Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley…As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)
“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)
The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).
All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God…” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:
“…matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic…the dialectical materialists attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)
In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:
“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)
Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.
Deadly Problems
First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.
Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his “Autobiography” that one who rejects God,
“…can have for his rule of life…those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)
Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,
“…if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)
With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:
Man is “but fish made over…” declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)
Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, “Degradation and Shock,” Chapter viii)
Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky ‘species’ and ‘races’ of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:
“At some future period…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)
In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism
Nazi Germany
Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, “Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,
“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (1947, p.230)
It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.
Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of “Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,” reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,
“has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (2005, p. 13)
The Soviet Union
Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s ‘Origin’,
“is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)
Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,
“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)
Vladimir Lenin exulted that,
“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)
Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)
Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:
“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid, p. 751)
21st Century America
Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)
Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:
“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)
As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as ‘vegetable,’ “non-persons,” and ‘uterine content.’
Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.
America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.
Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the ‘animalization of Other,’ in tandem with the elevation of the ‘superior,’ for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.
In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:
“A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual…is henceforth to be controlled…in large part by other men.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 www.patriotsandliberty.com/
Linda is the author of many published essays on culture, worldview, and politics. Her essays are published both nationally and internationally. She is a member of MoveOff.org
If you think that mass murdering innocents somehow suggests they are NOT genuine Islamists, then I don't think you understand radical, jihadist Islam.
I'm old enough to remember (prior to the Iranian Revolution in '79, and still predominantly for sometime thereafter) when terrorism was primarily the domain of secular groups such as you describe. Terrorist acts then were generally carefully "calibrated" as to lethality in order to produce maximum publicity with the minimum "necessary" body count. The killing of dozens (let alone hundreds, let alone thousands) at a time was extremely rare and usually beyond what was intended.
Intentional mass casualty terrorism is ENTIRELY and explicitly a product of Islamist extremism. It is certainly not a counter indicator thereof!
As to your other point: Yes, we know there are primarily secular extremists, terrorists, strongmen, thugs, etc, who make a pretense of being Islamist Muslims. Saddam Hussein was an example over the final decade or so of his rule.
But yes, if someone is mistakenly of falsely included in class "X" then of course it is false to attribute to him or her the implications that follow from being a member of "X". That's trivial. Of course I mean to say that persons who actually are Islamists (or Muslims, or sincere and serious monotheists generally) are "creationists".
Well, YOU'RE saying that. BETTY BOOP keeps saying that. But I'M not saying that. Not in this connection at least.
I'm not evaluating. I'm just stating a fact. Islamists are creationists.
I'm just saying that Islamists are creationists. Obviously. Being theologically conservative. Accepting the Koran as literally true. The Koran clearly and unabiguously claiming that Allah is the One God and the Creator of all that is. They are creationists. To quibble about applying the noun "creationists" to Islamists is just silly/stupid/absurd.
Is my position clear yet?!
Seems that 100% sold out adherence to speciation and naturalistic evolution is some kind of litmus test as to what a *real* scientist is, and anyone who doesn't toe the party line is not a *real* scientist, and is just a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging,.....(fill in the blank) creationist who wouldn't recognize *real* science if it hit him over the head, no matter what their credentials.
OTOH, it doesn't matter if you have no credentials at all; if you agree with the ToE as stated here, everything you say is unarguable, even if you don't really know what you're talking about; and you have the *privledge* of sitting in judgment on everyone who disagrees with you. .
Seems that stereotyping ALL creationists into the extreme, literalist most narrow definition of the term is another MO.
To all our friends over at DC: Hi y'all. Having fun?
LOL tacticalogic! Sounds right to me!!!
If the methodology assumes unchanging laws of nature, it is science, but then it departs from creationism.
Creationism assumes that any phenomenon could be the result of divine intervention. This is the defining difference between the two modes of thinking.Within recorded history, everything from the flight of an arrow through plagues, earthquakes and volcanoes, has been attributed to the action of divinities.
Starting from this assumption, it is impossible to discuss the past in any terms that imply unchanging laws.
Sorry if I seem upset. I'm not really. It's not even frustration. It's more a kind of amazed incredulity that there's actually an argument that's gone on message after message as to whether "Islamists" are "creationists". If I'm frustrated it's more with the incredible stupidity of the argument itself than any particular person. Maybe (probably) I'm the stupid one for still being in such a silly argument!
Maybe all Islamists are creationists, but so what?
Are all creationists Islamists?
