Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Succinct, concise arguments are useless. You have to mix it with at least a bucketful of perjoratives and jug of polemic before anyone will even notice it.
LOL! The Judeo-Christian God would not make such an error. No error, for that matter (in this instance, not even as a joke pulled on Mankind).
betty: Dear BroJoeK, who’s quote is this? It doesn’t “sound” like C. S. Lewis’ language at all. [I do not see much use of strictly denotative language in his works: He is a great literary artist who typically employs symbolic language.] I thought, well, if a statement like this exists in C. S. Lewis’ body of work, then I’d likely find it in The Abolition of Man
Spirited: It’s my quote:
“In a letter to a friend, C.S. Lewis writes that he is right in “regarding (evolution) as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives...” However, said Lewis, “it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.” (Letter to Bernard Acworth, Spt. 13, 1951)
In other remarks regarding the central lie, C.S. Lewis said,
“More disquieting still is Professor D.M.S. Watson’s defense. “Evolution itself,” he wrote, “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)
Darwinism is a lie:
“The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity – omnipotent chance....” (T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal, pp. 101-102, 1975)
As for ‘modern’ evolutionary theory, anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History reveals that Darwin is not its’ originator but rather ancient pagan conceptions of transmigration and reincarnation are. In the introduction to his history of evolutionism Osborn wrote:
“When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory....I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C.” (Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, p. xi)
Evolution is a religion, said Michael Ruse. From the beginning it was a religion and this is true of evolution today. (Michael Ruse, former professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, “How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?” National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7, May 13, 2000)
“(Darwinism is) nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion....It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Jonathan Tennenbaum, “Towards ‘A New Science of Life,’ Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, No. 34, Sept. 7, 2001)
The Manchurian Scientist!
Succinct, concise arguments are useless. You have to mix it with at least a bucketful of perjoratives and jug of polemic before anyone will even notice it.
Added, a little flair... moxy... hyperbole... never ruined a stern missive.. or creative skit..
If humans aren't vicious predators, then it's perfectly safe to grant a human absolute dictatorial power. Right?
America's Founding Fathers had a much more realistic view of Mankind than betty boop does.
How about a whole lot of it?
I don’t know that we can definitively say that Darwin was a liar, but it is clear that “Darwinism,” as practiced by modern “Darwinists,” is a lie. It was but a short time after Darwin published his interesting (but hardly new) observations, that Marx seized upon Darwin’s observations, much as a drowning men might seize a lifebuoy, as his best hope of salvaging a failed social and economic philosophy. It was the one hope Marx had that he could “scientifically” prove that God did not exist (Tennenbaum’s political-ideological reasons you cite for a failed social and economic Marxist philosophy).
Thanks, spirited, for writing (and thanks for keeping me posted).
“If humans aren’t vicious predators, then it’s perfectly safe to grant a human absolute dictatorial power. Right?” Fallacy of the undistributed middle seems to be a favored methodology when trying to get an argument going. Want to try something else?
Namely, a thing cannot be said to be random in a system when we don't know what the system "is."
For instance, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear to be random but in fact the number series is highly determined by calculating the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter.
We do not know and cannot know the full number and types of dimensions, therefore it is a misappropriation of the term to say that something is "random" in nature. What is actually meant is that the thing is unpredictable - if we were able to see every where and every when all at once as God does, the thing may be highly determined.
Thank you oh so very much for your brilliant essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you so much for your insights, dear hosepipe!
I particularly relate to this one:
To the Nazis these were the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs, Russians, etc.
And to modern people around the world, sadly, it is the unborn and soon to include the "useless eaters" - the elderly, sick and handicapped.
Thank you so much for your insights, dear YHAOS!
That means that all the disagreement and associated bickering is over a misnomer.
Sadly though, whoever controls the dictionary controls the debate.
Notice how carefully the politicians and media call an unborn child a "fetus."
Likewise, the constant smearing of certain people as untermenschen resulted in others feeling no guilt in exterminating them.
That's one of those things you have to learn to slap down hard the first time it gets tried.
The first creation account of Genesis has "Elohim" as the Creator. Since "Elohim" is plural you get passages such as this, "And Elohim said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
The second creation account of Genesis (starting 2:4) has "Yahweh" (singular) as the Creator.
MHGinTN replies: Fallacy of the undistributed middle seems to be a favored methodology when trying to get an argument going. Want to try something else?
Take a random name from a phone book, give that human absolute dictatorial power. What could go wrong?
Speaking of yourself, of course, and believe me FRiend, I understand your need to unburden your own soul of its flaws, by projecting them onto others... ;-)
YHAOS: "Strangely enough, when many of the same of what you now call the “allegedly” mocking of Christians, was introduced to you, by yours truly, in 2009 on FR (see February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?), you had no objection, just excuses for the misbehavior of Atheists attempting to use Science as a shield."
So let's see if I understand this -- to prove your claim that "Darwinists" mock Christians, you researched back in time FOUR YEARS to recover your own previous list of one-sided quotes, which by themselves prove nothing except a lively debate at that time?
And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?
And you have no quotes from this thread?
So let me suggest, FRiend, if it's mocking and insults which fill your soul, then why not check out some FR Civil War threads -- just be ready to duck when the bullets come flying out of your computer! ;-)
Might I suggest also, that in 2009 FR evolution debates were sometimes ill-informed, confused and tending to degenerate into name-calling.
So I'll let anyone judge if things have improved today.
Indeed, I'd challenge you to prove they have not.
YHAOS: "Dawkins, and his many acolytes (fans), have been found guilty of violating the very canons of the science they pretend to praise as superior to any possible religion or other code of ethics.
Your denial efforts notwithstanding.
"Found guilty"? You mean "accused of", of course.
I've never read anything by Dawkins, know of him only through these threads, but suspect he and others are very likely guilty as charged.
My only denial is: you won't find many of those people posting on Free Republic.
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.