Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Design
Grendel
Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
"We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
By J. Richard Pearcey
Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
intelligent design movement.
"We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
"Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage
with the ideas," Ruse charges.
For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: "It is just plain silly and
grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil,
as Richard claims." The reference is to "The Root of All Evil?", a two-part
television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January
2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, "The Virus
of Faith," Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child
abuse: "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation."
Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. His
latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
Dawkins' books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker.
Make no mistake about it, says Ruse, "we [evolutionists] are in a fight."
Drawing attention to the "two new Supreme Court justices," Ruse predicts
that they "are going to let [intelligent design] into the classrooms." His
book Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? was published in
2003.
Instead of launching offensive attacks on Christianity, Ruse says,
Darwinists "need to make allies in the fight" and "not simply alienate
everyone of good will."
rest here...
http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/02/darwinian_meltd.php
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
Liar.
>Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
>"We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
What "knee-jerk atheism", liar?
There is no controversy over evolution vs creation outside the deluded
imagination of religious fundamentalists who think their doctrines
trump reality.
Even in the educationally backward USA between three and four times as
many Christians than atheists acknowledge the fact of evolution and
the theory that explains it.
What is it with you stupid, in-your-face liars?
Nick Keighley
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
no. Just repeating a lie does not make it true.
<snip>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> By J. Richard Pearcey
>
> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> intelligent design movement.
I've some sympathy with this point of view. Dawkins can be over the top
when
he attacks religion.
<snip>
> "Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage
> with the ideas," Ruse charges.
here I disagree. There is no idea to engage with. This is not a
religious
point but a scientific point. Evolutionary biology is science.
Intelligent
Design is not science. There is no need to study Christianity to come
to this conclusion.
ID may be bad theology but this is not important. Stick to the science.
> For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: "It is just plain silly and
> grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil,
> as Richard claims." The reference is to "The Root of All Evil?", a two-part
> television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January
> 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, "The Virus
> of Faith," Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child
> abuse: "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
> superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation."
I agree. Dawkins talks nonsense here. Note this has nothing to do
with ID.
> Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. His
> latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
> Dawkins' books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker.
the last two are jolly good reads.
> Make no mistake about it, says Ruse, "we [evolutionists]
ITYM "[scientists]" here
> are in a fight."
> Drawing attention to the "two new Supreme Court justices," Ruse predicts
> that they "are going to let [intelligent design] into the classrooms." His
> book Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? was published in
> 2003.
>
> Instead of launching offensive attacks on Christianity, Ruse says,
> Darwinists
[scientists]
> "need to make allies in the fight" and "not simply alienate
> everyone of good will."
>
> rest here...
>
> http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/02/darwinian_meltd.php
I think Ruse conflates two issues. ID should be opposed as bad (ie.
non-existent) science. Dawkins's dislike of organised religion is a
seperate issue. Even here he's entitled to his opinion. He is at least
consistent. He considers most agnostics' and atheiests' "live and live"
attitude as spineless and possibly dangerous.
--
Nick Keighley
"I don't skydive; I don't bungee;
I don't go on rollercoasters, they scare me to death."
Col. Eileen Collins (Shuttle Pilot)
Inez
I'm all in favor of people being polite (at least *other* people being
polite), but courtesy is not a good political policy. Allowing all the
heat and passion to reside on one side of the "controversy" is a sure
way to do poorly in the argument. The most I would recommend is that
they target their fire towards creationists, rather than Christians as
a whole.
VoiceOfReason
Grendel wrote:
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
Blah, blah, same old garbage trying to tie science to atheism.
> Make no mistake about it, says Ruse, "we [evolutionists] are in a fight."
> Drawing attention to the "two new Supreme Court justices," Ruse predicts
> that they "are going to let [intelligent design] into the classrooms." His
> book Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? was published in
> 2003.
This is one of the funnier claims I hear these days from creationists.
For some bizarre reason, they think that since GW Shrub made the latest
appointments, that the Court will suddenly throw their integrity out
the window. Nine of the best legal minds in the country will throw
away 200 years of legal precedents? They'll ignore the separation of
church & state, just to allow one particular cult to teach their
religion in public school science classes? Did you folks learn nothing
from Dover?
Ron O
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what?
There are guys like Dawkins and Dennett, but they don't represent the
majority of scientists. If they did we would have very different
statements out of the National Academy and the AAAS. The dishonesty of
ID/creationism isn't countered by the likes of Dawkins and Dennett, for
the most part they are countered by the vast majority of scientists
that just do decent science. That is all that has to happen to counter
stupidity like intelligent design. The problem is that there are a lot
of rubes that want to be lied to like the guy that posted this article.
Grendel probably knows this better than most because he has actually
admitted that he would lie to defend his beliefs. You obviously can't
reach people like that. Guys like Dawkins and Dennett have no impact
on these types and turn off the types that are willing to listen
because they can see that they are about as bogus in some ways as the
guys that they oppose. They find it easier to disregard the science
that these two might promote, but why do that for science in general?
It is probably easier to keep believing the scams if you can see that
the some of the opposition is just as stupid. The only problem is that
creationists have to ignore the greater portion of reality to make that
work.
