O’Reilly: Dawkins’ evolution only is fascism

Uncommon Descent ^ | October 12, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

O’Reilly told Dawkins”

you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.

Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?

See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins...

[tpanther]

Can you produce any atheists, liberals or marxists that support creationism wacka-doodle-doo?

And exposing hatred isn’t hatred.

[metmom]

Foregoing a year of biology produces ignorance of biology.

What a crock. I never suggested foregoing a year of biology. Stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I said.

Like I said before, you need to refresh yourself on the scientific method. Cherry picking data is dishonest at best. Also teaching 'both' is not equivalent to teaching neither.

You totally evaded the comments about the quality of public education. That was as big a non-answer as any I ever saw.

If someone hasn't been exposed to or taught something, they are by definition ignorant.

Then by that reasoning, you are advocating ignorance because by teaching evolution, there is something else in Biology that they are neglecting. There's simply no way that you can consider what is taught in your typical public school high anything class as comprehensive.

[Ira_Louvin]

Try to keep up...we aren’t allowed to have a debate over origins in the classroom because of jackbooted evos like you. That’s because you and your fellow jackbooted Temple of Darwin fanatics know that if the debate is allowed to happen, we win every time.

Argumentum ad Hominem :

The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

[Ira_Louvin]

Considering that the study of biology is based on our understanding of evolution it would be impossible to teach a creditable biology class without mentioning evolution. That would be like teaching a course in auto mechanics without mentioning the internal combustion engine.

[metmom]

You are still free to exercise your religion, just not on my dime.

But we are expected to fund YOUR religion?

It goes both ways.

Your biggest defect in reasoning is thinking that the lack of religion is religiously neutral. It's not.

Atheism is a belief system and as such should not be supported by taxpayer dollars as you claim any belief system which recognizes a deity does.

You're grossly ignorant of what *endorsing* a religion is all about.

The Bill of Rights states...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It is specifically CONGRESS which is specifically prohibited from doing something, that is making a law, which interferes with religious practice.

It doesn't say anything about any other institution. All it was intended to do was keep the government out of religion, protecting it, and keep it from establishing a mandatory state church as existed in England in the Church of England at the time.

Recognizing a God, permitting the free exercise of the individual's religion, is not establishment of religion. Demanding or prohibiting the membership and attendance at one particular denomination by the force of law, is.

You've never addressed the issue either of the fact that you want to restrict where the money goes even though those who are taxed are overwhelmingly religious. And yet you demand that the money only be spend on approved non-religious activities.

How socialist of you.

I propose that we tax the atheists and deny them the use of the money and give it to private Christian schools and private Christian homeschoolers and the atheists can stuff it if they don't like it.

Kind of works both ways, dontcha know.

[Wacka]

“How socialist of you.”

Why is there so much hate in your heart for people who disagree with you?

Most of the people on FR who are not creationists or IDers (just a different manifestation of the same belief in my view) are not socialists, atheists, Temple of Darwinists, communists, liberals, etc.

I for one am a Catholic, Reagan Conservative. I hate abortion and want the government out of most of our lives. I have even protested William Ayers when he appeared locally in February.

[metmom]

Biology did just fine before the Darwin and the ToE came to the forefront.

For that matter, Mendel laid the very foundations of modern genetics without it.

The ToE is NOT pivotal in the study of modern biology.

It’s a side note, that needs modern biology to support IT.

[Wacka]

“wacka-doodle-doo”

Why is there so much hate in your heart for people who disagree with you?

Calling people names is what one does when they don’t have anything to back up their point.

[metmom]

No hate and it’s not about disagreeing.

Advocating for socialist or totalitarian government that violates the Constitution, is liberal and well, socialist.

But I’m not surprised that any evos can’t see that as they are the biggest defenders of government strong arm tactics of any on FR, from government control of schools, to restriction of religion, to mandatory vaccinations.

About the only issue I’ve seen FRevos consistently take a conservative position on is gun rights.

[wintertime]

But we are expected to fund YOUR religion?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Have you noticed that the atheistic liberal/Marxist/fascist will argue round and round that they do not have religious worldview and their educational philosophy is entirely religiously neutral in content and consequences?

It’s like chasing a roach around a kitchen counter.

[Wacka]

And everything in the field of genetics that came after Mendel’s rudimentary experiments has supported evolution.

[metmom]

Which is not the same as saying that the study of biology hinges on the ToE.

There’s a vast number of fields of study that one can pursue in biology without having to know how one species allegedly evolved into another.

[TooFarGone]

I can see your point about it being near impossible to have a school culturally neutral. I think we can all agree about the “Long March” through time through the public education system by the socialist/statists.
What I do not understand is how is keeping religious ideas out of science class anything but religious-neutral? Science has rules of observable phenomenon and repeatable tests. If it isn’t an idea that can be subjected to the scientific process then it doesn’t belong in science class.

[Wacka]

Insisting that teaching a religious view(creationism) as science is totalitarian. Teach creationism when the social studies class discusses religions. An example- I grew up in NY state. When we discussed the Iroquois, we heard about their creation story. That is the place for it. Not the science classroom.

When you can give me credible, real, scientific proof of ID or creationism, then it can be taught in science class.
This means well detailed , reproducible experiments that undergo peer review, not inaccurate reviews of real scientific articles with an opinion tacked on to the end.
Legitimate scientific review articles have dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of references to other peer reviewed articles, not footnotes to someone’s opinion or bible verses.

[TooFarGone]

You doing what you want in regards to religion works for me (and you)just fine. I’m not the judge of what isn’t or is done in the public schools. The law is the judge and if we follow the law then the state can not affect the establishment of any religious view in the public schools. That’s not me; that’s the law.

[TooFarGone]

why is it impossible to have a religiously neutral school?
You’re not going to hoist that old not-having-a-religion-is-a-religion canard, are you?

[Ira_Louvin]

According to Dr. John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy for President Bush “Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology,” adding, “Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution.”
http://ncse.com/news/2004/03/white-house-science-advisor-evolution-cornerstone-modern-bio-00524

Nobody took much notice of Mendel’s laws until 16 years after his death as an esteemed abbot but unacknowledged scientist. His laws of inheritance were immensely important for Darwin’s theory,

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mendel_.asp

[TooFarGone]

you’re not going to hoist that old not-having-a-religion-is-a-religion canard, are you?

“It is specifically CONGRESS which is specifically prohibited from doing something, that is making a law, which interferes with religious practice.”

Did not the 14th amendment incorporate the Bill of Rights unto the States?

[LeGrande]

And?...How many children are imprisoned in “free” government schools and fail to learn anything at all ( except to be good prisoners of the state)? How many children's lives are utterly ruined because of their government school experiences?

I am not arguing in defense of 'free' government schools. All I am saying is that almost everyone except my libertarian friends support them.

But everything you are saying is correct. They train people to learn to depend on the State for everything. We are watching a natural progression from schools, to Social Security, to Health care, to Housing, to guaranteed bank deposits, etc, etc. The chains are tightening and no one is doing anything about it except trying to make them comfortable.

[wintertime]

Regarding post #76:

What did I tell you? ( eyeroll)