Posted on 05/05/2007 6:10:09 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans’ “big tent,” as could be seen Thursday night when the party’s 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three — Senator Sam Brownback; Mike Huckabee; and Tom Tancredo of Colorado — indicated they did not.
...The reference to stem cells suggests just how wide the split is. “The current debate is not primarily about religious fundamentalism,” Mr. West, the author of “Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest” (2006), said at Thursday’s conference. “Nor is it simply an irrelevant rehashing...Darwinian reductionism has become culturally pervasive and inextricably intertwined with contemporary conflicts over traditional morality, personal responsibility, sex and family, and bioethics.”
The technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from “ordinary citizens ...so that they alone could make decisions over “controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.”
For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design...
Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.
...“The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Whom would you rather have as a leader?
A man who believes in the Almighty Creator, to whom he is ETERNALLY accountable for ALL his actions?
Or a man who is his own god?
Atheists really aren’t atheists, they are their own gods, deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil.
Atheists have no External, Objective, Transcendent Truth to which they can turn for guidance. They have only their opionions.
Evolutionism as ANTI-Christ, becuase to be an evolutionist, you must believe that DEATH is a good thing, as it drives natural selection.
But the Bible says that “the wages of [penalty for] sin is DEATH”. But Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and His resurrection conquer Sin and Death!
If Death was the engine God designed to promote natural selection and thereby the improvement of all species, including mankind, then Christ’s sacrifice is meaningless.
What many may miss, if the fireproof pajamas take over here, is how deep into the debate the slimes has to go to “find” a (candidate) rift...and they still have to sell it as such.
Chris Matthews’ questions, including this subject, were often intended to nothing more than goad one republican into slamming another one.
“Do you believe in evolution” is an insufficiently supported question for that setting...unless of course you knew that the definitions necessary (macro vs. micro, etc.) help play into the sensationalist’s hands.
Someone (Gilmore did it once) needed to put Chrissy in his place.
I’d be more than happy to have a leader that looks at facts (such as darwinism, global warming, embryonic stem cells, and other liberal "truths") and is not afraid to go with the evidence not the liberal politically correct consensus.
RA was one of the purged scientists, but he’s been notified.
It’s kind of like ‘pro choice’ instead of anti abortion: “Logical” sounds good, and “Positivist” sounds good. The self-importance of ‘empiricism’ and ‘science’ holding one above the rif-raf in credibility battles is inherently constant.
This is how the liberals do it as well. Control the verbiage and language of the debate.
RadioAstronomer has been banned again.
mm
Thanks for the ping. Be back later.
I agree, but basically the problem is that any person
running for president these days cannot be the master
of all knowledge. To pick out a specific area like that
is kinda unfair...
Ask Hillary what here exact military
strategy would be to protect the U.S., or ask her how
to run our military forces and see what kind of “duh”
response you would get...
Hey Hillary, is the West Coast offense, or Power I
the better offense? Uh, duh....
What has better promise for finding the cure for cancer,
stem cells, or genetics, or biochemistry? Uh, duhhhhh...
Should government computers run on RISC chips, CISC chips,
and have multithreading operations? What about Silicon on
a Chip designs? Uhhh...duh....
Who are these legitimate scientists?
“there are many legitimate scientists that reject it,”
Heard from a former student who just got her masters in marine biology from the U. of Miami.
She said the majority of the department (Jewish/atheist) were ID, but none dared do research or publish.
Whom would you rather have as a leader?
Someone who is willing to look clearly at the evidence and choose a position based on scientific facts, not what his religion tells him is the scientific fact. Religion should influence his morals, not his perception of science.
Such thinking could mean many different "sciences" for many different religions. What if Jehovah's witnesses decided to teach that blood transfusions (which they oppose) didn't really help? There is plenty of scientific evidence that transfusions don't help in many circumstances where it seems they should. And for years people were transfused in situations where doctors now wouldn't transfuse. So shall their religion dictate our science?
Another example is pain relief for women in labor. Many women don't need it, but some clearly do. Yet there was a point where many religious leaders and physicians fought against obstetrical anethesia or pain relief because the bible says, "in pain you shall bring forth children." I don't hear much about that now, though.
If you want India and China to be the preeminent powers in the world, keep teaching kids that science is whatever one's religion says is correct.
What other ideas are you speaking of? Can you name one competing theory that is being denied adequate consideration?
Don't bother bringing up ID. There is no scientific evidence to support that idea at all. It is entirely religious in nature. That was pretty much admitted in the Wedge Strategy. If there was scientific evidence supporting ID, the subversive PR campaign that the Wedge document lays out would not have been necessary.
It seems to me that a more appropriate question (rather than "do you believe in evolution?") would be, "do you understand evolution?"
I have no idea what alternative scientific theories may be out there as the science community and its bully squad, of which you appear to be a member, don’t allow discussion of anything but evolution. I did not raise intelligent design or creationism as alternatives - you did.
In poll after poll, here and in other countries, science has not sold evolution to the majority of the people.
BTW, what is science’s Theory of Creation? After creation, there is evolution or adaptability, perhaps, but, it’s a pretty big stretch to expect people to believe that inert chemicals just decided to become living entities. There is absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that non-living material can suddenly become living material. Even with a Frankenstein-like blast of energy.
Frankly, I don’t think a presidential debate is the place to settle the issue of Darwinism. If (entirely contrary to fact) I had been one of the candidates, I probably would have dodged the issue.
Or perhaps I would have said briefly what I really believe: That I have no religious problems with evolution, as such, but that I have considerable scientific and rational problems with a purely materialist theory of general evolution. Also that when Darwinism turns into what has been called Social Darwinism, which in fact it has recurrently done for 150 years, then it becomes dangerous.
“Survival of the fittest” all too easily becomes “exterminate the weak, the lesser races, the handicapped, the useless eaters.” We saw that with the nineteenth century racists, we saw it with the Nazis, and we see it with today’s eugenists and family planners.
But those are pretty complicated ideas to put forward in a debate mainly concerned about other issues. So it might be easier just to dodge the issue and say something noncommital.
For me, this is more background that indicates strongly that religious, social conservatives should form their own caucus within the Republican Party. In the long run, it is best to know the size and impact of social conservative support within the party. It’s best for the party to know and it’s best for the social conservatives to know.
No, it means people want to know if presidential candidates suffer from anti-science superstition to the detriment of medical research funding, which is often at the discretion of the executive.
The Theory of Evolution has many flaws, but the scientific community is unwilling to allow the consideration of other ideas. And I am not including creationism in this criticism, just alternative scientific theory.Now you admit:
I have no idea what alternative scientific theories may be out there as the science community and its bully squad, of which you appear to be a member, don’t allow discussion of anything but evolution.The reason science sticks with the theory of evolution is because it very useful for explaining millions of data points (facts). No other explanatory tool has shown even remotely the degree of explanatory power as has the theory of evolution.
But back to your statement that you believe that a scientific "bully squad" is suppressing many good ideas. Shouldn't you at least be able to name a few of those ideas? That's the way science works: one must back up one's claims with evidence.
Take your pick of any signing the IPCC report.
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.