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

To: tacticalogic
Where have I attacked him personally?

You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.

491 posted on 09/28/2006 11:05:07 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies ]


To: Last Visible Dog
You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.

I've raised questions about at least one of his conclusions on this thread, but will re-interate for your benefit.

If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose. If that is the case, then he's implicitly accusing the author(s) of the theory of intentionally construting a fraudulent theory with the specific intent of destroying religion. He's further accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of either being unable to recognize a fraudulent theory when they see one or being complicit in the deception. I seriously question the basis upon which he is able to meke this determination, and find nothing in the article to support such a conclusion.

506 posted on 09/28/2006 11:32:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies ]

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