Heck, athiests are probably a higher proportion in the National Academy
than any other scientific organization outside of Russia and China, but
they still put out credible viewpoints on this subject, not because of
their beliefs, but because they understand the limits of their beliefs,
and that some of their beliefs aren't science.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
neverbetter
I partly agree. Responding ID with "knee-jerk atheistic" attacks on
religion may do more harm than good. They may influence people to focus
on the wrong issues, to frame the ID debate as a battle between the
evil atheist conspiracy vs. God, godly people and religion, even though
the real issue is ID being bad science or non-science masquerading as
science. In other words, a scam. You don't have to be an atheist to
oppose a scam, but people may forget that if the most vocal critics of
ID are also seen as aggressive atheists. This is not to say that
atheist scientists shouldn't be free to express their opinions, it's
just that on some occasions it may confuse the issues and give people
the wrong impression. A great deal of religious people are opposed to
ID as well. It's not a matter of religion vs. science, it's a matter of
pseudoscience vs. real science, and this is why I think the discussion
about ID should primarily be centered on the scientific flaws of ID
instead of theological questions.
jcon
Grendel wrote:
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> By J. Richard Pearcey
>
> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> intelligent design movement.
>
> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
>
I guess this would be in reaction to the major victory in Dover,
followed by the ID initiatives in numerous states falling like
dominoes.
Good idea. Would this involve, say, enlisting clergy to help
them in the battle?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20/science.evolution.reut/index.html
Has this guy read *any* newspapers in the last few months?
-jc
> rest here...
>
> http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/02/darwinian_meltd.php
VoiceOfReason
And I partly agree with your partial agreement. It is indeed
unfortunate that some of the louder anti-ID folks are also atheists.
But discussion of ID *is* a theological issue as well, since a lunatic
fringe group is trying to force their minority interpretation of
Christianity on everyone else. It's not just bad science, it's bad
theology.
Larry Moran
> Grendel wrote:
>> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>>
>> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>>
>> By J. Richard Pearcey
>>
>> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
>> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
>> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
>> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
>> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
>> intelligent design movement.
>>
>> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
>> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
>
> I guess this would be in reaction to the major victory in Dover,
> followed by the ID initiatives in numerous states falling like
> dominoes.
Yes. Michael Ruse knows about the court cases. He was a key witness in the
earlier trial of the century in Arkansas. Do you remember that "major
victory"? It destroyed Creationism forever and won the war.
Not.
Pay attention to experts like Ruse. If he says we're losing the war then you
should reevaluate your own beliefs.
Larry Moran
P.S. I don't agree with Ruse about Dawkins and Dennett. I don't have a problem
with people who attack religion and advertise their atheism. In fact, we
need more people like that. However, there are other reasons why Dawkins
and Dennett are bad for the evolution side. It's because they promote a
false view of evolution. Both of them claim that evolution produces the
"illusion" of design and that plays right into the hands of the IDiots.
Ian H Spedding
>
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
10,000 clergy disagree. And even if it were true, so what?
> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> By J. Richard Pearcey
>
> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> intelligent design movement.
>
> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
Ruse sounds like a latter-day Lord Halifax, forever trying to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory.
> Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
> more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
How do you grapple seriously with the likes of Jerry Fallwell, Pat
Robertson, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps?
> "Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage
> with the ideas," Ruse charges.
How do you engage seriously with ideas that, on a literal reading, are
riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that fundamentalists
blithely ignore?
> For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: "It is just plain silly and
> grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil,
> as Richard claims." The reference is to "The Root of All Evil?", a two-part
> television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January
> 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, "The Virus
> of Faith," Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child
> abuse: "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
> superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation."
I wonder if Ruse has actually watched "The Root Of All Evil?".
And if childen were indoctrinated with the most extreme forms of racial
bigotry by parents who were Nazis or supporters of apartheid, would we
not consider that to be abuse? Is it not abuse only where we agree
with the doctrine which is being imposed on the child?
The only point on which I would differ with Dawkins is that his focus
on religion is too narrow. The real threat is absolutism - the
unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth,
be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act,
no matter how vile, in its furtherance.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Mark VandeWettering
Well, to be fair Grendel, he's talking about people of good will, which
may include the majority of Christians (and atheists, for that matter)
but it doesn't likely include Intelligent Design creationists, who are
not arguing their case in good faith.
Also, nothing that Ruse said could be construed as conveying the
sentiment that "atheism is the philosophical root of Darwinism":
Ruse is actually arguing the reverse, that members of the scientific
community who are atheists are overstepping by claiming otherwise.
Mark
David Iain Greig
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:33:10 -0500, "Grendel" <try...@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>
> Liar.
>
>>Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>>
>>"We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> What "knee-jerk atheism", liar?
Irony alert! Irony alert!
--D.
jcon
Larry Moran wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2006 05:35:02 -0800, jcon <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Grendel wrote:
> >> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
> >>
> >> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
> >>
> >> By J. Richard Pearcey
> >>
> >> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> >> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> >> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> >> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> >> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> >> intelligent design movement.
> >>
> >> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> >> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
> >
> > I guess this would be in reaction to the major victory in Dover,
> > followed by the ID initiatives in numerous states falling like
> > dominoes.
