Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
"Screwy Louie Nation of Islam"
I just snorted coffee through my nose.
I've always appreciated Charles Krauthammer's brilliant commentary, but I agree with Human Events on this one.
The Darwinists tell us that Darwinism has "nothing to do" with religion. That is misleading. Darwinism basically says, "go ahead and believe in God if you wish, but he is absolutely and completely irrelevant to any scientific understanding of the origin of man." Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.
The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science," then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science. That's like a trial in which the judge stipulates a position a priori and prohibits any challenge to it, then later claims that such position was in fact proven. When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?
The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.
I had two "Current Problems in Evolution" seminars in grad school some years ago. Didn't realize it was such a popular subject. Guess I should consider myself lucky I got registered with so many people interested in the subject.
Since atheists, by definition, believe that mere humans wrote the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and any number of other religious books, the evidence is that humans have an innate affinity for moral behavior.
Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.
A few of things:
First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.
Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement? Much better, how? Evolution is undirected - their is no ultimate goal or purpose. In fact, there is no such thing as "purpose". To suggest otherwise is to purposely forget what has been learned. We could teach students anything and, ultimately, it makes no difference.
If all humans died tomorrow, so what?
I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.
I'll go you one better - ID is nothing more than a right-leaning PC. Both seek to re-define words and lower standards to avoid offending a certain group, both involve ignoring facts that don't conform to political dogma.
This PC is just as silly, and just as dangerous, as the original.
A requirement of a scientific idea is that it makes predictions which, if false, will discredit the idea. What experiment, or observation, could disprove ID? If there are none (and none have yet been proposed by the ID advocates), then it's not science.
Thanks for the ping!
The religious right was the religious left. Reagan brought the religious left to the right. I was a Conservative long before that and I will be a Conservative long after the religious jump back to the left.
.
That would be fine if both were scientific theories, not just theories in the vernacular, as ID is. ID needs to be pushed in the classroom as much as evolution needs to be preached in the Sunday sermon.
Because it's possible to believe in evolution and morals at the same time. Take off your ideological blinders; there's a wider spectrum of worldviews than you realize.
Wow! This article should have come with a severe barf alert! I don't know much about the Human Events magazine but, if they're publishing garbage like this from the DI, I bet a closer look would expose a perverted hidden agenda that's not good for conservatives.
Show me where I made the claim that morality descends from a Judeo/Christian God. You are deflecting again.
the evidence is that humans have an innate affinity for moral behavior.
How? Why? This is nothing more than the result of undirected natural selection to no end. To assign meaning to it is self-deception. To assign meaning to anything is self-deception.
Missed that whole "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution", eh?
Actually I believe that is evolutionists that have missed that point, in addition to school scientist professors.
Yeah, we tend to get 'confused' by things like 'the requirement for observable evidence', 'the need for falsifiable hypotheses', 'the need for credabile causitive agents', things like that. So pardon us if we find that ID fails all those criteria.
"Incestuous footnoting." LOL! I'll have to remember that one. Now I have a simple term for the hack job the History Channel did on Hitler.
Actually, I used that analogy only HALF in jest, since these morons are waiting for the 'Intelligent Designer' to appear. When it comes right down to it, there is not much difference between them and the twisted mythology of Nation Of Islam's Mother Ship and an Evil Genetic Cloner that created Whites. This crap attracts the same morons whether they be Black or White.
The only way this can be a consistent worldview is to believe that evolution is the tool of an intelligent creator. Is that your position?
First you mix science and religion, now you mix science and philosophy. What's next, science and aromatherapy?
I vote for science and beer.
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.