The problem is, that, as has been pointed out to you before, creation is not limited to Christianity or Islam. There’s either the naturalistic view, or creation, and multitudes of people believe in creation without being terrorists.
The point you’re making is to try to equate creation with Islamic terrorists. *If you believe in creation, you’re no better than an Islamic terrorist*.
Whether you deny that’s your intent or not, that’s what’s clearly coming across.
Yes, your position is clear; loud and clear.
And scientists know that the laws of nature have never changed, how?
Creationists can still use science working with the laws of nature as they stand now. That's what scientists do What does it matter what the cause is? Science can't address the cause anyway, because it has no way of determining what the cause was.
One methodology is based on *assumption*, with no rational basis or evidence for it, and the other is based the cause being God. So how is working with a system with unknown causes and no basis for the assumptions made for it superior than working with a system whose cause is believed to be God?
By blatantly disregarding the Foundation of our Nation:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
==If you think that mass murdering innocents somehow suggests they are NOT genuine Islamists, then I don’t think you understand radical, jihadist Islam.
I think it is you who don’t understand modern, jihadist Islam. Islam was penetrated by the Communists in much the same way the penetrated Christianity via “Liberation Theology.” For a brief intro on the subject, I suggest reading the following (once you have digested that, let me know and I’ll send you links that go into this phenomena much more extensively):
http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Terrorists%20In%20Muslim%20Diguise.htm
==Intentional mass casualty terrorism is ENTIRELY and explicitly a product of Islamist extremism. It is certainly not a counter indicator thereof!
If that’s the case, then why are 50%+ of all suicide bombers secular Communists and socialists? And while I strongly disagree with the author’s (liberal) conclusions, his data is crystal clear: these people engaged in what the Communists would call “Wars of National Liberation.”
Business Week (JULY 6, 2005)
What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick?
...”The presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading...Here’s a summary of (Robert Pape’s) analysis, which is based on the 315 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003:
Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist Hindu group opposed to religion, committed the largest number of suicide attacks, 76. The Kurdish PKK, which used the tactic 14 times, is headed by a secular Marxist-Leninist, Abdulah Ocalan. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Marxist-Leninist group, and the al-Aqsa Brigade, which has ties to the socialist Fatah movement, account for a third of the attacks against Israel. Communist and socialist groups account for 75% of the attacks in Lebanon. Islamic fundamentalists, he concludes, were associated with about only half of the attacks from 1980 to 2003...
Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they’re nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs. The suicide terrorists, who account for about 5% of all terrorist incidents but about 75% of all fatalities, believe their land and way of life are threatened. The religions of the occupier and the insurgents invariably are different, Pape notes, but he contends that difference is merely a useful recruiting tool and isn’t at the root of the animosity.
Al Qaeda fits this pattern. Osama bin Laden’s opposition to the House of Saud stemmed from its decision to allow U.S. troops on Saudi soil. Bin Laden’s goal is not simply to kick the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, a country that’s a Western construct, but rather from the Arabian Peninsula, which arguably stretches as far north as Iraq and includes Kuwait, Bahrain, and other countries in the region where the U.S. has troops....
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm
It's perfectly clear that you consider Islamists (of the jihadi, totalitarian, irredentist type) to be the epitome of what it is to be a creationist: theologically conservative, ignorant, literal readers of the Q'uran.
Of course, if these are the strict qualifications for being a creationist, then a whole lot of theologically-inclined thinkers who are not literal-minded in their engagement of Holy Scripture, and who actually read and reflect on these issues still have to be fitted into the procrustean bed of your "interpretation" of creationist.
You are of course entirely welcome to your opinion, Stultis.
==But yes, if someone is mistakenly of falsely included in class “X” then of course it is false to attribute to him or her the implications that follow from being a member of “X”.
PS Has the thought ever occured to you that it might be the other way around?
==Of course I mean to say that persons who actually are Islamists (or Muslims, or sincere and serious monotheists generally) are “creationists”.
Indeed they are. But the creationist Muslims that I’m aware of soundly reject terror and lay the blame for terrorism at the feet of the Church of Darwin:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism1.php
I never said “science is fraud”, nor did I say that fraud was its dominant mode and I didn’t say that all scientists are backbiters. Those are all your words. Respectfully, I’m not interested in getting into some sort of prolonged “Hi I’m tit and this is my partner tat” exchange with you.