>
>
> Yes. Michael Ruse knows about the court cases. He was a key witness in the
> earlier trial of the century in Arkansas. Do you remember that "major
> victory"? It destroyed Creationism forever and won the war.
>
> Not.
That killed "creation science". It came back as ID. Dover killed
ID. We'll have a few year break and it'll change its name and
come back as something else. It took a while for religion to grow
up to the point where it could more or less universally accept
Copernicanism, and there are still holdouts.
Even I admit this is a bigger deal and may take a little longer.
>
> Pay attention to experts like Ruse. If he says we're losing the war then you
> should reevaluate your own beliefs.
>
The point is that he's building a strawman and then attacking
it. Had he written this six months ago, it might have
been important, but now he's trying to teach a lesson
that's already been learned.
Although Dawkins and Dennett have a pretty big
fan base, they actually hold a rather minority view; namely,
outright and vocal rejection of and hostility toward all religion.
The ACLU was able to build a overwhelming case against
the Dover School Board without putting a *single* witness
on the stand that expressed that point of view, and they
could easily do so again and again.
I know, for example, that Dennett really liked the Dover ruling,
EXCEPT for the part about science and religion co-existing. The
vast majority of scientists I've known are 100% behind the ruling
and *especially* like that part. This was one of the falling out
issues between Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould, and most
scientists side with Gould.
Since this issue became hot again a few years ago, evolutionary
education sites have openly courted support from world
religions. So much so that one site got in trouble a few
years ago in an (admittedly clever) sort of retaliatory
separation of church and state charge by creationists.
I'm sure Dawkins and Dennett could care less about
the Pope's rejection of ID, but it is almost universally
embraced by most others.
Even the people I know who agree with Dennett about religion
are pragmatic enough to know that it's a poor tactic
in the fight.
Although the Dover decision wasn't the end of the fight,
it's importance shouldn't be minimized. In my opinion,
the *social* significance far outweighs the legal
applicability.
Let's face it, the average American really
doesn't care about this issue and will tend to express
an opinion with those who they feel are their "ideological
peers" on other issues. This goes as much for pro-
evolution people as ID people. I personally know of
many "liberals" who are 100% against ID - but
believe in astrology, crystal healing, etc, so they really
can't claim the scientific high ground. In Dover,
in a completely fair fight, the evil ACLU was able
to *mop the floor* with ID well enough to convince
a conservative, Republican, Christian judge that it
was complete hogwash. Suddenly, this made it
OK for people to say "Gosh, I can believe everything
I actually care about AND stop being the butt of
jokes.". I believe that in the end, the judge's personal
background is the single biggest factor in the effect
the decision has had.
-jc
Christopher A. Lee
How so? Why did you snip the part where I pointed out that it is
nothing to do with atheism, that there is no controversy outside the
imagination of religious fundamentalists and that even in the USA
between three and four times as many Christians as atheists
acknowledge the facts of evolution and the theory that explains it.
Leave that in and there's no irony in calling a liar a liar for lying
about both atheism and evolution.
>--D.
Lee Oswald Ving
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
Catholic schools.
You lose again.
<snip>
er...@swva.net
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>
Maybe so, but evidence is the scientific root of the theory of
evolution.
(snip)
raven1
wrote:
>Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
A lie is a very poor way to start your post.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Shane
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
What a hoot, Grendel posted an article from AIG the other day (see
"Culture wars, our youg people and the bible" thread) where AIG
lamented that they were losing the battle. Grendel, once again reveals
the creationist tendency to take what ever ammunition is on offer,
irrespective of it's relevance or truth, and fire it off
indiscriminately.
Questions for Grendel;
Do you believe everything Michael Ruse says, no matter what the
concept?
Or do you only accept him as a valid source when he agrees with you,
even though in doing so, you then contradict a previously held
position?
What research have you done to show that MR is correct and AIG
incorrect?
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
gee. karen armstrong in her 'a history of god' points out that atheism
started with the enlightenment...long before darwin
oh. you're making this up as you go along.
>Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
>"We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
>By J. Richard Pearcey
>
>Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
>Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
>design."
yes, science is losing the battle against islamist and christianist
fanatics.
that has nothing to do with science.
Mats
> Grendel wrote:
> >
> > Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>
> 10,000 clergy disagree.
Clergies who think like atheists (that is, "God's creative activity
left no evidence")don't serve as evidence that
atheism/naturalism/materialsim is not the founding philosophy behind
evolutionism.
If it hadn't been for the philosophy behind it, evolutionism would be
gone a long time ago. That might explain why evolutionists shift the
debate from the science behind evolutionism to the religious beliefs of
anti-evolution scientists
>And even if it were true, so what?
>
> > Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
> >
> > "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
> >
> > By J. Richard Pearcey
> >
> > Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> > Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> > design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> > professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> > Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> > intelligent design movement.
> >
> > "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> > professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
>
> Ruse sounds like a latter-day Lord Halifax, forever trying to snatch
> defeat from the jaws of victory.
>
> > Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
> > more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> > his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> > atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
>
> How do you grapple seriously with the likes of Jerry Fallwell, Pat
> Robertson, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps?
There are other figures arguiing against evolutionism.
>
> > "Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage
> > with the ideas," Ruse charges.
>
> How do you engage seriously with ideas that, on a literal reading, are
> riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that fundamentalists
> blithely ignore?
