Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
since you asked:
www.dadamo.com
Lewontin has been criticized by some academics for a rejection of sociobiology for non-scientific reasons. Some credit this rejection to political beliefs (Wilson 1995) (Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist or at least left-leaning). Others (Kitcher 1985) have countered that Lewontin’s criticisms of sociobiology are genuine scientific concerns about the discipline and claim that attacking Lewontin’s motives amount to an ad hominem argument. Researchers such as Steven Pinker (2002) address Lewontin’s concerns in a scientific context, but nevertheless believe that Lewontin is attacking a straw man version of sociobiology (or its more modern incarnation as evolutionary psychology) and therefore claim that his arguments miss the target.
You don't know?
"In 1967 Leigh Van Valen joined Levins and Lewontin at the University of Chicago. During this period Lweontin joined Levins in his active opposition to the Viet Nam War and his open advocacy of Marxist politics.
answersingenesis.org
“Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),”
BTW, University of Chicago! I wonder if he is one of Obama’s friends?
Studied the English Language? Ok then. Here is the definition for special. I don't see reference to speciation in there. I also studied Biology and haven't heard of speciation ever being referred to as “special evolution”.
Surpassing what is common or usual; exceptional: a special occasion; a special treat.
Distinct among others of a kind: a special type of paint; a special medication for arthritis.
Primary: His special satisfaction comes from volunteer work.
Peculiar to a specific person or thing; particular: my own special chair; the special features of a computer.
Having a limited or specific function, application, or scope: a special role in the mission.
Arranged for a particular occasion or purpose: a special visit from her daughter.
Regarded with particular affection and admiration: a special friend.
Additional; extra: a special holiday flight.
n.
Something arranged, issued, or appropriated to a particular service or occasion: rode to work on the commuter special.
A featured attraction, such as a reduced price: a special on salmon.
A single television production that features a specific work, a given topic, or a particular performer.
I didn’t give him a free pass. In fact, it was, I think, the third source I posted affirming that Lowentin is a Marxist and you have not given one iota of evidence that he is not a Marxist, only using the Marxist trick of demonizing me instead of my message.
You’re missing the point...
What’s YOUR motive in demonizing LEWONTIN’S message by calling HIM a marxist?
What on earth does his ‘economics’ have to do with his ‘science’?
Are you familiar with Ayn Rand? She had a captialist view while she was against organized religion, (almost the opposite come to think of it), but what difference would her religious beliefs make in her ideas on governance and economics when looked at separately?
Ummmmm ‘marxist trick’? Does this mean you’re familiar with marxist tricks because YOU are a marxist?
It seems to mean exactly that since you believe Lee being a Marxist, knows a marxist when he sees one.
And btw, back to the subject at hand...if you’re looking for marxists, look no further than govt controlled screwels. Or the godless liberals censoring and suing Christians into silence because they don’t march lockstep in their SCIENCE worldview.
It’s for the ‘science’ after all!
Or the children.
Following your logic; peaches are small and fuzzy, so are mice, therefore peaches and mice are identical.
“If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?”
they didn’t find a rock to crawl out from under like I did!
Since you so fondly quote that cite, please read below for what you left out:
“It is this writer’s opinion that macroevolutionary processes are just the vector sum of microevolutionary processes in conjunction with large scale changes in geology and the environment.
The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use “macroevolution” they mean “evolution which we object to on theological grounds”, and by “microevolution” they mean “evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds”.
You really don't know. On one hand creationists demonize non-Marxists by saying they are Marxists but here we have one citing a Marxist.
I suppose you are also against demonizing Obama as a Marxist also. Why, he would never let his Marxist background, views and friends influence his decisions ...
Oh I know...I KNOW all right...
One marxist (you) will trust another marxist (Lee) to explain a guy IS a marxist (Lewontin) to discredit his scientific beliefs.
AND you can even go on believing to the end of time this is all an exercise ‘for the sake of science’!
Meanwhile us sane, rational, normal, conservative, folks will question YOUR motives, ideas of ‘truth’, ‘science’ and so on...ad infinatum.
“dumb enough to believe gold will reach $1650 this summer.”
One major bank failure and it will shoot past $1650 without slowing down!
Lots of talk about bacteria here.
I believe these buggers are considered to be the oldest life form in our planet’s history. We’re told they popped onto the scene (some say by “self-assembling”) about 3 billion years ago. And, of course, they’re still with us today.
Why, after 3 billion years of mutating (according to you, even “intentionally” mutating (who knew?)) are bacteria still just… bacteria?
Why such a perfect record of RESISTANCE TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, when evolutionists say virtually all OTHER current life forms are the result of mind-boggling transformations (for example, and with little exaggeration, “Barry Bonds’ ancestor is a bumble bee”)?
Well, when one marxist proudly calls a comrade a marxist, I really have no reason to question his statement. Particularly when that comrade publishes in a marxist rag and I have ten other sources saying he is a Marxist. You question my motives but have never articulated that complaint. OTOH, you don't question the motives of Marxists. Why not?
You’re doing a bang-up job proving this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with politics, power, well pretty much everything BUT science!
If evolution were able to stand on it’s own 2 feet, it wouldn’t need courts and censorship to enforce it.
Because the are successful! A lot more of them than there are humans and we spend billions of dollars trying to get rid of them while their natural defenses derived from evolution thwart our most advanced technology!
The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways GODLESS LIBERAL scientists have used them.
there....that’s better.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Another rant from you. Does this mean you are still angry at me for exposing your Marxist?
Pope John Paul II is a Godless Liberal?
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.