[general_re]

Large ping for something new to argue about - lots of folks seem interested in the philosophy underlying Darwinism and evolution, so why not examine the philosophical roots of the loyal opposition? ;)

Apologies to anyone I've omitted or included against their wishes - I don't maintain a formal ping list, so this is unlikely to be repeated in this form, either way...

[AndrewC]

mark for later read

[DaGman]

I'll read this later but I thought this was interesting: "Darwinism is on the way out."

Funny but the "Darwinists" don't think so.

[LiteKeeper]

print bump

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for the ping. I've read the bulk of the article fairly carefully, skimmed the rest. This was written in 1997 and the "state of the anti-Darwinian argument" has advanced considerably since then; i.e. much of the author's interpretive narrative is refutable and has been refuted. There is no basis, for example, to assert that the philosophers know there is no God but promote God to the masses to retain social order. That is sheer unfounded speculation. It is an interesting article but the careful reader will find it clearly biased in favor of Darwinism.

[Junior]

The whole, "even if it's true we must not teach it as it will be bad for the common man" strikes me as disengenuous and a bit elitist.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Are we sure its not too close to the election for this?

I'm done crying about the state of affairs here in the People's Democratic Republic of Illinois, but I'm not done celebrating the national results.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[js1138]

"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture," he wrote 16 centuries ago, "that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it."

Words from the wise.

This may be a bit off-topic, but I noticed in the election threads, some posts that were copied verbatim from unrelated crevo threads. Interesting.

;^)

[uncbuck]

Darwinism and athiesm are incompatable with the US Constitution. Also check out a book intittled "God The Evidence", I can't recall the author, but it delves into this subject as well as other scientific 'evidence'.

[gore3000]

Evolutionist must be getting pretty desperate when they have to drag out a 5 year old article to post!

[gore3000]

One must wonder how come all evolutionists are not billionaires. It seems that all of them (and Communists, Clintonites and other leftists) are all able to read people's hearts and minds. The author's whole attack on intelligent design hinges on this mind reading and silly and disproven evolutionist assumptions.

Of course he also has to throw in some insults to try to disprove by rhetoric what he cannot disprove scientifically. His statement from the goof ball Dawkins who has not been inside a laboratory since high school that "manner. Richard Dawkins, the arch-Darwinist author of The Selfish Gene (1976) and last year's Climbing Mount Improbable, accuses Behe of intellectual laziness on the question. " Is a total lie. Behe showed quite well that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and in the 6 years since his book was published no one has been able to show otherwise - and many scientists have tried. Now the author, like many evolutionists here and in publishing, the academy and other fields may think that insults such as these are some sort of refutation to well proven scientific facts. However they are not. All they show is the total emptiness of evolution and why intelligent people are rejecting it in droves.

[gore3000]

In fact, a German scientist, Günter Wächtershäuser, has recently published a paper in Science magazine describing his efforts to uncover such plausible protometabolisms. He has found an open-ended chemical cycle that produces an active form of acetic acid, thought to mirror an ancient metabolic pathway in bacteria.

The nerve of both the author and this guy to call such nonsense science. We have long ago found out that it is not acids which are the basis of living things, it is DNA. Acids do not make DNA, protein does not make DNA, DNA makes acids and proteins. They are talking garbage to the masses who do not know the facts. They are being very dishonest. In addition, the problem is not to get one acid or twenty. The problem is for natural forces to build a string of some 1,000,000 pieces of DNA in the exact correct order. This is impossible.

[MissAmericanPie]

Should be titled "Origin of the Suspecious".