>
> > For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: "It is just plain silly and
> > grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil,
> > as Richard claims." The reference is to "The Root of All Evil?", a two-part
> > television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January
> > 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, "The Virus
> > of Faith," Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child
> > abuse: "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
> > superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation."
>
> I wonder if Ruse has actually watched "The Root Of All Evil?".
>
> And if childen were indoctrinated with the most extreme forms of racial
> bigotry by parents who were Nazis or supporters of apartheid, would we
> not consider that to be abuse? Is it not abuse only where we agree
> with the doctrine which is being imposed on the child?
But if we teach them NOTHING aren't we imposing SOMETHING on them? With
al due respect, I think you live in a world where children suposedly
are able to live without any sort of interference.
> The only point on which I would differ with Dawkins is that his focus
> on religion is too narrow. The real threat is absolutism - the
> unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth,
> be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act,
> no matter how vile, in its furtherance.
I might add "philosophical ideology" in your list.
Mats
VoiceOfReason
Mats wrote:
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
> > Grendel wrote:
> > >
> > > Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >
> > 10,000 clergy disagree.
>
> Clergies who think like atheists (that is, "God's creative activity
> left no evidence")don't serve as evidence that
> atheism/naturalism/materialsim is not the founding philosophy behind
> evolutionism.
So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss.
> If it hadn't been for the philosophy behind it, evolutionism would be
> gone a long time ago.
The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the rest of
science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support your
assertion.
> That might explain why evolutionists shift the
> debate from the science behind evolutionism to the religious beliefs of
> anti-evolution scientists
No, it's 10,000+ clergy fed up with the lunatic minority telling lies
about Christianity.
> >And even if it were true, so what?
> >
> > > Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
> > >
> > > "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
> > >
> > > By J. Richard Pearcey
> > >
> > > Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> > > Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> > > design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> > > professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> > > Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> > > intelligent design movement.
> > >
> > > "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> > > professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
> >
> > Ruse sounds like a latter-day Lord Halifax, forever trying to snatch
> > defeat from the jaws of victory.
> >
> > > Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
> > > more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> > > his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> > > atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
> >
> > How do you grapple seriously with the likes of Jerry Fallwell, Pat
> > Robertson, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps?
>
> There are other figures arguiing against evolutionism.
All of the figures arguing against evolution do so based on religious
grounds, which has no bearing in science.
Mats
accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
2. The version of evolution those "Theistic evolutionists" subscribe is
a "guided evolution". Guided evolution is NOT what the majority of
evolutionists believe.
*** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
your assertion."
There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
analysis of their theories. Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
The philosophical framework of evolutionism is what makes it survive,
since the evidence is clearly against Darwiniam myths. After all, think
of this:
How come the majority of evolution defenders of the 20th century were
atheists?
1. Issac Asimov - Atheist
2. Carl Sagan - Atheist
3. Richard Dawkins - Atheist
4. Steven J. Gould - Atheist
5. Steve Hawking - Atheist
6. Eugenie Scott - Atheist/Humanist
7. Provine - Atheist
etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
This, in and itself prooves nothing, but the pattern does givv us a lot
to think. Oh, of course you will find a theist here and there (Ken
Miller) but turns out that he corrupts his own Book in order to
acomodate Atheistic Evolutionism.
Some recent news from the Vatican seem to indicate that Miller might
even be against his own church on this one. oh well.
*** "No, it's 10,000+ clergy fed up with the lunatic minority telling
lies about Christianity".
David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, is critical of evolutionism. Is he
"telling lies about Chriatianity" aswell?
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Nick Keighley wrote:
> Grendel wrote:
>
>
> I've some sympathy with this point of view. Dawkins can be over the top
> when
> he attacks religion.
Dawkins, yes. Dennett, though, seems pretty restrained. I've not read
Breaking the Spell, but where he bumps into religion in Conciousness
Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and Freedom Evolves, he doesn't
seem disrespectful or hostile. He thinks atheism is correct and also
that Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria approach is incorrect, but he's
not hostile to religion.
>
> <snip>
Nick Keighley
wasn't Dennett a major player in the "Brights" movement. Which seems
to me to be another shoot-yourself-in-the-foot idea from the erm...
"less theistic"
--
Nick Keighley
catshark
Mats wrote:
> *** "So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
> accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
>
> 1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
> that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
> doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
So what you are doing is judging the hearts of people like Theodosius
Dobzhansky, Francisco Ayala, George V. Coyne, Robert Bakker, Ken
Miller, _et al_.? Didn't somebody say something about not doing that?
>
> 2. The version of evolution those "Theistic evolutionists" subscribe is
> a "guided evolution". Guided evolution is NOT what the majority of
> evolutionists believe.
If by "evolutionists" you mean biologists who deal with evolutionary
theory, they certainly don't believe that guided evolution can be
demonstrated by science. I'd like to see your evidence though for
their personal religious beliefs. If you are using "evolutionists" in
the sense of "anybody who accepts that evolution occurred and occurs"
then you are pretty clearly wrong, since even Answers in Genesis agrees
that evolution occurs, though they like to call it "adaptation". If
you are just using the term to mean people who are atheists and accept
evolution, you should look up "begging the question".
