Posted on 06/11/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
It is kinda hard to buy off on the evolution of man as Democrats still walk the earth. :)
ping!
There is absolutely no doubt about it here. It’s very sad that so many do believe in evolution. God is in His heaven and just waiting for His children to believe and repent. Trust in Him. He’s the only One who makes sense.
Sounds like the author wants to equate the belief in evolution with the right to govern.
I totally reject evolution. It’s absurd on its face and there is NO evidence to support it - just wild hypothesis since they were NOT there.
My God is no “ape” and I am NOT made in the image of an “ape”. Too bad others have such a puny, mindless god.
interesting that a bunch of knuckle-draggers like us could doubt evolution./s
:)
Oh, I see. Forsake reality and just "believe" because it's "modern."
What a lie!
Majority also believes that 49% is not a majority.
I hope the parties glom onto evolution. I’d love to live to see the egg on their faces.
The party will either go into the 21st century and win elections, or it will refuse to modernize and continue to lose. I hope party leaders have the foresight to realize that opposing modernity is a losing strategy
What a condescending little twerp.
Having said that what are talking about. Because one may not buy the total “evolution theory” does not mean they are 1900th century caveman.
Of course evolution happened. But that doesn’t mean that “modernism” (whatever that is) is a good thing. In fact, in many ways the 20Century was a disaster, and this one doesn’t show promise of being much better. The only thing good about modern times is the better food and medical care, and the really cool gadgets. Other than that, the people are no better — maybe worse.
The article makes an historical mistake. Darwin’s Origin book was not the one that stirred up opponents; it was the later Descent of Man, which applied evolution to humans, which aroused uneasiness.
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Interesting. Most freepers seem to be Macroevolutionists.
there is no evidence that one species becomes another.
If a candidate for President of the United States announced on national television that he believed that the world was flat, and that fantastic sea monsters lurked in the depths near the edge of the world, would you feel he had the requisite knowledge or judgment to be President? For the most part, looking at a politician's belief in science is useful only because it is indicative of his analytical abilities, and someone who believes in sea monsters or creationism probably also doesn't have the requisite analytical abilities to manage bureaucracy, defeat terrorism or keep social security solvent.
But belief in evolution may be useful for policy as well. Suppose that there's an epidemic, and the President refuses to take certain preventative measures because he doesn't believe the pathogen can evolve. In that case, hopefully unlikely, people could actually die because of a failure to accept modern science.
“Evolution does not explain creation” - Charles Darwin
You're not only wrong, you really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. A simple primer, if you're interested.
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.