A small group of fundamentalists somehow manages pressure or coerce JR to bend to their demands and drive FR to the fringe, driving off other true conservatives at a time when they are most needed to fight against the tidal wave of socialist and anti freedom agendas?
Brilliant plan there Dr. Strangelove.
Just keep your petty agenda right there on the front page, where people expect to see the “Face of Reagan’, and all they really get is the likes of Rev Fred Phelps and radical muslim funding of ICR by turkish national Adnan Oktar.
Just brilliant.
What about that Jim? Do you feel "somehow pressured or coerced"? I never got that feeling from your statements about FR concerning Christianity and censorship.
==A small group of fundamentalists somehow manages pressure or coerce JR to bend to their demands and drive FR to the fringe, driving off other true conservatives at a time when they are most needed to fight against the tidal wave of socialist and anti freedom agendas?
I think little miss xcamel is trying to commit suicide by Mod...and I say let her. Let xcamel go over to her fellow leftist, evo-religious, human-caused global warming fanatics at LGF where she will feel right at home.
BTW, do you consider Irving Kristol part of the conservative movement, little miss xcamel?
“Here, for your delectation, is Kristol on teaching the evolution controversy, from a New York Times op-ed (”Room for Darwin and the Bible”) in 1986, one that likely could not be published there today (or in many a conservative venue for that matter):
The majority of our biologists still accept, and our textbooks still teach, the ‘’neo-Darwinian synthesis’’ ....
Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. [The] evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. There is unquestionably evolution within species: every animal breeder is engaged in exemplifying this enterprise. But the gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.
Moreover, today a significant minority of distinguished biologists and geneticists find this hypothesis incredible and insist that evolution must have proceeded by ‘’quantum jumps,’’ caused by radical genetic mutation. This copes with some of the problems generated by neo-Darwinist orthodoxy, but only to create others. We just don’t know of any such ‘’quantum jumps’’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual. So this is another hypothesis - no less plausible than the orthodox view, but still speculative.
And there are other speculations about evolution, some by Nobel prize-winning geneticists, that border on the bizarre - for example, that life on earth was produced by spermatozoa from outer space. In addition, many younger biologists (the so-called ‘’cladists’’) are persuaded that the differences among species - including those that seem to be closely related -are such as to make the very concept of evolution questionable.
So ‘’evolution’’ is no simple established scientific orthodoxy, and to teach it as such is an exercise in dogmatism. It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2346442/posts