>
> *** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
> rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
> your assertion."
>
> There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
> physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
> analysis of their theories.
Only the desperate could think that "critical analysis" comes from
elementary and high school classrooms. If you want to see *really*
vicious criticism of evolutionary theorists and their ideas, go to the
scientific literature. Oh, but that might actually cause facts to get
in your way, mightn't it?
> Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
> having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
> side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
> comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
> the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
Wow. The DI managed *finally* to get 500 (only 158 biologists, though)
in 5 *years* to sign a statement that *doesn't* actually contradict
evolutionary theory. Even then, they were mostly evangelical
Christians. Clinging to any shred of hope that somehow, some way
evolution will turn out to be wrong is all creationists have, isn't it?
> The philosophical framework of evolutionism is what makes it survive,
> since the evidence is clearly against Darwiniam myths. After all, think
> of this:
> How come the majority of evolution defenders of the 20th century were
> atheists?
> 1. Issac Asimov - Atheist
> 2. Carl Sagan - Atheist
> 3. Richard Dawkins - Atheist
> 4. Steven J. Gould - Atheist
> 5. Steve Hawking - Atheist
> 6. Eugenie Scott - Atheist/Humanist
> 7. Provine - Atheist
> etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
Seven names. Heck, quadruple it and multiply it by 10. Are you just
ignorant about how much is published every year about evolution and how
it works with no mention at all of religion, atheism, or any other
"ism"?
>
> This, in and itself prooves nothing,
Retaining some touch with reality, are you?
> but the pattern does givv us a lot
> to think. Oh, of course you will find a theist here and there (Ken
> Miller) but turns out that he corrupts his own Book in order to
> acomodate Atheistic Evolutionism.
Go ahead, tell us how he "corrupts" his book. We can use the laugh.
>
> Some recent news from the Vatican seem to indicate that Miller might
> even be against his own church on this one. oh well.
Not any better at reading the Vatican than you are at reading the
hearts of other believers, are you?
>
> *** "No, it's 10,000+ clergy fed up with the lunatic minority telling
> lies about Christianity".
>
> David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, is critical of evolutionism. Is he
> "telling lies about Chriatianity" aswell?
Nope. He is just wrong for different reasons. And selling books in
the process . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
There's no sin in being ignorant,
but there is, I think, in being proud of it.
- John Harshman -
Ian H Spedding
>
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > Grendel wrote:
> > >
> > > Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >
> > 10,000 clergy disagree.
>
> Clergies who think like atheists (that is, "God's creative activity
> left no evidence")don't serve as evidence that
> atheism/naturalism/materialsim is not the founding philosophy behind
> evolutionism.
They are evidence that it is possible to accept the theory of evolution
and still remain a good Christian. They are evidence that atheism is
not a prerequisite for accepting the theory. So-called Christians who
criticise fellow believers for accepting the theory of evolution would
do well to remember the Biblical injunction against passing judgement.
> If it hadn't been for the philosophy behind it, evolutionism would be
> gone a long time ago. That might explain why evolutionists shift the
> debate from the science behind evolutionism to the religious beliefs of
> anti-evolution scientists
Any theory stands because it works better than any alternatives as an
explanation of what is observed. The personal beliefs of scientists
make no difference to the value of the speed of light, to whether some
illness is caused by viruses or bacteria, to whether 2+2=4 or to
whether the diversity and plasticity of life can be explained by the
theory of evolution.
[...]
> > And if childen were indoctrinated with the most extreme forms of racial
> > bigotry by parents who were Nazis or supporters of apartheid, would we
> > not consider that to be abuse? Is it not abuse only where we agree
> > with the doctrine which is being imposed on the child?
>
> But if we teach them NOTHING aren't we imposing SOMETHING on them? With
> al due respect, I think you live in a world where children suposedly
> are able to live without any sort of interference.
We can teach them about the range of religious beliefs without
indoctrinating them in one particular faith. We can teach them basic
moral precepts such as respect for others and the Golden Rule without
lying to them by pretending that only Christians hold such beliefs.
Ian H Spedding
>
> *** "So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
> accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
>
> 1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
> that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
> doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
Who are you or any other Christian to say that God could not have
created and used the process of evolution to generate life on Earth if
He chose?
[...]
> *** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
> rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
> your assertion."
>
> There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
> physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
> analysis of their theories. Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
> having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
> side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
> comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
> the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
Opponents of the theory of evolution had an ideal opportunity to
subject it to critical analysis and expose its alleged weaknesses in
court in Harrisburg PA. They failed utterly to persuade the judge that
this was true and only succeeded in revealing their ignorance of the
science and their lack of any credible alternative.
VoiceOfReason
Mats wrote:
> *** "So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
> accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
>
> 1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
> that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
> doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
First, this doesn't address my comment/question. Second, different
Christian denominations have different interpretations of many facets
of Christianity. Suggesting they are not real Christians ("claim to be
Christian") because their beliefs differ from your denominations' is a
little bit silly.
> 2. The version of evolution those "Theistic evolutionists" subscribe is
> a "guided evolution". Guided evolution is NOT what the majority of
> evolutionists believe.
Some believe in a guided evolution (of different flavors) and some
don't. The fact remains that they don't deny the scientific evidence
for religious reasons.
