolution and Darwin as buzz words because they are "controverisal".
The article is a mixed bag. It's a big straw man in that this perspective is widespread in medicine. This seems to be more about garnering attention via sensationalism.
Agreed.
Well, duh. Early humans didn't live long enough to get heart disease. Instead, they died of infections or some other easily curable ailment, or they were eaten by predators.
It appears that darwin has evolved from Darwin.
<< It appears that darwin has evolved from Darwin. >>
Little-d darwin -- otherwise known as microdarwin -- has been observed. Big-D Darwin -- otherwise known as macroDarwin -- has not, and never will be, observed, because darwin is a "kind."
/Cre-mode off/
You Darwinists make these threads such a bore that the Creationists just don't bother posting anything....
Oh, BTW, you're wrong about what biblical creationists believe, depending on how "evolution" is defined (e.g., an increase in genetic information over generations).
That was macro-LOL, not just micro-LOL!
<< You [macro]Darwinists make these threads such a bore... >>
That you microdarwinists are just forced to come in and say ridiculous things.
I understand. We are at fault. We make you do it.
<< Oh, BTW, you're wrong about what biblical creationists believe, depending on how "evolution" is defined (e.g., an increase in genetic information over generations). >>
So let me get this right: You are allowed to use whatever definition of evolution you choose, and that is not "being wrong about evolution" -- but you still have the gall to say that we are wrong about "what biblical creationists believe."
Heads-I-win-tails-you-lose. Nice little scam ya got goin' there.
What makes your complaint even mroe laughable is that the person you were complaining about did not say anything "wrong" about biblical creationists. While YOU may not accept "evolution within species" -- which most creationists call "microevolution" -- all of the "name" creationist organizations and individuals clearly do accept that.
So if you disagree -- your problem is not just with "us Darwinists" -- but your own fellow creationists. Why not start with correcting them before bothering us with your whining.
Thanks for the ping!
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.