As to whether or not I’ve done any original research...I suppose that I’m expected to respond to that by saying “Them’s fightin’ words” and come back swinging with freshly inked copies of my CV clutched in my fists. But I’m really not interested in doing that, nor do I think that would advance the discussion on the board.
My credentials are what they are — speculate on them however you’d like. No one else on this board has been asked to post a resume justifying their qualifications for having an opinion, and while I have courteously answered tacticalogics’s request for further information about my background I think I’m about done on that point.
Now, on to more interesting topics than me:
1. Science does not deal with God.
Well, yeah, kinda. You know...since God created everything and all. OK, I’m being flippant and I shouldn’t be. I guess, js1138, there is little chance that we will come on to common ground on this point because your worldview is fundamentally different than mine.
2. Science deals with claims made about the physical world; science deals only with processes that it can observe using methodologies that it can access (something you said earlier, yes?):
That’s true for some things, but it’s a bit disingenuous to apply that to all fields of research — ESPECIALLY those involving evolution. Evolutionary processes are NOT directly observable.
Not only is it not observable, but its not even testable or repeatable — fundamental components to the scientific method. For example, while I can go out into a field and use statistical sampling methods to determine how much data I need to collect in order to represent the whole, I cannot do this for evolutionary processes. I can try to use some of the same tools — statistical sampling methods, models, biochemical analyses, etc. — but they’re all seriously compromised by lack of data. The fossil record is remarkably scarce.
Now, lack of data is a common problem in scientific research. When data is lacking, scientists will adapt by making assumptions. This is a standard practice, especially in dealing with models, and there are plenty of times that this works out just fine — for example, there are some really good predictive models that deal with crop yield, or hydrologic processes, or weather events.
But, again, evolution is different. With questions involving evolution there are so many gaps to be dealth with...in fact, more than gaps there are vast chasms in the fossil record...and so many resultant assumptions that must be made in order to complete any meaningful analysis that the lack of data issue is really not one that can be tiptoed gracefully around. It is commonly said that you can massage statistics to make them say anything you want them to — and that’s very, very true when you’re dealing with these kinds of analyses.
And so the question of how the assumptions are made to compensate for this lack of data does — and SHOULD — loom somewhat larger over the discussion than it might for other areas of scientific endeavor.
Because assumptions are loaded with subjectivity. And bias. The more that subjectivity and bias are injected into the analysis and into the interpretation of the results, the more that the personal worldview of the researcher comes to the fore and casts its shadow over the whole body of work.
So...it’s not really accurate to say that science research is focused on observables and that any dishonesty in findings will eventually come to light. It just doesn’t work that way — scientists have produced great things, don’t get me wrong, but let’s keep the lens clean and be humble and willing to admit it when we come to an area of scientific endeavor that is problematic.
And “evolution” is just very, very problematic.
Of course it's just an assumption. One formalized (but not invented) by Isaac Newton.
Between you and Newton as authorities on how to do science, I don't think it's a contest.
Speaking of the author connected to the second link, he just published a new book:
Atlas of Creation and its Effect in Europe
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to debate whether Creation will be included in school curriculum
With the distribution of Mr. Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya)’s Atlas of Creation in Europe, the continent’s materialists and Darwinists set off a serious panic among. They stated that Atlas of Creation, which was mentioned to resemble no other anti-evolutionist work, is more hazardous to their system of thinking than all previous anti-Darwinist publications. They were so upset they even set out to ban the book.
Undoubtedly, this panic is the greatest proof of just how important and accurate is the information that this book contains. Its solid scientific evidence, effectively refuting evolution, has helped many Europeans realize that they have been deceived for 150 years. In a recent poll held by French site, Science Actualités, 92 percent of those questioned replied that they believe in Creation, while those who still believe in evolution numbered a mere 5 percent.
Europeans have begun to understand that evolution was nothing but a tall tale put forward in the fairly ignorant scientific world of the 19th century; and they note that Creation has now been proven by solid evidence. This ideological –and intellectual—awakening engendered great unrest among materialists, atheists, and Darwinists.
One of the latest documents to reflect this unrest is the report prepared by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education. The French socialist Guy Lengagne drew up the document named “The Dangers of Creationism in Education”. Consisting of 104 articles, its overall focus is on the recent growth and strengthening of belief of Creation throughout Europe, and the worry and discomfort it has engendered in certain circles. Twelve of the articles deal specifically with the works of Harun Yahya and the importance of his Atlas of Creation.