> *** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
> rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
> your assertion."
>
> There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
> physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
> analysis of their theories. Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
> having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
> side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
> comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
> the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
This is totally wrong in so many ways. Biologists, including those who
work directly with evolutionary theories, invite critical analysis as
much as any science. You can see obvious evidence of this just by the
discussions in this newsgroup between those who are real scientists,
and from the many periodicals concerning the topic. No matter who else
you think is "on the Evolutionists side," the main thing they have on
their side is a preponderance of evidence.
We repeatedly hear the claim from the anti-science crowd that "more and
more scientists are skeptical of evolution," or something similar. The
one thing we *never* see is a list of their names, specialty, research
papers, etc. Why the secret?
And what is this "operational" science? What is your definition of
that? As well as chemistry and physics, is biochemistry "operational?"
Is making pharmaceuticals "operational?" How about making
pharmaceuticals by studying how influenza viruses evolve?
> The philosophical framework of evolutionism is what makes it survive,
> since the evidence is clearly against Darwiniam myths. After all, think
> of this:
That's just inane. The theories of evolution are derived from a
preponderance of evidence, not the other way around. It has held up
quite well for 150 years, and evidence grows daily.
> How come the majority of evolution defenders of the 20th century were
> atheists?
> 1. Issac Asimov - Atheist
> 2. Carl Sagan - Atheist
> 3. Richard Dawkins - Atheist
> 4. Steven J. Gould - Atheist
> 5. Steve Hawking - Atheist
> 6. Eugenie Scott - Atheist/Humanist
> 7. Provine - Atheist
> etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
Why do you name only the atheist supporters of evolution? That's not
totally honest. Consider the 10,000+ clergy on the Clergy Letter
Project who support evolution.
> This, in and itself prooves nothing, but the pattern does givv us a lot
> to think. Oh, of course you will find a theist here and there (Ken
> Miller) but turns out that he corrupts his own Book in order to
> acomodate Atheistic Evolutionism.
See above.
> Some recent news from the Vatican seem to indicate that Miller might
> even be against his own church on this one. oh well.
>
> *** "No, it's 10,000+ clergy fed up with the lunatic minority telling
> lies about Christianity".
>
> David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, is critical of evolutionism. Is he
> "telling lies about Chriatianity" aswell?
Does he repeat the lie that Christians reject evolution? If not, why
mention him? Why do you avoid the fact that most Christians support
evolution?
Ernest Major
<soma...@walla.com> writes
>*** "So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
>accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
>
>1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
>that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
>doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
That probably counts as a misrepresentation of their position.
If you argue that Christianity and evolution are incompatible (what
about Christianity and geology? Christianity and cosmology? Christianity
and astrophysics?) you are telling me that Christianity is false.
>
>2. The version of evolution those "Theistic evolutionists" subscribe is
>a "guided evolution". Guided evolution is NOT what the majority of
>evolutionists believe.
"Theistic evolutionists" are probably the majority of "evolutionists" in
the USA.
>
>*** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
>rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
>your assertion."
>
>There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
>physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
>analysis of their theories. Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
>having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
>side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
>comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
>the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
Putting scare quotes round "evidence" doesn't help your argument. If you
want to argue that the evidence is misinterpreted or insufficient, you'd
have the ghost of a case; to deny the existence of literally billions of
observations supporting the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
doesn't make you look good.
>
>The philosophical framework of evolutionism is what makes it survive,
>since the evidence is clearly against Darwiniam myths. After all, think
>of this:
>How come the majority of evolution defenders of the 20th century were
>atheists?
>1. Issac Asimov - Atheist
>2. Carl Sagan - Atheist
>3. Richard Dawkins - Atheist
>4. Steven J. Gould - Atheist
>5. Steve Hawking - Atheist
>6. Eugenie Scott - Atheist/Humanist
>7. Provine - Atheist
>etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
>
>This, in and itself prooves nothing, but the pattern does givv us a lot
>to think. Oh, of course you will find a theist here and there (Ken
>Miller) but turns out that he corrupts his own Book in order to
>acomodate Atheistic Evolutionism.
You haven't demonstrated the pattern. One can list quite a number of
other Christian "evolutionist" - Dobzhansky, Ayala, Teilhard de Chardin,
Bakker, also come to mind as well as Miller. You need an unbiased sample
to support your claim.
You'll find that about half (maybe more) of the evolution defenders on
talk.origins are theists.
>
>Some recent news from the Vatican seem to indicate that Miller might
>even be against his own church on this one. oh well.
>
>*** "No, it's 10,000+ clergy fed up with the lunatic minority telling
>lies about Christianity".
>
>David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, is critical of evolutionism. Is he
>"telling lies about Chriatianity" aswell?
>
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk
Grendel wrote:
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> By J. Richard Pearcey
>
> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> intelligent design movement.
>
> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
>
> more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
>
> with the ideas," Ruse charges.
