Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9
2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Let me see if I have this straight. Left wing intellectuals are wrong when it comes to: anthropogenic global warming, the importance of fathers and traditional marriage for childrearing, the economic benefits of free markets, the economic benefits of low taxes, whether gender roles are merely social constructs, and whether western civilization rose to prominence because of a superior culture. But they are correct when it comes to macro-evolution.
Got it. You are right, it is sad to see Republicans out of touch with consensus of left wing intellectuals.
Third time at least and still not much interest. The Space Shuttle 1G indication is getting more responses by far.
A majority of Republicans reject evolution because evolution is simply not scientific - it's a philosophy used to interpret data in a certain way, but it is one which relies upon circular reasoning, wishful thinking, and inferences from unsupported speculation. Republicans rightly reject evolution specifically because Republicans are clear-headed people who think for themselves. Evolution is a philosophy for people who unthinkingly believe whatever they were told to believe in the dumbed-down government schools - schools where critical thinking and actual examination of the claims of a theory or belief are never taught.
Think about it, folks. There's a reason the evolutionists hyperventilate at the mere thought that ID or creationism might even be mentioned in a public school, much less included as a part of the curricula. It's because evolutionists are afraid to have to actually put their belief system up on trial and have it questioned. Evolution receives much the same hallowed status in American public schools as "scientific socialism" did in Soviet schools - it's a truism, and and any debate must be stifled.
One would think that if evolution were really supported by independent facts and reason, that evolutionists would just be chomping at the bit to pit it against creationism in the schools - what a great way to show the kids how stupid those creationists are, and how superior and correct evolution is. The fact that evolutionists are afraid to do that, and want discussion on the subject limited to a very narrowly defined set of talking points speaks volumes.
There is a difference between not accepting the THEORY of evolution in its entirety and rejecting it completely.
The subject of evolution is pretty well worn out on FR. My point is that the original article will succeed in planting the seed in many people's heads that Republicans are stupid. It will do long term damage to conservative politics.
There have been many conservative pundits that have attempted to put the creationism issue behind us, but it hasn't caught on here on FR, where a group of very well trained scientists were chased away to Darwin Central. That was a serious strategic mistake if conservatives actually care about gaining and holding political power.
It's irrelevant whether evolution or creationism is true or not. The fact is that painting Republicans as creationists will damage them badly. Creationism is a third rail subject.
“But they are correct when it comes to macro-evolution. “
Oh, so you believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
Well, that’s a start.
Good luck!
“There is a difference between not accepting the THEORY of evolution in its entirety and rejecting it completely.”
Which part of “survival of the fittest” is being rejected?
Fourth (or maybe Fifth)
Kind of like the philosophy used to interpret actions on Earth to an unseen, undetectable, God.
I have never understood how creationists win by painting science as equivalent to faith. At best, they only create the impression that there are two competing faiths involved. How is that a win?
I'll take a "faith" that has been tested, that has an explained mechanism in DNA, that has massive quantities of evidence to support it, over a faith that points to the empty sky and says, "see, God lives up there".
If science and Christianty are two co-equal faiths, then Christianity loses.
Think about it, folks. There's a reason the evolutionists hyperventilate at the mere thought that ID or creationism might even be mentioned in a public school, much less included as a part of the curricula. It's because evolutionists are afraid to have to actually put their belief system up on trial and have it questioned. Evolution receives much the same hallowed status in American public schools as "scientific socialism" did in Soviet schools - it's a truism, and and any debate must be stifled.
One would think that if evolution were really supported by independent facts and reason, that evolutionists would just be chomping at the bit to pit it against creationism in the schools - what a great way to show the kids how stupid those creationists are, and how superior and correct evolution is. The fact that evolutionists are afraid to do that, and want discussion on the subject limited to a very narrowly defined set of talking points speaks volumes.
Throughout this post you are complaining about science and evolution, and that there is no evidence to support evolution. (That is plainly false.)
On the other hand, you want ID taught as a scientific theory even though it lacks any scientific evidence. Talk about a double standard.
You want critical thinking? Riddle me this. How many designers are/were there? When did the design occur? And please specify the evidence that you use to support your positions.
The problem began when politicians got hold of survival of the fittest and then historians and it became Progress and Darwin expressed dismay: ‘They are taking this way too far!”
HA HA- you're killing me, a pollster or the MSM actually displaying intelligence, BWAHA HA
And, it is happening again with Global Warming. Can we learn after a century and a half? Seems in itself to refute the idea of societal evolution.
Either you believe in God and His creation as told in His Book, or you think of yourself as a kind of bald ape, ready to fornicate with anything that moves and are unable to grasp any concept of dignity, nation or justice
______________
I’m still quite amazed at folks, such as yourself, who can live in such a strictly binary world as you describe. Bothered by not in the least, mind you, it’s a great big world with a lot of strange beliefs (for instance eating dog in the first half of the lunar month for good luck, and cat in the 2nd half), but the “it’s this or that with nothing in the middle” is hard for me to grasp.
Those are the Republicans who will leave the party if it is turned into the Christian party. Bringing faithful people into a political party is a winning idea, *if* the party is not turned into a religious party. The faith part needs to be left behind when dabbling in politics and at the voting booth, if there is any chance of success.
How many religious denominations are there in the US? None of them can politically dominate the entire country. And if a political party becomes a religious party, then it's inevitable that doctrinal conflicts will arise and split it apart.
The founders were wise to separate religion and politics. It should stay that way.
Notice the arrogance of the Darwinists.
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.