Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
So what’s nature saying?
And not some man’s interpretation, either, like science is.
How is that any different than the Bible that you’re criticizing?
That is entirely anthropomorphic, but it's also poetic license since consciousness is hardly in front of anyone.
What a cop out. The standard is that the person making the assertion is the one responsible to back it up, not to send someone chasing fairy tales. Creationists are regularly criticized for that very thing.
All you’ve done is demonstrate that you have no answer to that question, and that none exists.
Wikipedia? What a joke. You obviously need to also catch up to the fact that evos don’t consider that a reliable source.
Well, we're hell-bound sinners, see. And unlike "you people," we lack that ruddy glow of Christian antipathy.
What I am saying -- not suggesting -- is that to imply Hitler based his racist theories on the Bible is beyond foolish.
Because, of course, no one had done so before, and no one has ever done so since. It's just unheard of.
Of course, a lot of antisemitism, actually most, was not Scriptural based.
Good to know.
Now I can just write off as historical aberrations Martin Luther; the producers of the passion play in Oberammergau (and all those other German passion plays); the KKK; the Christian Identity movement; Eusebius of Caesareathe; Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan; Augustine of Hippo; Ephraim the Syrian; Justin Martyr; Saint Jerome; Saint John Chrysostom; Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe; Emporor Constantine and the Edict of Milan; Emperor Constantius; St. Hilary of Poitiers; Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria; Emperor Leo I; Virgil, Bishop of Arles, and Theodore, Bishop of Marseilles; Thomas of Monmouth; Pope Clement VIII; Edward I of England; Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile; the Papal States; Emperor Justinian and the portions of the Justinian Code dealing with Jews; the Council of Basel; the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils; the Synod of Gerona and of Narbonne; the Trulanic Synod; the Councils of Orleans; The 17th Church Council of Toledo; The Synod of Vienna; the Shepherd Crusade; The Council of Basel; the Trullanean, Béziers, Alby, Avignon, and Salamanca Councils; the Englilsh Blood Libel; Pope Gregory IX and the charter for the Dominican order within the Papal Inquisition; The Spanish Inquisition; the Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum," requiring Jews to wear badges (you do know, don't you, that the Nazi imposition of a yellow star to be worn by Jews was a revival of church laws?); Abbe Barruel; Pope Pius IX; Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski; Kyrkliga Folkpartiet; Father Charles Edward Coughlin; the Protestant Reich Church (which that non-biblically based anti-semite Adolph Hitler formed in 1933 by merging 28 regional churches into one church); Deutsche Christen; Hanns Kerrl (the Nazi Reichsminister of Church Affairs); Positives Christentum; Cardinal Hloud; etc., etc., etc.
And of course, Hitler didn't mean it when he wrote in Mein Kampf in 1925, "Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." He only said that for effect. A pretty resoundingly successful and murderous effect, but just effect nonetheless.
But, Hitler added a completely new wrinkle. The racial theory he accepted and upon which he justified his policy was one of the superiority of the Nordic race
Ahhh. So your contention now is that racial segregation, enslavement, and genocide has never been justified by Biblical recourse. That notion is just a figment of the imagination of (as you so tellingly put it) "you people."
Hitler may have used the Bible in propaganda but he didn't believe a word of it.
Who do you suppose his propaganda was aimed at, and why do you suppose it worked?
He did believe in natural selection and thought it a source of morality.
Right. He wasn't a true Christian, but he was a true "Darwinist." Now, why was it he didn't use images of Darwin or excerpts from "The Origin of Species" in his propaganda?
The misuse of Scripture, while historically accurate, is no reflection on the Scriptures themselves. They are a reflection of the one mishandling them.
Isn’t that the same standard the typical evo applies to those with “the ruddy glow of Christian antipathy” who misunderstand the sciences involved in their discussions?
Exactly! Maybe there is hope for you!
Now, why was it he didn't use images of Darwin or excerpts from "The Origin of Species" in his propaganda?“
That's an interesting point you raise. Here is some Nazi propaganda:
Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked . . . . Our objectives are entirely different: we must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world.”
Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, 1938
Now who is the one who called us to feed the hungry etc? Do you really need me to spell out the name? It starts with a J.
OTOH, that campaign to have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world was based in part on ideas about public health and genetic "fitness" that had grown out of the inclination of many late nineteenth century scientists and intellectuals to apply the Darwinian concepts of evolution to the problems of human society.
Wikipedia is often surprisingly good when it comes to science because scientists enjoy writing articles for their favorite areas. That is why the article on eye evolution has so many references. I realize you may not be familiar with these since they are lacking in creationist material, but these are articles relevant to the topic of eye evolution. Many of the sources listed were in scholarly journals. If you're doubtful about the Wikipedia article and are seriously looking for information on eye evolution, which you claim does not exist, you might try looking up the references. You will be elated to find, no doubt, that each of those scholarly articles has its own list of references, which will lead you to new and fascinating topics in eye evolution!
I’m sorry you’re offended by Coyoteman’s credentials, but we can’t all be uneducated just to assuage your self-esteem.
On the other hand, historical bastardization and abuse of the theory of evolution in furtherance of antisemitism proves that the proponents of such bastardization and abuse are true “Darwinists.”
Funny how that works.
I am suggesting that evolution, osteology, and fossil man are fields in which I have a somewhat informed opinion based on considerable education and training.
I don't have to rely on others' opinions in these areas. And particularly, I don't have to rely on Ann Coulter's uninformed opinion nor on the lies found in creationist websites.
And your background in these fields is what, that you hold forth with such strong opinions?
“Heads I win, tails you loose.” As I’ve already pointed out.
Those who are led astray by others who mishandle the scriptures are themselves to be held accountable for their being led astray. There will be no excuse-making at the judgment seat.
Not sure about the point you are making about false-Darwinists. The term itself seems a bit redundant.
Oh stop your whining. The person that was making the assertion is making up fairy tales. My statements were in direct response to that. He or she was following the God of the Gaps strategy and attempting to make the objector verify the entirety of another theory instead of simply support an objection. This is intellectually dishonesty of the highest order. My part in these threads isn’t to support a theory but to provide objections to Young Earth Creationism. I don’t personally hold that the fanatics and their Young Earth Creationism is mutually exclusive with evolution, though I do feel that evolution is thousands of times more probable if they are evaluated independently.
If I objected to someones interpretation that the Earth is flat, I wouldn’t feel obliged to personally explain all of physics to that individual. Pointing him or her in the correct direction is enough. And I did that.
What is your complaint now? Is it that I’m not your personal teacher? Or is it that when you make a fundamental error in your reasoning and believe fairy tale versions of the creation of humanity that I should explain all of geology, physics, and biology to you personally—otherwise I should shut up. Classic God of the Gaps strategy—silence your opponent by making him your personal teacher/slave.
So if someone tells you that the theory of evolution postulates that a cat one day gave birth to a bird, you'd think that was an accurate statement.
No.
What exactly qualifies one to "do science?"
What exactly qualifies one to "do science?"
Simple; to do science one must follow the scientific method.
This is distinctly different from what lawyers do. The rules of evidence and the peer review process are two examples. Other differences are in the "judging" of evidence and the target audience.
Ann Coulter's recent book is a good example of how to be a lawyer or celebrity, but it is not a good example of how to do science.
I believe the Oracle of Algore to be the purest source of Naturespeak.
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.