It's God or Darwin

National Review Online ^ | 12/21/'05 | David Klinghoffer

[aliquando]

I apologize for any insult you may have perceived. It was not intended as a put-down, smart -@ssed or dumb-@ssed. When It comes to G_d, you guy's are first in line. We do not refer to you as the chosen people for nothing. The rest of us gentiles have to find salvation via another route that does not involve strict Kosher living. It would not do us one bit of good. We have to find salvation via the S_n of G_d. Same goal different directions. Sorry for the unintended insult. Remember, we are on the same team.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Nonsense. Darwinian evolution makes no assertion, positive or negative, about the possibility that there is a supernatural reality. It simply declines to rely on that notion (as it must, to remain within the purview of science).

Any time science deals with origins it has left its purview. Observable phenomena show us a functioning universe, now how the universe came into existence. Do you look at a ticking clock and then concluce that it must have ticked its way into existence?

And as to dishonesty, just which of the individuals stated above did not say what Klinghoffer says he did? Please check the hyperlinks, and if I mystyped any, then go to the original article.

Back to your meaningless life now. And good luck getting your taxes reduced, which is probably the only thing you live for.

[aliquando]

I truly enjoy discussions on this topic with most people. I believe that with G_d, all things are possible. Who are we to rule out anything? Even some form of evolution. BTW, Charles' father was an Anglican minister. Darwin was also a religious man.

[Stultis]

One of the principal scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, btw, was a practicing Catholic.

Francisco Ayala, one of the principle figures in the framing of modern evolutionary theory ("neodarwinism") was a Catholic priest.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I apologize for any insult you may have perceived. It was not intended as a put-down, smart -@ssed or dumb-@ssed. When It comes to G_d, you guy's are first in line. We do not refer to you as the chosen people for nothing. The rest of us gentiles have to find salvation via another route that does not involve strict Kosher living. It would not do us one bit of good. We have to find salvation via the S_n of G_d. Same goal different directions. Sorry for the unintended insult. Remember, we are on the same team.

Oh wow. If you knew I was a lowly redneck Noachide would you have fallen all over yourself like that?

I am sick and tired of people who think that the "old testament" is chr*stian, that chr*stianity invented G-d, or any of this other stuff. Judaism was already there. The TaNa"KH is JEWISH, not chr*stian, and attacks on it (or the silly assumption that it is nothing but chr*stological allegory devoid of any factual truth) are defninitely not appreciatedby this Noachide.

[Stultis]

that's the second time I've seen an op-ed piece authored by a UN-Discovery Insititute hack posted to FR with the author's affiliation left off

Random Accident -or- Intelligent Design???

[Doc Savage]

Bring evolution down to a molecular level and it falls apart. Randomness. Exactly how do you get from A-1 to Z-2000 through random events? The downfall of Darwinism. Darwinist look at coincidental yet somewhat similar structures and draw the conclusion that A became Z. Phenotype trumps genotype in their world.

[July4th64]

Well of course! All we have to do to do that is to acknowledge the facts... Fact#1) Evolution is a theory...no one was there to see what happened in the beginning...evolution is one interpretation of the evidence which exists. Because it is only a theory, it requires that you have faith in the interpretations of fallible human scientists. Fact#2) Intelligent Design, creationisim or whatever, is another theory which interprets the evidence in a totally different way. It requires a faith in some sort of supreme designer/creater. All people need to do is recognize the fact that both Creationisim/ID AND darwinisim require faith.

[aliquando]

Obviously any attempt to apologize by me is fruitless. I made no such allegations. I did not say, nor do I believe that Christians "invented" G_d. I did not say, nor do I believe that the Old Testament is some cute "allegory". Only heathen leftists believe that a person can invent G_d. I am not trying to patronize the Hebrew faith. You seem blinded by anger. I wish you would explain to me why I angered you. I also resent being called a redneck. I have no disparaging feelings towards them.If you think me a redneck just because I live in the south, then you are more narrow - minded than most freepers I converse with.

[longshadow]

Random Accident -or- Intelligent Design???

I'm content to allow the lurkers to make up their own minds.

;-)

[GSHastings]

"Evolution does not explain Creation" - Charles Darwin

"Evolution does not explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth" - me

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.

Funny, but a whole load of Founding Fathers were exactly that kind of Christian (Deists), and they still had no trouble believing in God and the Natural Laws that make our system of government possible. The Either-Or logical fallacy is a lousy way to start an argument...

[Junior]

Gracias.

[js1138]

Who has been charged in this case?

Tell us where I said anyone was charged, Mr. hotshot lawyer.

I asked you whether your moral standards had dropped to the level of BJ Clinton. I see they are lower.

[July4th64]

Sorry but you are not correct. Here are some non-biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus: Cornelius Tacitus, (Roman historian, AD 52-54) who made reference to his crucifixion; Thallus, the Samaritan born historian who wrote in 52 A.D. also made reference to the crucifixion and the eclipse which occured with it. Also there are references in some of the Jewish Talmuds, Such as the Baraila. The eariest fragment of the new testament...the John Rylands MS, has been dated at 130 AD, Jesus was crucified around 33 AD, so there was a copy written around 97 years after Christ...therefore, the original would have been written even earlier. Also, there is archeological support. For example, there have been inscriptions on antiquities referring to Pontious Pilate, and possibly also to Caiphas the high priest who was involved in the trial of Jesus. F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis has said that: "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence".

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

Sorry it took awhile to respond, I got called away from the tube by my playful 4 year old nephew.

"So you're saying the difference between anti-ID Theistic evolutionists and pro-ID Theistic evolutionists is that the former keep their opinions about the Creator to themselves?"

No, I think everybody has an opinion about the Creator, it's just that evolution doesn't address the subject. Theism and science address different things.

"However, the moment science moves from these things to speculation as to how finches came into existence in the first place (by assuming that observable evolution in the fully created universe is the continuation of the creation process itself) it has jumped into metaphysics."

No, science has to stick to the evidence, metaphysics doesn't have to.

"BTW, your contribution to humanity will also never amount to a fraction of that of Abraham."

I didn't know I was competing with him.

"Do you also have fantasies of traveling back in a time machine and murdering him, like one of the evolutionists quoted (and hyperlinked) in the article?"

I don't feel the need to defend every crackpot thing these guys said about religion. They're free to think what they want about it.

[aliquando]

Thank you. I read his post, but my brain is to sleepy to give the type of reply you did.

[timor_noctis]

Darwinism speaks only towards the development and diversity of life, not those of morals, ethics, or political policies. "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'." However, if you are actually interested in an answer to your objections from a Darwinian perspective, I highly recommend "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright. Unless, of course, you enjoy making baseless attacks, in which case I would avoid any sort of scientific literature.