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

Anyone who goes far and away beyond the call of whatever sectarian duty he could possibly operate under to make the Republican Party (and political conservatism more generally) appear to be the exclusive bailiwick of Luddites and theocrats ought to be drummed off the site as an obvious covert Donk operative/useful idiot.

I like that. I could think about boiling it down for a tagline.

801 posted on 09/21/2006 11:28:41 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)

To: Celtjew Libertarian

On the other hand, it's not an invalid way of thinking -- start with the conclusion, then look for the data -- as long as the conclusion can be abandoned, if the data cannot be found....

...or, even if some data can be found, there is a lot of data that is contrary to the conclusion and there is another 'conclusion' that is supported by all of the data.

803 posted on 09/21/2006 12:40:51 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)

To: Warrior of Justice

Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK
(np) 1. The LACING of prose text with capitalization used as a HIGHLIGHTING method to demonstrate the INNATE SUPERIORITY of one's own logic over those whose TOUCH-TYPING abilities are WEAKER.

805 posted on 09/21/2006 12:45:08 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

To: Warrior of Justice

807 posted on 09/21/2006 12:46:59 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

To: Warrior of Justice

809 posted on 09/21/2006 12:51:32 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

To: Warrior of Justice

- Right. So what?

Rejecting any evidence that contradicts a religious claim is neither rational nor scientific.

Many SCIENTISTS are also CHRISTIANS or Theists!

This has no relevance. Being a Christian does not necessarily require discarding any evidence that may contradict a specific interpretation of a Biblically-based claim.

Issac Newton, Johannes Keppler, Currie (sic)...even Einstein believed in a "Higher Power". What is the big-deal?

No one has claimed that belief in a "Higher Power" is a "big-deal". You are changing the subject.

o be a Christian does NOT negate one iota the FACT that they can excell, even pioneer in advanced fields of SCIENCE.

No one has claimed otherwise. You are changing the subject.

Science and Christianity are NOT mutually exclusive.

No one has claimed otherwise. You are changing the subject.

Your whole premise is flawed

Please explain the flaw of the premise.

and says NOTHING to the FACTS that MANY SCIENTISTS;

1. Do NOT believe in Evolution NOR the Big-Bang.

2. ARE Creation Scientists/Intelligent Design supporters and pioneers.

This does not mean that objections to the Big Bang or the theory of evolution are scientific, nor does it mean that "Creation Science" or intelligent design are valid fields of scientific study.

- The Atheistic/Socialistic world-view

Please demonstrate that all who accept both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory as valid science are atheists and/or socialists.

that Evolution and it's "evil twin" the big-bang

The Big Bang and the theory of evolution are not "twins", evil or otherwise. I do not understand why you continue to repeate a claim known to be false.

are "true" is NOT by any means proven,

Nothing in science is proven. You are attacking a strawman.

NOR is it even accepted by entire hosts of Scientists.

Please support this claim with evidence.

- The main reason that the "grandfathers" of the Evolution/Big-Bang MYTH didn't believe in Creationsim/Intelligent Design were MORAL reasons, i.e. they did NOT want to be ACCOUNTABLE to that "Higher Power"/GOD.

Please provide evidence to support your claims.

810 posted on 09/21/2006 12:51:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

To: Warrior of Justice

Right...because you and other evos say so.

I do not claim that Hovind is a liar merely because "I say so". I claim that Hovind is a liar because he repeatedly makes demonstratably false claims.

Hovnd claims that the theory of evolution states that "the universe created itself" and that there exists no "Creator". Both of these claims are false. If Hovind is so clearly willing to lie about what evolution states, then all of his claims on the subject become suspect.

814 posted on 09/21/2006 1:04:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

To: Warrior of Justice

China, Native American Indians, and most cultures world-wide DO have a global flood story...Hmmmm, why is that?

The most interesting thing is that these stories predate the Hebrew Bible.

816 posted on 09/21/2006 1:07:05 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

To: Warrior of Justice

If you were trying to gain respect for your writing, you would avoid using a style that most people see as pathological.

I did not make up the dictionary entry on argumentum ad CAPSLOCK. It's a widely known joke. You don't have to agree with my opinions to understand this.

819 posted on 09/21/2006 1:16:20 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794