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 ...
I'm not telling anyone how to BE anything. The fact of the matter is that the label of right-wing conservative is generally reserved for those on the right that are religious.
Otherwise you're just fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's not a very hard concept to understand.
Pardon me, but I believe people can be religious and still believe in evolution. I know many, many religious people who do not take the Bible literally.
It's a private club. They set the membership rules and meet in the little tent.
You've got to be kidding me. There are decades of genetic and osteological evidence.
Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, was an atheist.
Let's put it this way, if I'm going to rely on verses for my beliefs those that I rely on will not be Darwins.
And while we're at it, why is it that you don't wish to respond to Darwins own belief in intelligent design?
Because B4B has the franchise rights on right wing conservatives, and dammit, he says you're not one, so be properly chastised and go to your room.
do I need a sarcasm tag?
Well then, you'll have to spell it out for us stupid idiots that don't understand why "right-wing conservative" can't be applicable to a range of political and social ideologies.
Ape ping.
No--sarcasm is understood.
We didn't descend from apes. We share a common ancestor.
And your proof is???
Can you spell DNA?
The ultimate hypocrisy, claiming to be religious and yet believeing completely in evolution.
You cannot be both religiously devout and a strict evolutionist. The two are mutually incompatible.
Now that's a convincing argument for retrogressive evolution if I ever heard one.
Let me understand this--you believe in Darwin's contention that an intelligent designer created the first spark of life and you're willing to cite Darwin to bolster your opinion as such. Yet, you are unwilling to look at the other things Darwin said about natural selection and evolution? So Darwin is a reliable source, but only up to a point?
You don't have to take the Bible literally.
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.