Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
THE GOD VS. Darwin debate went to the White House last week when President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It's a move that has undoubtedly pleased the president's conservative religious base. However, it has also caused much unhappiness among those conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right, including such strong Bush supporters as columnist Charles Krauthammer and University of Tennessee law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
What societies are you esteeming then?
Lay them out.
Not really. Even in a very primitive group of cave-men hunter-gatherers, a person with such traits would quickly find themselves cast out. Such behavior is not human nature. At least, not for humans who want to live in a society with other human beings.
Millions of dead babies (probably a lot of scientists among them), families broken and hurting, people lost in drug abuse and alcoholism at younger and younger ages, and in greater numbers, people dying and suffering from STD's, rapes. murders, theft increasing....
Yeahh.....morally speaking it's a whole lot better now in America than it was before..... (if you aren't old enough to remember what it was like when your average American citizen behaved in a moral manner in a culture that valued respect and decency).
Likewise. It's nice when these threads remain civil.
A significant portion of our society says that killing a child before birth is not wrong.
I agree there is some out there, but it is not significant. At one time it was an attorney and some SC judges.
If push came to shove and we did a clearly stated national referendum, my guess full blooded Roe support (Kill them up till they are born) is well below 20%. We will never know.
Hmm.... That's a good question. The Roman Republic would be one. The Classical Greek world would be another.
Lynching. Desperate poverty in many states. Large numbers of people prevented from voting or going to decent schools, based on their race. Massive gangsterism and political corruption.
Another part of the beginning article:
Intolerance and intransigence, he says, is now the province of the Darwinians, who regard insult as legitimate argument.
What?! School boards decide what books are being used every day. Parents weigh in but "government" does decide the content of education. They will always continue to perform this function as long as there is a government school.
You'll notice I said "right and duty," not "power." Totally different things.
I think, as a society, we are better off now than we were 40 years ago.
This is a hard argument to thoroughly support. I don't know that I have seen it done, and I don't believe if done it could hold up.
What post-graduate level courses did you take? At which Universities?
You speak of what you do not know.
I screamed in anger shortly after birth (according to my mother, who knew me well :).
It is in my NATURE to get angry.......my inborn nature...... and I would not have controlled it because of society (my human nature also didn't care what 'society' thought of me). I control it only as I yield myself to God. And as a Christian, my standards are FAR higher than society's.
Your theories don't work in real life.
Really school books are decided at a very high level, as choices that each school board can make are determined at Houghton Mifflin and what they and other houses publish.
Also, big states like California and Texas drive the text publishing houses.
Gimme a break, local school boards are severely limited, but may not simply be aware of it. The limiting takes place far, far upstream...in a secular humanistic galaxy far far away.
Now you see, that is much more of an ad hominem . It's attacking a group of people - 'Darwinians' - rather than Darwinism.
I would believe you were attacking a group of people, creationists.
That was also simply part of the original article, not my words. Did you read it all?
More of the article...
Huxley was confident that science, superior to religious belief, could offer something more tangibly enduring than theology.
To those of us who lived through much of the 20th century, witnesses to the atrocities committed in the name of science, Huxley's optimism seems considerably wide of the mark.
As for lynching and racism, I agree that this society is now better than it was in those areas (I didn't deny that there had been any improvement), though the racism in the human hearts of many remains.
But if you compare the relative downward spiral of the value of human life that allows the killing of millions of babies, lack of regard for sexual morality, the sanctity of marriage (a pillar in a civilized society), rampant abuse of children, and respect for right and wrong (you should be able to observe that clearly at the university level), our overall society has radically declined.
And actually, the truth of abortion is, that it is extremely racist, and is wiping out millions of young black babies (check out the statistics some day). Far more than were murdered by lynchings.
I said the Roman Republic. That's quite different from the Roman Empire. The citizens of the Republic would have been as horrified by Caligula and Nero as we are.
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.