Posted on 06/27/2009 7:55:19 PM PDT by Fichori
June 26, 2009 — Evolution of rape? No way. Sharon Begley won’t let the evolutionary psychologists get away with their tales about how rapists, molesters, and cheaters can’t help themselves because evolution made them that way. The Science Magazine blog Origins seems to be cheering her on.
Science writer Sharon Begley, who in 2007 returned to her old job at Newsweek after 5 years of writing the “Science Journal” column for The Wall Street Journal, has long reported skeptically about anything smacking of biological determinism. In the 29 June issue of Newsweek, she pens a 4300-word critique of evolutionary psychology, the theory that modern human behavior—including everything from mate choice to child abuse to warfare—is the result of evolutionary adaptations that took place 100,000 or more years ago. Her piece, titled “Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?” concludes, as the subtitle puts it, “The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
“How does science define sin?
Is science now a religion to define what is moral? “
Science doesn’t try to define sin. Science doesn’t try to define faith, as faith defies explanation, except, of course, if you are a “creation science” type - whereby you have so little faith, and so tenuous an understanding of science you try to use one shortcoming to compensate for the other.
So then answer this, is science immoral?
“Today’s empirical science used to be considered united with theology under the broader rubric of natural philosophy.”
True enough. “Creation Science” is an attempt to use ignorance to re-create the harmony of science and religion.
You have to compromise both to make that happen, and it does credit to neither.
Try an experiment. The next time you are confronted by a neo-pagan, New Age animal rights eco-fascist who claims humans were not "designed" or "meant" to eat animal flesh, ask them about the origin of their creationist philosophy.
Inherent in such a claim is the idea that there is a "designer" or some divinity of "meaning" in human existence. Would they apply this to abortion, embryonic stem cells, or homosexuality? No?
There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...
How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...
The fanatic religious faggots are perfect examples of a religious orthodoxy masquerading as atheism. To them, hate is a "sin" of some sort.
And in due course, the crypromarxist/multicultural faggot clergy will have insinuated that greed is also a "sin" of some sort.
The ecclesiastic queers also attempt to proselytize the same philosophy of "love your enemies" and "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord" (but only for you and not for them).
Their philosophy is not just YOU or I turn the other cheek, but we also "spread the other cheek."
The Christian Gospel says offer the other cheek if you are struck upon the one. It does not say what to do afterward if struck again...
This is one scientific fact a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from. “
Why would science run away from this? Are you saying that if you do not believe in the theory of evolution, like “creation scientists”, that you are more likely to be a homosexual?
Please clarify...
"...a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from."
Clarify the question...
Oh and, in addition...
Evolution, the theory is called, more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.
The flaw in their logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well.
Life indeed came from somewhere else...
“”...a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from.”
Clarify the question...”
Nevermind.
As I suspected, you just wanted to say “Science is bad” without backing it up. Thank you for sharing your intellectual insight, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
.......I believe I mentioned war already......
I got your point. I wanted to emphasize the natural selection aspect of war as implemented via the process of rape.
I know there is probably no difference to the rapee.
I think the thought process of the raper is likely different. The former is a criminal act abhorred by society while the latter is approved. Those predisposed to rape as victors or to begat children as an occupier probably adhere to different rules at home. This thought pretty much mirrors yours. mechanism.
Bottom line, I will roll it all over. I had not given the concept of criminal rape as a Darwinian mechanism much consideration.
So then answer this, is science immoral?
Actually, science not only does this, it does it with public money, a sin according to the liberal left when it comes to so-called proselytizing children when teaching creationism/ID, because the vast majority of parents know there is a Judeo-Christian God and science itself functions and operates all the better with a moral compass. Indeed Christian children perform better, science functions better than when sterilized of God to such ridiculous absurd lengths we see propogated by the godless liberal NEA: Science via lawsuits.
Scientific studies funded by the tax-payer, have investigated prayer and so on.
To say liberals are hypocritical though, well that's the ultimate understatement.
The question isn't "is science immoral", but rather is it that those that hijack science over their endless insecurities with God leading to immoral applications of science, such as the liberal anti-God algore and his "debate is over" hot air cult. And Chrissy-fit matthews spewing his "hate-crime" idiocy because Christian people don't subscribe to his evo-cultist homosexual "settled" scientific agenda.
No, most Christians have a really good grasp on both science and their faith, and the evidence supports this...home-schoolers outperforming their NEA indoctrinated peers to the actual application/results.
On the other hand, the liberal anti-God NEA evo-cultists just project-a-whole-lot.
So that way even when priests, fundamentalist pastors, or avowed Christians sexually molest their flock or other vulnerable people, or otherwise behave immorally, it’s the fault of science and the theory of evolution.
It’s such a stupid argument, spawned from intellectually ill-equipped “creation scientists” that it becomes a humorous caricature of an elementary school playground fight. This is the character of all “creation science” though - foundation-less science, skeptical faith.
