Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[King Prout]

get back here, grasshopper!
the Battle of Hastings PRIME is imminent!

[wyattearp]

Is not news.. opinion maybe capiche??

Since when is opinion necessarily religion? Furthermore, it wasn't the opinion of the poster, but the opinion of the author, which was printed in the news. It was news, and it was about science. It should never have been moved.

[King Prout]

ah, RW, thanks for setting up the Hastings Prime.

[wyattearp]

hrmn... that sounds a bit personal.

Now, now, that wasn't personal, it was directed at a large group of people. Making fun of, or insulting large groups of people is OK in the religion forums, as long as you don't direct it at one particular person.

Single bullet theory bad, cluster bomb ok. That's how I understand the rules. From what I can determine, it isn't what is real or true, but what you believe to be real and true that matters in the religion forums.

[RunningWolf]

BS the article was not about science it was about a these political statements. A political article out of a 'science journal' Get it right Man!!

1. Evolution fits well with good theology.
2. Creationism is bad theology.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
4. Evolution explains family values.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.

[wyattearp]

You MISSED!

[RunningWolf]

What are you kidding?? LOL!! I will be banned and long gone before you and your ping list is.

You guys in fact are doing an outstanding job of making this outfit here a _{darwincentric universe} LOL

Fortunately we have the real world outside and Ann Coulter among others makes some good commentary there, which apparently you evos revulse at.

W.

[wyattearp]

Ann Coulter does make some excellent commentary. I love watching liberals squirm, and she is one of the best at doing it. She should just stay away from science, and stick with what she actually knows.

[King Prout]

Now, for a serious reply.

Honestly I think you guys set up accounts over there at DC.

Yes, RW, I am a retread. I used to be "demosthenes the elder". I was banned for being a bit too harsh on a Border-issue thread. Jim Robinson is well aware of these facts, as I fessed up some two years ago when I requested his permission to rejoin the ranks of the monthly donors.

Subsequent to that, during the Terri mess, I was Odin-ZOTted by Jim Robinson himself. The next day, JimRob allowed me back in. These above events are alluded to in the text heading the top of my profile page.

All of the above is just the mildest rebuke of your comment, quoted above. Moreover, a thorough perusal of my profile and posting history renders any accusation of affiliation with DU or other Leftist infiltration patently ludicrous. One has but to observe. I heartily endorse the practice.

Now...

An Aug 16, 2006 sign up date. At least 10 'placemarkers' and then jumps right into evo threads & sides up with the evo ping list... whaddya think honestly??

I assume you refer to "jaguarbhzrd"
(courtesy ping)
My opinion? Could be a retread. Could instead be a long-time lurker. Could instead be someone who is relatively well-learned in the field who had FR's Luddite War pointed out to him(?) and who decided to sign up and join in for that purpose alone. I have seen nothing in his writings on this thread, or on any thread on this site (or over at Darwin Central), to indicate a Leftist political persuasion, and nothing at all to justify an insinuation that he is an infiltrator from DU.
Indeed, the only speculation I can make is that perhaps this poster is not fond of the floridian football team... or perhaps is an avid fan. Very hard to make any firm speculation from that screen name.

Did what you posted have some meaning -aside from what I have addressed above- some relevance to the topic and issues under discussion, that I have missed?

[King Prout]

I plead fatigue!

[King Prout]

I apologize - I *must* be tired - I misread "over at DC" as "over at DU"

I am more mortified by that error than you can know.

again, my apologies.

[RunningWolf]

//She should just stay away from science//

But then what is science but just the latest greatest (yet limited) explanation of phenomena that will later be found false & yet have a tiny measure of correctness in there somewhere.

IOW to take from a great poet 'the drop is in the ocean and the ocean is contained in the drop'.

W.

[wyattearp]

But then what is science but just the latest greatest (yet limited) explanation of phenomena that will later be found false & yet have a tiny measure of correctness in there somewhere.

If Ann Coulter understood that, I would understand your argument. She doesn't. That is only part of her problem with science. The other problem that she has with science, is, well, science. She doesn't understand the most basic of concepts. She should stick with punditry. It's what she's good at.

[RunningWolf]

Well I think she does very well (I bought her book), but let Ann speak for herself.

But then I will put it this way. The first part is my part and the second is your response to that for which I say she does 'science' one whole h*** of a lot better than several of your own gurus here especially the owner of your ping list who does not does 'science' at all.

W.

[kellynch]

Thanks for that. "Parables" are called that for a reason. They are allegorical rather than factual.

[dread78645]

The ReligionModeratorDidn't do it placemark

[Religion Moderator]

Don't pick at the scab.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker of universal respect for all opinions.