Huh? Ruse seems to be admitting that it's atheism putting people off in
the debate over Intelligent Design. In that case it's Joe Public who
needs to "grapple with the issues" more than Dennett or Dawkins. But if
Ruse is just admitting that the fight against ID is political one has
to wonder why he's become so friendly with Dembski.
dene_...@yahoo.co.uk
Grendel wrote:
> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Desig
>
> "We Are Losing This Battle"- And "Knee-Jerk Atheism" Isn't Helping
>
> By J. Richard Pearcey
>
> Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and
> Richard Dawkins "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent
> design." So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy
> professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at
> Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the
> intelligent design movement.
>
> "We are losing this battle," Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a
> professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
>
> Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
> more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
>
> "Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage
> with the ideas," Ruse charges.
Huh? Ruse seems to be admitting that it's atheism putting people off in
the debate over Intelligent Design. In that case it's Joe Public who
needs to "grapple with the issues" and ignore the religion. But if Ruse
is just admitting that the fight against ID is political, one has to
Dick C
> *** "So you choose to ignore the proof that one can be a Christian and
> accept the fact of evolution? 'Tis your loss."
>
> 1. The fact that there are people who claim to be Christian and believe
> that God's creative activity is not detectable (contrary to Rom 1:20)
> doesn't mean that Christianity and evolution are in harmony.
Has it ever occured to you, that perhaps your god's creative activity is
detectable, and it is through evolution?
>
> 2. The version of evolution those "Theistic evolutionists" subscribe is
> a "guided evolution". Guided evolution is NOT what the majority of
> evolutionists believe.
How do you know this?
>
> *** "The "philosophy" of evolution is no different that that of the
> rest of science. If you feel differently, provide evidence to support
> your assertion."
>
> There diference of course is that scientists working in chemistry,
> physics or any other field of operational science don't fear critical
> analysis of their theories.
Religious zealots trying to force their religious views into science classes
is not a critical analysis. Preachers shouting from the pulpits about the
evils of evolution is not critical analysis. Books filled with lies and
quotes from scripture is not critical analysis. Critical analysis consists
of people who actually know and understand the theory subjecting it to
rigorous testing, just like has happened for the past 140+ years.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, after
> having the media, universities, schools and the Governement on their
> side haven't been able to settle this issue EVEN among the scientifical
> comunity (The number of scientists who vocally demand more debate about
> the "evidence" for evolution is increasing daily).
Ha Ha, it is only increasing if you consider people who design conveyer belts
to be scientists. And they only sign on infrequently.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
AC
ID already has changed its name, it's now Teach the Controversy. I think
the professional Creationists have already pretty much given up on ID.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>> Grendel wrote:
>> >
>> > Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>>
>> 10,000 clergy disagree.
>
> Clergies who think like atheists (that is, "God's creative activity
> left no evidence")don't serve as evidence that
> atheism/naturalism/materialsim is not the founding philosophy behind
> evolutionism.
Putting a lot of "isms" behind something doesn't real mean a goddamn thing,
you know. Evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, hydrodynamics,
chemistry, etc. are based on *methodological naturalism". They are not
philosophical positions.
>
> If it hadn't been for the philosophy behind it, evolutionism would be
> gone a long time ago. That might explain why evolutionists shift the
> debate from the science behind evolutionism to the religious beliefs of
> anti-evolution scientists
Ah, no. It is the anti-evolution crowd who, at every turn, reveal their
religious motivations. The duplicity is in the Creationists, or in
particular, the ID crowd, who speak out of both sides of their mouths,
spouting religious crap when in a religious audience, and then trying to act
all innocent of their motivations when among skeptics. In short, IDers are
liars.
Evolution is sound science, period. It is the grand unifying theory of
biology.
INtelligent Design is an empty claim designed as a legal means to sneak past
the US constitution.
Oh, and some day, perhaps you should find out what the word "philosophy"
means.
Matt Silberstein
<mightym...@hotmail.com> in
<slrne06a64.kh....@nobody.here> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:33 GMT,
>Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in news:3SYKf.14984$%14.396034
>> @news20.bellglobal.com:
>>
>>> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
>>
>> Catholic schools.
>>
>> You lose again.
>>
>><snip>
>
>I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
Well, the outfits are more expensive, at least if you want to rise in
the ranks.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
eyelessgame
> Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing
> more harm than good "in the fight against intelligent design"? Because, in
> his view, they are atheist reactionaries: "What we need is not knee-jerk
> atheism," says Ruse, "but serious grappling with the issues."
This is an amazing thing about our culture.
Both Ann Coulter and the Christian Identity movement, by and large,
vote Republican. Somehow this does not turn all normal and reasonable
people off from the Republican party.
Yet when one atheist evolutionist opens his mouth, suddenly evolution
is getting hurt.
It is a powerful and unconscious reflex in America, and it's terribly
nonsymmetric. Three years ago, the largest international protest march
in the entire history of the planet became, in this country, a complete
media non-event, reported at best as 'a few kooks', because among the
organizers was one fringe pro-Communist group.
Guilt-by-association is deadly, in other words, but only if you are not
on the right end of the political spectrum. If you're not a Republican
(and creationists are Republicans), every bit of your
non-mainstreamness is made to define you, and then they use it to tar
and feather everyone else who disagrees with them. It's not that
Dawkins is an elegant advocate for science and evolution; it's that
he's a booga-booga-booga ATHEIST and so therefore nothing he says, and
no one else who agrees with him, is worth listening to.
