Skip to comments.
So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
Royal Institute of Philosophy ^
| 1994
| D. C. Stove
Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-225 next last
To: CalConservative; Burkeman1; mcsparkie; HiTech RedNeck; gore3000; Ahban; Polycarp; Dataman; ...
ping
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; *crevo_list
Thanks for the last 3 pings!
3
posted on
02/08/2003 8:00:33 AM PST
by
scripter
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; PatrickHenry; Junior
In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term, exists only in the vocabulary of anti-evolution Creationists.
4
posted on
02/08/2003 8:22:39 AM PST
by
balrog666
(Who stole my tag line?)
To: VadeRetro
Bilge for your mill.
5
posted on
02/08/2003 8:28:42 AM PST
by
balrog666
(Who stole my tag line?)
To: balrog666
It's the old "argument from consequences." It doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true, it must be suppressed "for the good of the children."
6
posted on
02/08/2003 8:31:19 AM PST
by
Junior
(I stole your tag line)
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinian sophistry and rhetoric bump ...
7
posted on
02/08/2003 8:33:14 AM PST
by
Phaedrus
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
I'm really glad the author decided to provide the context in which each of the above statements were made, along with the scientific theories upon which they are based. Oooops! He didn't, did he? Sorry, but it doesn't matter what one person says in an out-of-context quote. Find the scientific theory that has been proposed for each of the "quotes" above and attack that. Evolution is not an argument from personality, as the above author would have it...
Never mind... I almost started to debate this, until I realized that honest debate has nothing to do with your post...
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Oh slay he the mighty strawman!
9
posted on
02/08/2003 8:44:12 AM PST
by
jlogajan
To: balrog666
In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term, exists only in the vocabulary of anti-evolution Creationists. This whole article stinks, reminds me of the "Who Wrote This, Ted Kazinsky(sp?) Or Al Gore" article, pompous straw man BS.
10
posted on
02/08/2003 8:51:58 AM PST
by
TightSqueeze
(From the Department of Homeland Security, sponsors of Liberty-Lite, Less Freedom! / Red Tape!)
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
CRAP
The fact that some Darwinians believe some or all of these things has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else has to believe any of them to be a Darwinian.
In todays's context, as the article stated, Darwinism means a belief than man descended from animals without divine intervention, and that is believed by most educated people.
No one can first tell me what I believe and then tell me I am wrong. They must ask me what I believe and then try to convince me that is wrong.
To: Junior
Strawman placemarker!
To: longshadow
"Not going to waste much time here" placemarker.
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Interesting article, elegantly argued. It takes a different approach from most anti-Darwinist literature that has been published recently.
Not that it will persuade any Darwinists. Nothing will.
14
posted on
02/08/2003 9:38:46 AM PST
by
Cicero
To: Junior
From the article:
4. Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism: that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping your brothers and sisters to raise more children. This is actually one of the author's 10 items which he claims that "Darwinists" believe. I have never encountered anyone on the evolution side of this debate who believes such a nonsensical proposition -- or who has even considered it. This may be the most grotesque example of setting up a strawman I've ever seen. I think the author is delusional. (But then, he's a creationist, so what else would we expect?)
To: PatrickHenry
This may be the most grotesque example of setting up a strawman I've ever seen. I think the author is delusional. (But then, he's a creationist, so what else would we expect?) Have you ever considered that this article is just an elaborate satire, and the Creationists, who latched onto it thinking it was real, are the butt of the joke?
To: longshadow
Straw man // darwin ==== straw science // evolution !
Evolution is -- full on -- brainwashing (( redacting // deleting conservatism )) and . . .
indoctrinating // programming LIBERALISM // lies // bias all through America // society ! ! !
All unashamedly on the FR too ==== "fraud // curruption" ==== UNADULTERED tyranny !
17
posted on
02/08/2003 10:31:00 AM PST
by
f.Christian
(( Orcs of the world : : : Take note and beware. ))
To: balrog666
That is not true. All recent proponents of evolutionary theory (Dawkins, Gould, et al) call themselves neo-Darwinists becuase they all profess fealty to the mechanism of natural selction as the prinicipal evolutionary mechanism.
All of their theories (saltationism, selfish gene) suffer from the same defects as outlined in the article. Dawkin's theory, stripped of its its scientific pretensions, becomes even more fantastic as it is a form of vitalism similar to Bergson's "elan vital".
18
posted on
02/08/2003 11:13:20 AM PST
by
ggekko
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person I knew I was going to like this article.
19
posted on
02/08/2003 3:59:47 PM PST
by
Dataman
To: balrog666
In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term, exists only in the vocabulary of anti-evolution Creationists. That experience must be limited, since it can be found in a dictionary.
20
posted on
02/08/2003 4:01:33 PM PST
by
Dataman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-225 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson