Posted on 07/18/2008 1:54:34 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.
Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .
Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.
Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.
(Excerpt) Read more at scoop.co.nz ...
PZ Meyers and the other foul-mouthed moon-bats suffering from BDS who fly back and forth between posting on his blogs along with the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, the DemocRAT Underground, and all the rest of the far-left loonie-bin sites, are a big turn-off.
At times, he can be kind of funny, but he routinely goes so far over the top that most sober-minded people will not be willing to give him the time of day. He’s his own worst enemy.
Evolutionary biology is a different discipline than abiogenesis.
If the author can’t, or refuses, to understand the topic, why read any further.
“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. Source
Funny stuff.
The alignment to the evolution versus ID debate is even closer -- why? Because many if not most of the major blogs and pundits taking the line that questions about the certificate and birth legend are nutso, are also those same blogs that deride intelligent design.
I just mention this as a curiosity at this point. That is, if people are still allowed to be curious or skeptical about ideas held by force and inquisitions against heresies.
Oh yes, theocracy is bad, bad, bad. Better repeal the laws against murder and theft. What good is pulling emblems of the Ten Commandments down if we're going to be legislating the primitive superstitions?
Of course, even without G-d the jails are full, people are murdered or executed, and armies are on the march doing what armies do. But at least there's no fascist Ultimate Meaning behind it all and it's all for the sake of low, vulgar social utility. I'm sure if I were about to be fried to death in an electric chair that thought would make it aaaalllll better! [/sarcasm]
There were laws around about murder and theft many many years before Moses and the ten commandments
Indeed. G-d gave Adam seven laws which are binding on all non-Jews to this day--Sheva` Mitzvot Benei Noach (the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah). But the source of these laws was Divine Revelation, not "human reason."
My whole point is that since the exact same stuff is going to happen whether or not there is a G-d (despite the atheist superstition that a rejection of G-d would create some sort of utopia), why is the concept of a Creator and Lawgiver so much more onerous than the same laws when imposed in the name of "human reason" and "social utility."
I'll take the one "fascist dictator" in Heaven (Who at least created the world) instead of the six billion potential fascist dictators down here any day of the week.
I'll take the form of government we have had (if we can keep it).
A theocracy is the last thing we need. You want to see the Dark Ages again?
Because if you start letting religious zealots tell everyone what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, that's just where we are headed.
(I'll take the Inquisition for $1000, Alex.)
I notice that you avoid my point and instead engage in bringing up the boogyman of the "Spanish Inquisition" (which, I suppose, makes you an anti-Catholic bigot).
You want laws, you want "order;" you just want it to be rooted in nothing but the shallowest part of reality--social utility.
This makes you a bigger fascist than any Inquisitor who ever lived because the "law and order" you covet is nothing more than the imposition of your own will. And your will is more preferable than that of a theoretical Creator of the Universe . . . why???
Come now. You must have something snarky to say that will completely eviscerate my argument. Don't you???
Nope.
I find I spend less and less time here. You theocons are doing your best to drive the rest of us cons away.
And what ever for? What is it about "theocracy" you dread so much? Because it's going to have laws and penalties for violating them??? We have that already!!! At least in a theocracy there is a legitimate excuse for laws and penalties, unlike your silly "social contract" and "spontaneous order" myths. Only a fascist would consider either one of those as an excuse to have laws!
And since the whole point of conservatism is G-d, people like you belong on a Communist forum anyway.
In your post you refer to me as a fascist and a communist. What's next, if your type ever assumes control of the government? A quiet visit from the Inquisition? The stake?
What is it about "theocracy" you dread so much?
Theocrats!
Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle, 1968
No. The whole point of conservatism is to uphold the God-given rights and freedom fought for by the founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution.
As those rights are God-given, to block them with a theocracy is not only un-American, but in defiance of God.
You need to take another shot at seminary. You picked up some totally off the wall notions.
People who object to "theocracy" because of its alleged totalitarian legalism but who then defend law and morality (including the death penalty) on the pathetic grounds that "ve must haff order" are hypocrites. If you don't see it that way that's your business.
Belief gets in the way of learning....hmmmm: hot air cult algore created the internet...and the global warming debate is over...
yes, I see your point!
The Founding Fathers did not create the universe. Furthermore, there are atheist "conservatives" who deny that our rights come from G-d.
As those rights are God-given, to block them with a theocracy is not only un-American, but in defiance of God.
The right to do what? To murder? Isn't that illegal already? So what's the big deal? Or how about to steal? No? We've already got a law against that? And you aren't complaining about how tyrannical it is? Or maybe the right to be "gay" or have abortions for convenience?
So what is it about a theocracy that is so scary? The laws are already in force. But nothing less than the Will of the Creator can justify such laws!
As to whether or not "all mankind" has the "right" to worship any other "gxd" than the Jealous G-d of Israel, I think His instructions on the matter carry more wait than the opinions of Jefferson, Paine, Voltaire, or anyone else (however "un-American" that makes me).
Very simple. One does not have the right to murder, because it denies a person the right to live. We do not have rights to violate the rights of others. (And in the many cases where it's hard to tell what the respective rights are, we have courts.)
So what is it about a theocracy that is so scary? The laws are already in force. But nothing less than the Will of the Creator can justify such laws!
A theocracy is scary because people are imperfect. As such they may well imperfectly interpret what God wants us to do. In their misinterpretation, they may compel others to act against God.
Obedience to and worship of God must be a free act. To compel it with a theocracy is to make such obedience and worship worthless. As such, a theocracy is an insult to God. Likewise, your call for a theocracy is an insult to God.
Ummmm religious zealots like 7th century Islam sure, look what maddrasses have “achieved” in the middle east so far!I’d agree...but when Christ centered teachings were all across this land, it made this nation what it is today...the best country and civilization known in the history of earth!
It’s only been since open hositilty against Christianity that we’ve been dumbed down and children have been socialized by godless liberals in our schools that the U.S. has lagged behind other “civilized” countries.
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.