Where did this cringe reflex come from? I don't know, but I see it's
real like everyone else does, and I for one am god damn fucking sick
and tired of it. How did we let our society reach the point where
non-mainstream right-wingers are given a pass no matter what they say
(Ann Coulter, anyone?) -- and it is considered a gross insult to say
their words define the right wing -- but any given non-mainstream
non-right-winger is thought (by *everyone*, right-wing and
non-right-wing) to define their opposition?
eyelessgame
VoiceOfReason
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2006 16:28:52 GMT, in talk.origins , AC
> <mightym...@hotmail.com> in
> <slrne06a64.kh....@nobody.here> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:33 GMT,
> >Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in news:3SYKf.14984$%14.396034
> >> @news20.bellglobal.com:
> >>
> >>> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >>
> >> Catholic schools.
> >>
> >> You lose again.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >
> >I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
>
> Well, the outfits are more expensive, at least if you want to rise in
> the ranks.
"Are those the shoes of the fisherman?"
"No - Adidas."
.
VoiceOfReason
AC wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:33 GMT,
> Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in news:3SYKf.14984$%14.396034
> > @news20.bellglobal.com:
> >
> >> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >
> > Catholic schools.
> >
> > You lose again.
> >
> ><snip>
>
> I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
His latest is quote-mining Catholic sites to "prove" that the RCC
supports creationism.
Joe Vanderbilt
[snip another philosopher/lawyer/engineer who disagrees with Darwin]
> Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. His
> latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
> Dawkins' books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker.
Ah-ha! So, there we have it. A sneaky book promotion. "Hellfire!
Brimstone! We're not gonna make it! We're losing the war! ... By
the way, I'm also the author of this new book (©) you might be
interested in...."
macaddicted
> On 27 Feb 2006 16:28:52 GMT, in talk.origins , AC
> <mightym...@hotmail.com> in
> <slrne06a64.kh....@nobody.here> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:33 GMT,
> >Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in news:3SYKf.14984$%14.396034
> >> @news20.bellglobal.com:
> >>
> >>> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >>
> >> Catholic schools.
> >>
> >> You lose again.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >
> >I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
>
> Well, the outfits are more expensive, at least if you want to rise in
> the ranks.
They get a clothing allowence. Though I imagine the crozier comes in
handy as you rise above Monsignor. Smiting your enemies and all that.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Raymond Griffith
On 2/27/06 5:39 PM, in article
1141079964....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "VoiceOfReason"
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
I find this fascinating. Fundamentalism has traditionally been
anti-ecumenical. Under Creationism, however, there has been great strides
made in ecumenical directions, people tolerating and even supporting major
differences in doctrine they would have never tolerated nor supported
before.
Before long, Jist will likely have graduated to the point where he accepts
any Catholic who accepts Creationism as a brother in Christ, no matter how
much the person disagrees with Jist on the means of Grace and Salvation.
Not that I think that Catholics aren't saved, mind you. Like any other
denomination, I figure there are those who trust Christ and those who don't.
I have several good, devout Catholic friends who I am certain have put their
trust in Christ as their Savior.
But isn't the, ahem, *evolution* of creationism interesting?
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
VoiceOfReason
Raymond Griffith wrote:
> On 2/27/06 5:39 PM, in article
> 1141079964....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "VoiceOfReason"
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > AC wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:33 GMT,
> >> Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in news:3SYKf.14984$%14.396034
> >>> @news20.bellglobal.com:
> >>>
> >>>> Atheism is the philisophical root of Darwinism.
> >>>
> >>> Catholic schools.
> >>>
> >>> You lose again.
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>
> >> I'm sure Grendel thinks that Catholics are, in fact, worse than atheists.
> >
> > His latest is quote-mining Catholic sites to "prove" that the RCC
> > supports creationism.
> >
>
> I find this fascinating. Fundamentalism has traditionally been
> anti-ecumenical. Under Creationism, however, there has been great strides
> made in ecumenical directions, people tolerating and even supporting major
> differences in doctrine they would have never tolerated nor supported
> before.
>
> Before long, Jist will likely have graduated to the point where he accepts
> any Catholic who accepts Creationism as a brother in Christ, no matter how
> much the person disagrees with Jist on the means of Grace and Salvation.
I think the fact of them being Catholic doesn't concern him in the
least, as long as he can find some anti-science quotes. Hell, if he
could find some anti-science atheists, he'd probably quote them too.
> Not that I think that Catholics aren't saved, mind you. Like any other
> denomination, I figure there are those who trust Christ and those who don't.
> I have several good, devout Catholic friends who I am certain have put their
> trust in Christ as their Savior.
*Struggles to avoid the temptation of 'Some of my best friend are...'
jokes* :-)
The way I see it, we all worship the same God, just with different
words. Differences in dogma are merely a curiousity to me. I don't
see any of them as being "right" or "wrong," just different views of
the same elephant.
> But isn't the, ahem, *evolution* of creationism interesting?
Yeah, but it's only MICRO evolution. MACRO has never been observed. I
mean, you never saw a creationist give birth to an kumquat did you? SO
THERE! Nanny nanny boo boo... :P
VoiceOfReason
I think the only thing this demonstrates is that left-of-centerers are
less likely to be swayed by irrelevant propaganda.
.