I wonder if the Temple of Darwin drones who put up that sign realize that they are religious fanatics??? Talk about irony!
Posted on 07/27/2009 8:36:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
July 24, 2009 — Richard Dawkins proposed in his book The Selfish Gene that a gene, being the target of natural selection and unit of replication, is the entity most likely to get passed on to posterity; as such, it is “selfish” in that the rest of the organism is really only incidental to its immortality. Dawkins expanded this into the “extended phenotype” – the idea that the gene extends its influence over the rest of the organism to ensure its own survival. Fern Elsdon-Baker, writing an opinion piece called “The Dawkins dogma” in New Scientist, called this the most successful scientific metaphor in the last 30 years – but now argues it is obsolete...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Ping!
Really, is anything left of Darwin beyond the desire to have a godless creation?
So... the problem is not the concept but how he dumbs it down in analogy?
Really, is anything left of Darwin beyond the desire to have a godless creation?
______
Well, that and our desire to have as much sex with as many different creatures as possible.
Dawkins himself is obsolete
Go for it.
The problem is that Dawkins evo-atheist creation myth bears little resemblence to how biology actually works, thus his metaphores and analogies are not based in reality, and quickly become obsolete.
Wasn’t there just a thread about how our genes were supposed to make us altruistic and want to share?
I wonder if the Temple of Darwin drones who put up that sign realize that they are religious fanatics??? Talk about irony!
Well at least liberals are being hoinest even when they didn’t mean to be, with their freedom FROM religion drivel.
And the evos wonder why they’re called liberals!
It’s freedom OF religion, darwiniacs.
==It’s freedom OF religion
No can do...it’s against their religion...LOL!
How ironic when evolutionists say that mankind has evolved to believe in God.
The evos are at least consistent in their inconsistency.
So while it was in vogue, a creationist who didn't accept science's proclamations about the selfish gene were treated how?
But now that *scientists* consider it obsolete, it's no longer valid, all the while creationists were saying so to begin with.
Temple of Darwin dogma demands it.
I think we’re just going to have to get used to...and come to think of it, the Evos are going to have to get used to it too :o)
Please explain.
Rarely have I seen such plain satire missed so completely. :-)
Actually, we picked up on the satire just fine. It is the exquisite irony that has been lost on the Temple of Darwin that we find so entertaining.
It would only be ironic if it wasn’t meant as satire. :-)
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.