Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin and the Descent of Morality
First Things ^ | November 2001 | Benjamin Wiker

Posted on 11/28/2001 8:21:55 PM PST by Phaedrus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 501-515 next last
To: Phaedrus
Darwin tried to determine whether human races should be considered distinct species.

This statement is preposterous on its face. It was common knowledge to the man on the street, much less to a naturalist, that half-breeds, quarter-breeds, and eleven-sixty-fourths breeds of all peoples existed and were themselves fertile.

61 posted on 11/29/2001 6:44:49 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
LOL!
62 posted on 11/29/2001 6:46:09 AM PST by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus; Junior
It's all just a game, right Junior?
He's only "an advanced animal".
Kind of like playing chess with a toddler.
I suggest "ignore"...
63 posted on 11/29/2001 6:46:10 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Deal with the fact that Darwinism leads directly to Social Darwinism. Or don't. You have not.

That's an assertion, not a "fact" -an assetion made to smear a scientific theory you find threatening to your constipated worldview. An assertion with as much validity as the assertion that fundamentalist Christianity leads directly to slavery.

64 posted on 11/29/2001 6:46:19 AM PST by Who is George Salt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Your links are not evidence, Junior. They are garbage.

And this statement is based upon what?

65 posted on 11/29/2001 7:20:11 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Life is a game, dear heart; it can be played for fun or to win -- or both.
66 posted on 11/29/2001 7:21:14 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Kind of like playing chess with a toddler.
I suggest "ignore"...

You cannot refute my propositions so you call me a toddler and suggest I be ignored. Nice gambit.

67 posted on 11/29/2001 7:22:55 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Nor does nature ?judge? any particular type of morality as long as it does not violate the principle of natural selection.

Then nature judges homosexual behavior? If nature judges homosexual behavior, it is obviously not natural. Homosexuality certainly does violate the principle of natural selection since there is no procreation, only a diseased and shortened lifespan.

Let the darwinists defend the indefensible.

Quite aside from Darwinism as science, which it is not, Darwinism itself leads directly and inevitably to Social Darwinism,

A good and true observation, Phaedrus. Since "observation" is the main pillar in the temple of darwin, one would think they could observe your observation for themselves. They are, however, willingly ignorant since defending the theory is more important than truth.

Thanks for the ping.

68 posted on 11/29/2001 7:24:30 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You cannot refute my propositions...
I'm not having ANY sex with you! No thanks.
If you meant to use another word, my apologies for misunderstanding.
...you call me a toddler...
I did not! I said..."Kind of like playing chess with a toddler."
I "suggested" that trying to converse with you is impossible, on an intellectual level that is.
I guess that was a little above your head too!
...suggest I be ignored.
Why yes, I did suggest ignoring you...it seemed like the most efficient way to ignore you.
Nice gambit.
So then you do play chess? Well...interesting, to say the least!

Nice gambit.

69 posted on 11/29/2001 7:38:26 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
LOL Yeah. These same cats would have us believe that God just happened to make not one, not two, but SEVERAL different species with close genetic and phenotypic(and behavioral and intellectual) links to homo sapiens.

I look at the Chimpanzee and laugh at these people. Of course, we're related.

70 posted on 11/29/2001 7:45:04 AM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I look at the Chimpanzee and laugh at these people.
I look at these people and laugh at the chimpanzees.
Of course they're related.
71 posted on 11/29/2001 7:48:26 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
"When do we give this scientific quackery a decent burial?"

Who says it needs a decent burial? A sloppy cremation would suffice.

72 posted on 11/29/2001 8:10:25 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; medved
"I can measure the echo from the Big Bang with a radio telescope."

That is the echo of the voice of the Almighty when He spoke everything into existence.

73 posted on 11/29/2001 8:14:02 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
A sloppy cremation would suffice.
He-ey in my best "you go girl" imitation
74 posted on 11/29/2001 8:15:27 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
e aside from Darwinism as science, which it is not, Darwinism itself leads directly and inevitably to Social Darwinism

Yeah, we never had exploitation of peons or serfs or peasants before Darwin came along /sarcasm...

75 posted on 11/29/2001 8:19:57 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
YAY!!!!! Another crevo thread!

About time you guys got off your lazy a$$es. Its enough to test my faith.

Did the sliming start yet? I'll have to catch with up the details later. I have to give up my box to get POMS re-loaded AGAIN.

76 posted on 11/29/2001 8:26:11 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
"Evolution just IS."

Okay, then God just IS.

"There are millions of fossils in labs and universities around the world demonstrating it."

If evolution took place over billions of years, there should be billions if not trillions of fossils. The evidence should be so overwhelmingly obvious that there would be no debate on the subject. Evolution has failed miserably in that respect.

"Now counting the seconds before the first bald-faced liar says "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!!!!"

Well, explain why the missing link is still missing. Out of the millions of fossils in labs and universities around the world, why is there not one transitional fossil for man? Of course I'm discounting the kinds of "fossils" where a toe bone discovered in Kenya was paired with a collar bone in Nepal to give birth to a single "transitional" fossil.

77 posted on 11/29/2001 8:37:04 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #78 Removed by Moderator

To: sheltonmac; medved
That is the echo of the voice of the Almighty when He spoke everything into existence.

Hmmm... So effectively what you are saying is this 3 (closer to 2.7) K microwave background I can measure originating approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang itself had occurred, is the echo of the almighty? Wow. I didn't know my instruments could measure God directly. BTW, It has been determined that when these signals originated, the universe had already cooled down to around 3000 K.

Genesis falls down rather badly when it comes to the order of creation. It has plants being formed before the sun or the moon was in the sky. When I go out to the creationist web sites or listen to the Christian radio programs, I find it quite amazing the lengths that are taken to try and fit the observed phenomena and current day discoveries into the mold described by Genesis. For example, geologists long ago rejected a worldwide flood, however, fantastic explanations abound in the creationist circles to try and re-establish this as an actual event.

Genesis is not a scientific description of the formation of this universe. In fact from a scientific viewpoint Genesis is wrong.

79 posted on 11/29/2001 9:47:47 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Science likes to pretend that it has all the answers

This is where you are quite wrong. Science is the continuous process of putting forth (and revising) models that best describe the observed nature of the universe.

80 posted on 11/29/2001 9:52:49 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 501-515 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson