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

To: Phaedrus
It's very simple. If Darwinism were science, there would be no necessity for its acolytes to shriek "Creationist!". The physics profession doesn't do this. It stands mutely by the evidence.

Physicists don't have their ideas attacked constantly by the Bible thumpers. Evidently, your average fundamentalist does not know enough about physics or chemistry to discern any threat to his or her world view. And, this is a conflict over worldviews; Creationists have a set picture of how the world should be ("God did it, 'nuff said") and science, as it advances, calls into question this worldview -- prompting the anti-science backlash by fundamentalists. You can see the same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Much like the latter, the Christian fundamentalists are finding their views increasingly marginalized by progress. Whereas the Taliban strikes back violently, though, the average Christian fundamentalist attempts to pass laws banning the ideas he finds inimical, or rales against the progress sweeping his world away.

We see this increasingly on these threads. The Creationist arguments have become more strident as it has become clearer that their position has become more untenable. Often they use the same tired arguments which have been refuted time and again. That is one reason I came up with The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- so we wouldn't have to keep going over the same tired ground. Because the science is nearly irrefutable in regards to Evolution though, the creationists have now resorted to using the "Darwin is bad for society" tact. As pointed out in my previous post, this is the same tact used by the Taliban and fundamentalist Moslems in general.

45 posted on 11/29/2001 6:06:06 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
It's indisputable. An agglomoration of molecules has no basis for making moral judgements.

In other words, if evolution is true and we are not "special" creations of God then humans have no authority when making moral pronouncements? Is this your argument?

Arguing against the "social implications" of "Darwinism" (which is long outdated and has been replaced with more effective and better tested theories regarding evolution) is arguming from the consequences. This does not disprove evolution. Evolution is not falsified just because you don't like its percieved social implications.
48 posted on 11/29/2001 6:15:44 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Junior
You are rambling at #45, Junior. The article is scholarly and speaks for itself, your attempts at mischaracterization notwithstanding. It is you that has the problem with Christianity, Junior, and you have to marshall the Taliban to combat it. Glib mischaracterization won't wash, Junior.
50 posted on 11/29/2001 6:17:23 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

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