As much as we republicans like to think of ourselves as small government types, never forget that NR is a pro-statist magazine. Sure, it leans conservative on many issues but it’s always rooting for the government.
The crowning achievement of Western Civ isn’t our scientific theories, it’s our concept of individual inalienable rights.
As for science being free of God, well, Stalin and Hitler had scientists working for them. Science, in the end, is an abstraction that demands proof or the questions continue. Derby’s full of assertions. He demands you “believe” and not question.
Science doesn’t require belief because science should provide the empirical belief. As for religion, who can empirically prove they love anything?
Derby, as all atheists, is a damaged man.
Actually, I thought the article was a spoof.
Yours truly,
The Woim
I went to National Review and read the archives of Mr. Derbyshire - particularly the Q&A about his beliefs in God.
After reading that article, I want to amend what I said earlier. Mr. Derbyshier is jus a tired old guy who’s Christian beliefs were actually “whittled” away. I mean, born an Anglican (a really hollow form of Christianity) and then going through life misreading all the cues (describing your kids in bio-terms is ok, but I’m particularly amazed at the differences in my three kids).
Mr. Derbyshire is still a wishy-washy believer in God. He’s just not a Christian any longer. If he were a convert to Judaism, that would be an entirely different thing. However, his snarky article shows that he sides with the evolutionists and mocks the creationists. Is Mr. Derbyshire also pro-abortion? I didn’t read all of his articles in archive.
My biggest disappointment is his open animosity toward Ben Stein’s documentary. Mr. Stein isn’t arguing in favor of ID, he’s highlighting the intolerant Stalinism of the pro-evolution academics.
Hey, the real target is our freedoms. If the evolutionists are right, then there is no God. If no God, no God-given rights. No inalienable rights either. Rights then become “permission slips” which can be rescinded.
It’s another topic, but I am distrustful to the point of despising the term “civil rights”. How does a civil right differ from a natural right? I’ll tell you. A civil right is a government given right and can be taken away or modified at will.
The Marxists had to replace something with something so to trick the freedom loving people of America they invented the term “civil right” and we now all use it.
Yours truly,
The Woim
P.S. - Who cares if you’re a religious believer? As long as you don’t start advocating socialism we’ll get along just fine. However, too too many atheists lose their religious belief in God and replace it with a childlike belief in the omnipotence of government. And for the record, all government is coersion.