Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[PatrickHenry]

1100?

Looks like it.

[presently no screen name]

LOL!! So true!

[Heartlander]

From telicthoughts :

Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."

On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American?

Oh, the irony.

[Dimensio]

Just because you DISGAREE with the FACT that the Bible IS Infallible and Inerrant does not in any way change the FACT that it, The Bible, IS Infallible and Inerrant.

Why should I believe your claim that the Bible is "Infallible and Inerrant"?

For you to disagree does NOt mean I or Hovind "lied".

Whether or not the Bible is "Infallable and Inerrant" has no bearing on Hovind's dishonesty. Hovind has lied about biology, not the Bible. You are demonstrating only that you have not actually studied the claims that you say that you have studied.

[Heartlander]

The Bible is supported by evolution according to the article…

[Dimensio]

- You likey to argue...but you're a revolving door, and a dead-end street. No matter the links, quotes, sources...you are "right", and that is that in the place you call "reality".

I believe that you are engaging in what is called "projection". You have made a number of demonstratably false claims, and then have refused utterly to acknowledge that you are demonstratably incorrect despite extensive evidence given to show that you are incorrect. Now you are accusing others of doing what you have done, while ignoring any and all references that show that you are incorrect.

I notice also that you have provided no sources for the quotes from Patrick Henry, John Adams and George Washington showing when and where their alleged statements were made. Why is this?

[Dimensio]

- One of the very first "lies" on that trite list was "Hovind claims Bible is infallible and Inerrant"...I am merely responding to the link YOU posted.

The site gives references to support the assertion that the claim of infallability is false. Why have you ignored that?

You are also not being honest if you claim that was the only entry in the list. For example, another entry reads

Hovind: "All of the ancient astronomers said that Sirius was a red star. Today it is a white dwarf."

Lie #17. I shall ignore the fact of Hovind's ignorance that white dwarfs actually do come from red stars and get Sirius. Sirius (from the Greek word Seirios, which means 'scorching'), also known as the Dog Star, is the brightest star in the night sky. It is almost nine light years away and is found in the constellation Canis Major (the dog chasing the rabbit under Orion's feet).

It is a binary star, a very common combination, where two stars orbit each other. Sirius A is a class A star about twice as hot on the surface as the sun, with an absolute magnitude of +1.42, Sirius B is a white dwarf with an absolute magnitude of +11.2. The higher values of magnitude are actually dimmer, and Sirius B is about 200 times dimmer than Sirius A. Rest assured that is not as dim as Kent Hovind, but it is why the ancients thought there was only one bright star and no dwarf - they couldn't see it in the glare from Sirius A.

Are you able to dispute this claim of honesty? If so, please explain how Hovind's claim is not a lie.

[Dimensio]

The Bible is supported by evolution according to the article…

The text string "Bible" does not appear anywhere in the article.

[King Prout]

Don't pick at the scab.

I have no intent to do so.
now, rather than swamp you with individual abuse reports, i'll just point out 1085, 1086, etc... in light of your #1048

[presently no screen name]

LOL!!

Question? How could you be wrong all the time when you are right all the time? Good informative posts. Thanks.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

When you speak the truth, no matter how many times you repeat it, it is still the truth.

Dimensio, has stated the truth, what have you stated?

Oh, yes, this is the religion forum, I won't state what you have stated.