It seems so silly because it's not true. At least not to that degree. I don't meet too many people that don't understand it's Satan that gets the blame for sin, and rightly so.
“The question isn’t “is science immoral”, but rather is it that those that hijack science over their endless insecurities with God leading to immoral applications of science, such as the liberal anti-God algore and his “debate is over” hot air cult.”
So you’d agree then, that it is the “creation science” movement that exists solely because of their “insecurities with God leading to immoral applications of science” - so much so that they make stuff up and pretend it validates whatever Biblical view they say they have.
“No, most Christians have a really good grasp on both science and their faith, and the evidence supports this...home-schoolers outperforming their NEA indoctrinated peers to the actual application/results.”
This is a perfect example of “creation science” not understanding why home-schoolers, statistically outperform public school kids on average. You say it’s because they are Christian, whereas if one was informed, you’d know that it is because you are looking at a self-selecting statistical pool - and the differences evaporate (and some surprises crop up) when demographics are aligned.
All that matters is that you can point to some “Biblical” conclusion - even when it is not true. This is what “creation science” is all about. It’s not about truth, or Truth. It’s about faking it, or lying about it so that you can feel good about yourself and what you believe.
“I don’t meet too many people that don’t understand it’s Satan that gets the blame for sin, and rightly so”
You must be new to “creation science” then. Darwin is at fault, to varying degrees, for pretty much everything that ails the world according to that group.
I argue not against faith, but against “creation science” and not for “Darwin” but for man’s body of scientific knowledge and the pursuit of such knowledge.
There isn’t much overlap between actual science and “creation science”, just as there isn’t much overlap between right and wrong.
Even before Darwin, the English believed a "criminal class" evolved (or had always existed), which they attempted to ship to America and Australia, where they promptly lost those characteristics when exposed to a relatively class-free society and became some of the most law abiding and productive people in the world. But, I suppose they have some evo-psych explanation for that too.
:’)
“Bringing up the young earth creationism that usually goes under the modern flag of “Creation Science” is a sure proof of the writer’s ignorance.”
No argument from me.
“creation science” is “young earth creationism” to me. It’s not that I’d ignore any actual science that comes from them, it’s just than no science actually comes from them.
no offense to “old earth creationists” intended....
Yawn... So little faith....
Not again. That's the favorite thing evos like to accuse creationists of.
Perhaps you could explain why. How can a creationist who believes God over what scientists claim is scientific evidence, be showing *little faith* in doing so?
“Perhaps you could explain why. How can a creationist who believes God over what scientists claim is scientific evidence, be showing *little faith* in doing so?”
Why, if a creationist believes in what God says in the Bible, then they are showing faith.
If, however, he sets up experiments, then fudges the data and publishes papers in crackpot journals that “prove” that carbon dating yields dates that only appear old....then never submits them for peer review to actual experts in the field - and calls them liars and heretics when they comment on it anyway.
Would THAT guy (a “creation science” guy) be showing faith?
That guy is what “creation science” is all about. They all lie. They do it because they lack faith.
If they had faith, they’d not try to “prove” science was “wrong” by making up their own science.
No, this is to misunderstand what's going on currently. It seems to me the vast majority with insecurities with God are the ones demanding He be shut out of His own creation, including science, science classes, etc. etc. etc.
And if anyone's making stuff up to support their iedology, that too would be the cult of evolution. Any and all examinations of evolution are met with "that's not science", or "that's religious attacks on science".
This is a perfect example of “creation science” not understanding why home-schoolers, statistically outperform public school kids on average. You say it’s because they are Christian, whereas if one was informed, you’d know that it is because you are looking at a self-selecting statistical pool - and the differences evaporate (and some surprises crop up) when demographics are aligned.
All that matters is that you can point to some “Biblical” conclusion - even when it is not true. This is what “creation science” is all about. It’s not about truth, or Truth. It’s about faking it, or lying about it so that you can feel good about yourself and what you believe.
Wow..."self-selecting statistical pool"? You really didn't think godless liberal NEA types would run down to the NY Times and demand stories be printed about normal folks tired of this incessant secular God-hate indoctrination in our schools are more successful homeschooling (across the board, not just science) than the indoctrination the NEA is rolling out, actually lending support to homeschoolers...or DID you?
So when kids performed well in schools before the godless liberal NEA hijacked them...that had nothing to do with godless liberal failures either?
Anything and everything but a moral Judeo-Christian approach to education huh?
And frankly, speaking of making stuff up, this hasn't stopped the liberals from lying about science suffering in this country because of creationism, knowiing full well ID/creation has been excluded to the point of lawsuits if necessary.
You sound as if you actually believe that. To the point that anyone that doesn't, is a creationist.
OK. I think I see what you’re coming from.
So if someone simply chooses to believe what Scripture says without trying to use science to prove it, then that is not weak faith?
FWIW, I think what these creation scientists are doing is not trying to prove to themselves that Scripture is right using science, but they are trying to convince others that Scripture is right using science.
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.