Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem

The Evolution question is an unfair one at best as the theory has a great many components. It is not just one entity but many and the many do not necessarily make the one. Natural selection, macroevolution, to which specific part of evolution is the question intended? What has any of it to do with a political debate? I suppose the man from monkey is the aspect most think of when evolution is discussed. The evolution chart of man has more to do with creative illustrators than empirical scientific fact. Yet, in a political forum the topic is best left alone because it always comes down to religion vs religion, as evolution much like global warming has become a religion,and so much GIGO in both, so why even bring it up in a political debate?


6 posted on 05/24/2007 11:56:26 PM PDT by WildcatClan (Substance before style, actions before words, Duncan Hunter for President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: WildcatClan

Right. This is solely a liberal question designed to smoke out the “Fundies versus the rest of us”.


8 posted on 05/25/2007 12:05:58 AM PDT by WOSG (Stop Illegal Immigration. Call your Senator today. Senate Switchboard at 202-224-3121.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: WildcatClan
...so why even bring it up in a political debate?

The author explained why at the beginning of this OpEd. The secularist left insists on it. They believe it shows themselves to be informed and the right as ignorant.

12 posted on 05/25/2007 12:35:22 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: WildcatClan
A very thoughtful answer.

In politics it can have some rather deep and sweeping ramifications - for example, Nazi officers trying to help Darwin along by eliminating those they deem less fit for survival. Some would say this has modern application in the quest for embryonic stem cell research as well, to wit, "Since there is no God, since therefore there is no meaning, since therefore we're an accident, what's the big deal?"

(Naturally, seldom considered are the basis of the very truth axioms on which the structure of science itself rests.)

13 posted on 05/25/2007 1:09:55 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: WildcatClan

I think we should let Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argue these questions. The Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee might be a good venue.

If you want to read about such an “argument” go here...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm


36 posted on 06/01/2007 6:45:43 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: WildcatClan
“What has any of it to do with a political debate?”

Because ALL demonCrats believe in darwinism totally but some Republicans (especially biologists who make a living investigating evolution) still believe in darwinism, and this can cause a split. This is what the Dems in the media would like.

37 posted on 06/01/2007 12:31:34 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson