bttt
In the case of those human beings who served as Clinton minions, the difference is in favor of the ape.
Nope; the IDiots admitted to their religious bias their own selves.
Hmm. I don’t recall being taught “Darwinism.”
I remember being taught about evolution and natural selection, and that these theories were first advanced by Darwin, but never any of the horrible (and horribly naive) conclusions that Darwin himself drew from his work.
Nor did a belief in the reasonableness of natural selection lead me to any sort of racist philosophy, so I was either to stupid to make the connection, or there was no connection at all, and Darwin’s racism was a personally motivated contortion of his own theories.
All that being said (and I’m about to commit freeper suicide here, but what the heck, personal intellectual honesty has its cost), if the Republican/Conservative Party insists on supporting ID in science classes, we are slipping a very heavy albatross around our necks, election-wise. It will be used against Jindal when the time comes for him to seek national office.
And, unfortunately, there are more voters turned off by ID being taught as a scientific alternative than turned on.
Remember, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. ID, however, is faith-based (despite “irreducible coomplexity”) and belongs in Bible Study class, not science class, imho.
BTTT
Intelligent Design does have a religious bias, which should be freely admitted. It’s patently absurd, or outright disingenous, to deny it.
But an attack on evolution, based on the assertion that Darwin was a racist, is about as stupid of an attack on science as it could get.
If you want to attack science, do it. Attacking the scientist is not attacking science. It’s something else entirely.
Darwinism doesn’t exist except in the minds of the insecure and deranged
It’s good to see Campolo again getting a few things right.
The ethical implications of Darwinism involve a non-existent God. For some more lenient than I, they see it meaning an on-and-off-again, absentee God.
Either way, it leads to a social ethic that either excises God, ignores Him, or turns Him into an indulgent Dutch Uncle.
Good for Campolo....finally.
How does the insightful Marilynne Robinson deal with this? -
Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
________________________________________
Der Fuhrer sez:
"The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality."
-A. Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, March 23, 1933
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/03-23-33.html
It is amazing “the bunk” that passes for news today.
Tony Campolo is the guy that was seen on the videoshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
with slick willie yucking it up at a memorial after
Ron Brown died under very unusual circumstances.Some "christian"
Personally, I hold to the belief that, regardless of how we got here, we should recognise that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognised this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
These people talk about a “material power” standpoint when the point is about justice.
A world does not advance nor diversifies when based around the predator/prey model standoff of natural selection. It’s when a form of domestication and civilization occurs that everyone is given a chance and proper time at adapting properly.
Darwinism is dangerous because it hints that a genocidal dark age is preferable. It’s an easy and PC system to defend simply because it is a “lowest common denominator” of thinking: it is easy to politicaly defend the races/tribes of laziness, mediocrity and cowardice when it is so widespread and intelligence is so few, but much harder to actualy survive such dumb downed brutish environment in the end.
Another aspect is on reproduction. Easily approachable females are prone to be killed, but so are foolish males. Still, this is a predatorial model of relations. The real challenge lays in the form of faith and respect of the thrones of authorities, science, truth and justice, instead of the mad feeding dethroning activities that predatorial activities entail.
Darwinism errs in that it challenges truth and puts the truth in subserviant position. It’s not about ID vs. Darwinism, another coopted political dialectical battlefield preset to supplant Darwinism, but truth vs. Darwinism the issue.
It’s too easy to say Darwin is right when he is faced with inferior theories or theories derived from distorted and retarded interpretations of the Bible. But this has been a common communist tool to advance communism: invent Nazism so that Communism looks better just like when a cute but not beautiful girl always will hang around ugly chicks.
Such cheap self-subsidy does not pay the idiots who think they are smart cons undertaking it. And indeed, sometimes one is too smart and intelligent for their own good.
Check out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
We’ve lost our Biblical foundation and thus we’re losing the youth to the public schools teaching them that the ‘creation’ is the stuff of fairy tales. Lots of good info on this website and Ken Ham is fantastic - heard him speak a couple of weeks ago .... one of the most powerful, thought-provoking, call-to-action sermons I’ve ever heard.
On this I agree. Liberals should not be encouraged to procreate.
It is rare that I agree with Tony, but on this one he is right!