Posted on 10/01/2002 6:32:12 AM PDT by Phaedrus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
More than 40 years ago, the film "Inherit the Wind" presented the controversy over the teaching of evolution as a battle between stick-figure fundamentalists who defend a literal reading of Genesis and saintly scientists who simply want to teach the facts of biology. Ever since, journalists have tended to depict almost any battle over evolution in the schools as if it were a replay of "Inherit the Wind"--even if it's not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ah, but they do. The operative question is: "Why?"
My take on the Dawkins/Gould Evolutionist position after lo these many threads and years is that there is a ferocious gut level animus toward Christianity at work among adherents. They love to bash Creationists at every opportunity. Ann Coulter desribes this "Atheist Left" (her phrase but wish it were mine)-inspired animus toward Christianity beautifully in Slander (buy it). The Great Satan is the constantly morphing "religious right" and she aptly compares it to George Orwell's one-size-fits-all demon, Emmanuel Goldstein.
Ask an Evolutionist why the Universe is orderly, why science has been so successful, and the best answer you'll get is "It just is" (I know, I've asked.) Well, right, but that's the whole point, isn't it? Order does not arise out of chaos without some impetus. It can be argued around, denied or ignored, but there it is. And there it will stay.
So what's your problem, Evolutionists? Do you not have the courage of your convictions? Will your theory not withstand scrutiny? If you attempt to stifle criticism, that's not science.
Darwinism is dead, Evols. It doesn't know it so we just have to keep beating it until it stops moving.
Now before some newbie instantly labels me a "creationist", as though that were pejorative, let me repeat that I am not a literal Biblical creationist. It is quite clear to me, though, that God is a most intimate and relevant reality, THE most intimate and relevant reality. It's a medium-long discussion but the Bible is not required to get you there.
WOOHOO! Oh, sorry. That just slipped out.
You don't think the origin of everything is important? Darwinism has made claims to knowledge on this subject from time-to-time. So what turns your crank that's more important? Please don't tell me it's the law.
We have, even using 10 times the energy, same results. Remember, Republicans want to starve children and Christians want to keep them ignorant by challenging Darwininianism.
Ideas and purported truths are at the foundation of all and these precede and rule all action. There is no one alive who doesn't think they are following and living some version of the truth. False ideas are ruinous, evidence communism under which some 100 million people were killed directly or indirectly at the hands of communist rulers in the 20th Century. If people believe they are lumps of consciousless material and that death is the end, they will behave one way (like Bill Clinton, for example). If they've done the hard work to know better (and I know this is a values-charged statement), behavior changes radically. And it's as hard to know truth as it is to live it, especially in America today with all its distractions. But we all seek truth, however misdirected our efforts. The "saving grace" in all this is that truth is real and has a resonance all its own, so, ultimately, it will prevail. And this little sermon is, needless-to-say, IMHO . . .
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! You mean like the "reasoned discussion" we are getting from f.Christian or AndrewC?
I guess your sense of humor is still functioning.
| Yeah, "BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!", you are among those driving the level of discussion. I answer in kind. |
The leading proponent of Evolution is profoundly atheistic no-divine-foot-in-the-door Richard Dawkins. According to him, the Theory of Evolution and God are mutually exclusive. You don't agree? Argue with him.
True, if the assumptions are true. But not science.
One of your premises is wrong. You would have made a better argument if you had said:
(1) All winged animals can fly.
(2) Ostriches have wings.
(3) Therefore, ostriches can fly.
You would have proved your point -- that symbolic logic is not scientific -- by using accurate premises. No need to invent winged horses.
You misunderstood my point. My point was not that symbolic logic is not scientific. On the contrary, symbolic logic is a useful tool. My point was that if a premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. Thus, I deliberately used an inaccurate premise (Horses have wings) - to illustrate the point - that the tool, symbolic logic, will lead one astray if it is used incorrectly. Garbage in, garbage out.
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.