As the Washington Times stated in an article datelined 24th June 2007:
The report highlighted a recent Muslim creationist campaign by Turkish writer Harun Yahya, whose lavish 750-page Atlas of Creation has been distributed free to schools in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain.
The report cited University of Paris biologist Hervé Le Guyader, who called the challenge from Islamic thinkers “much more dangerous than the previous creationist initiatives, which were often of Saxon origin.”
In this report’s conclusion, 47 member states are called upon to act against Creation. Moreover, it states that Europe is in danger since belief in the theory of evolution is beginning to collapse.
This very report will be polled in the European Parliament Assembly on 26 June 2007, when recommendations will be set for the national education curricula of member countries. Although this resolution is not binding upon the member states, it’s highly important that it be in full accord with the Council of Europe’s basic values, including human rights, freedoms of opinion and democracy.
In all his works, Mr. Adnan Oktar emphasizes that the theory of evolution should be taught along with Creation, and students—and people in general—should feel free to choose for themselves among these ideas. This is the best approach for ensuring freedom of opinion and democracy. However some are incapable of replying scientifically to the facts stated in these books. Acting with a Dark Ages mentality, they try to suppress a book whose ideas they disagree with, to constrain others’ freedoms of thought and of opinion. Yet banning an idea can’t make it any less valid. Those who –advocate the theory of evolution, by attempting to suppress all opinions except their own, are in direct conflict with the basic values of the Council.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_01.php
You claim to have a degree in biology?
Name one physical process required by evolution that has not been observed.
You have been fairly clear all along.. Actually everyone is a Creationist.. The Universe was created.. by someone, something, somehow, someway, sometime.. Duuugh, Its HERE.. How it got here is the question.. How it WAS created is the question.. not "IF"..
Pointed out to me? Pardon, but I hardly need instruction on such a point. (Although many a creationist here does.)
Just a few messages upthread, and repeatedly in this thread, I've pointed out that accepting a Doctrine of Creation, and therefore being a "creationist," is a characteristic of (serious) monotheists generally. In other threads I've pointed out that most evolutionists are creationists (although obviously not antievolutionary creationists). Even though the intended meaning should generally be understood in these threads, I nevertheless often use distinguishing terminology like "antievolutionary creationist" or "antievolution activist" so as not to taint or limit the term "creationism" or "creationist" with a too particular, narrow or anti-scientific a denotation.
There’s either the naturalistic view, or creation
Um, no. There are many who accept both naturalism (at least "operational" naturalism, i.e. naturalism adopted for the limited purpose of "doing science") and creationism.
and multitudes of people believe in creation without being terrorists
Well, DUH!
The point you’re making is to try to equate creation with Islamic terrorists. *If you believe in creation, you’re no better than an Islamic terrorist*.
First betty boop, then hosepipe and now you. I don't know if this is some kind of projection, weired and unnecessary defensiveness, or just mass insanity. But it's really, really, really bizarre.
I didn't ever, anywhere, say or suggest that just Islamists, or only Islamists, or particularly Islamists, or especially Islamists are creationists. In fact I said that ALL Muslims, and ALL Christians, and ALL monotheists (who follow through to the extent of accepting a monotheistic doctrine of creationism) are "creationists". I said dumb and smart Muslims, and dumb and smart Christians (and even the occasional non-religious "philosophical theist") are creationists.
Heck, it was someone else who started all this. I just responded -- in genuine amazement -- to betty boop's comment in #132:
Why on earth do you suppose the Islamofascists are "creationists?" Where is your evidence for this?
And bb was responding to -YYZ- who, in #17, only made an incidental point in way of arguing against stereotyping and pigeonholing creationists:
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
Please try to put your persecution complex aside long enough to read the above statement C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. Anyone who doesn't INSIST on being insulted will recognize that -YYZ- is saying that creationism should NOT be considered a term of opprobrium (just because some bad people happen to be creationists) just evolution should not be so considered (just because some bad people happen to be evolutionists).
But of course, just as you have with me, betty boop immediately missed the point, and indeed got it exactly backwards:
It seems you regard "creationist" and "creationism" as terms of opprobrium that can be applied willy-nilly to people you dislike.
Well, you know what, if people insist on being offended, and will turn your statements around 180 degrees in order to play the roll of drama queen cum martyr, what you gonna do? I suppose just shake your head in slightly bemused disbelief.
O.K... When animals evolved and started to believe in GOD...
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.