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

Skip to comments.

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/04 | Hunter Baker

Posted on 11/24/2004 11:20:27 AM PST by neoconsareright

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 301-312 next last
To: stormingthegatesofhell
"Intelligent design has accurately predicted that human genetic material has and will deteriorate accounting for an increase in birth defects and genetically related diseases."

BWAHAHAHAHA! Laughable.

141 posted on 11/24/2004 1:23:26 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
For the millionth time then, why are there still apes?

'cause they didn't want to morph into the next step...democrats?

142 posted on 11/24/2004 1:23:48 PM PST by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man

> (Evolutionists) make up for the lack of scientific evidence with faith.

I'm breaking my rule of never posting on an evolutionist thread... but it is only peripherally related. Talking with my liberal hyper-atheist (former) carpool-mate, I would ask "if you don't believe in God, why is murder wrong?" His answer starts on the lines of "because it's the right thing."

"What defines right and wrong, without a Creator?" I ask.

His answer morphs into "society works better when people follow the Golden Rule." I admit to him that I too think society works well with such a rule, but point out, historically, that it is not the only rule of societal governance that is self sustaining, stable, promotes the advancement of culture, etc. (all the things that otherwise appeals to liberals).

In the end, he is forced to emphatically insist (i.e., by way of faith) that a Christian morality society is the "proper" way a society to function, except for all that God mumbo-jumbo.

Incidentally, he is a religious Darwinist, as well. So, you are right that such people also adhere to articles of faith, though they refuse to admit it.


143 posted on 11/24/2004 1:24:15 PM PST by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #144 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr Ramsbotham

And Sparrows were formerly T-Rex's.


145 posted on 11/24/2004 1:24:36 PM PST by Busywhiskers (You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #146 Removed by Moderator

To: Cadwalader
Do you really think that some "intelligent designer" would have made such a botch out of this world?

It goes like this:

Our Holy God is not the author of evil. He made man in His image. The image of God includes a spirit of relationship, creativity and intelligence. In order for a creature to explore these attributes there must be instilled within each, free will.

With the free will to enter into loving relationships and explore each others creativity and intelligence, comes a price. The price is the ability to execute evil deeds. These evil deeds separate us from our Holy Creator.

In our God's unlimited grace abounds a solution to our separation. The forgiveness of our sins by His life completely lacking any evil deeds, death on the cross and resurrection from the dead.

Why the death on the cross? Because the only ransom that is valid for our evil deeds is the death and shed blood of one who is completely blameless. God sent His Son, who also inhabited eternity, to become a man like us in order that He could die in order to reestablish a relationship with our Creator.

Why the resurrection from the dead? To prove to the world that God accepted the sacrifice, and to be the doorway of a perfect human being, gaining entry into eternity for all who receive His sacrifice as a pardon for their evil deeds.

God could have made us unintelligent, lacking in creativity and not desirous of having a relationship with Him, but that would make us only animals.

P.S. Your Creator was thoughtful enough to become a man in order for you to have a personal God to relate to. He, being far superior to us, has the authority to set the standards of right from wrong. Absent His higher authority, your conservatism is just another way of viewing things. You have no basis to assert your ideas are better than anyone else's.

Therein lies the divide in this world. Those who know that God embodies the truth, and those who believe they personally embody the truth. Jesus was the fulfillment of over 300 Old Testament Messianic prophecies, and He publicly resurrected from the dead, exactly as He said He would, to authenticate His authority and differentiating Himself from all other religions.

147 posted on 11/24/2004 1:25:10 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Finally one specimen, with a small sternum

Archaeopteryx was finally classified as a MODERN BIRD.

Why will you guys not stop, why the denial?


148 posted on 11/24/2004 1:25:21 PM PST by go_W_go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: stormingthegatesofhell
"Oh yeah, I guess that is why there is so much debate about that within cosmology and geology, huh?"

The only debate is whether the incident was enough to do the job. That the astronomical event happened is now accepted as proven fact.

149 posted on 11/24/2004 1:26:10 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: neoconsareright

neoconsareright - "Creationists are desperate people clinging to a fantasy."

Oh, bother.

There is so much poop-flinging going on in this thread that I am really starting to see that link with monkeys after all, heh.

Seriously, there are people who accept the idea that God created/designed the universe and used an evolutionary model to do so.

The term 'evolution' is not contradictory to the concept of design, no more than it would be to speak of the evolution of modern technology and insist that that means there could be no design implied in the phrase.

As a theistic evolutionist that has deep respect for Gods Word and believes that the ID movement is legit, I deplore the polarization of any discussion that arises on evolution. It immediately deteriorates into Young Earth Creationists and deterministic materialists hurling insults at each other because few really understand the issues enough to discuss the matter calmly and using facts sans ad hominem.

One can believe in both evolution and ID. I simply rejoice to see Id given serious consideration that it deserves, despite the sniggering contempt of ignorant secular Torquemadas trying to scrounge up enough wood around a stake for a good burning.

ID is going to win this debate, and all the lies and hysteria of the Darwinists will not stop it.


150 posted on 11/24/2004 1:27:04 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read later


151 posted on 11/24/2004 1:28:06 PM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

Comment #153 Removed by Moderator

To: VadeRetro
Not so much false unlikely. Eoavis is a highly crushed specimen, a probable mosaic of more than one animal and quite possibly more than one kind of animal. The finder, Chatterjee, has refused to allow independent examination of his find. This is one fossil bird that so far doesn't fly.

Great defense, "I'll blindly disagree with the parts the BLOW MY OPINION OUT OF THE WATER..."

Do your research, don't believe everything everyone tells you, and you WILL (if you truly have an open mind) come to the same conclusion I have.

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional, why won't you guys get off of it. It's already been debunked. It amazes me that you guys go back to your old arguments, when you've been defeated. Archaeopteryx is a bird, fully a bird, not a transition, already been down that road, already proven. Nuff said about Archaeopteryx!!!
154 posted on 11/24/2004 1:31:35 PM PST by go_W_go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: cwiz24

"But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me."

Normally you cannot use a source to support itself. It's circular. In the case of the bible you are not dealing with a single source. You are dealing with a collection of 66 documents with 40+ authors. There is nothing wrong with using one source within that collection to support another.


155 posted on 11/24/2004 1:31:47 PM PST by Busywhiskers (You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"Evolutionary theory has successfully predicted the adaptation of bacteria to drugs, the similarity of DNA across species, and many other things."

Huh??

"Adaptation" of pre-existing (God-made) life isn't quite "Darwinism."

156 posted on 11/24/2004 1:31:48 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: go_W_go
Why will you guys not stop, why the denial?

Because you've been arguing from ignorance.

157 posted on 11/24/2004 1:32:16 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: neoconsareright

BTTT


158 posted on 11/24/2004 1:32:27 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #159 Removed by Moderator

To: Wonder Warthog

There "is" not other available SCIENTIFIC theory. "Intelligent design" ain't science

prove it...


160 posted on 11/24/2004 1:34:25 PM PST by go_W_go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 301-312 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