Re: Supreme Court error noted.
Eric Root
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science", God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books, holy places,
sacraments, rituals, priests, meetings for the purpose of worship,
heck, and worship, for that matter. Evolution has none of these, so
you are either ignorant, in which case you now know better, or you a
liar, and if a Christian, need to beg forgiveness of Jesus, quit
stooging for Satan, and swear off your hateful, dishonest attacks on
evolution. Morality isn't just an opinion, after all.
Eric Root
PS, for your own, good, look at yourself very closely and ask why you
are such a twisted sicko.
DougC
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
Why can't you understand that God really did create the world and He
invented evolution to make it work? Many scientists go to church
every Sunday, you know.
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science".........
Balderdash and nonsense. Try to do some thinking.
Doug Chandler
dali_70
> God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
Really? Funny thing that he's never mentioned in it, not once. Even
stranger that the 1st amendment gives us the right and freedom to
worship any god or none, while the xtian god demands complete loyalty
to it or else one is tortured for eternity.
raven1
<tins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Troll-ometer reading: 1.3
>Supreme Court error noted.
>
>Obviously, a definition is needed.
>Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>Since pure atheism is now being
>taught in the schools under cover
>of "science", God is dethroned as
>our Creator, the One who directed
>the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
Kalkidas
"Eric Root" <eric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Supreme Court error noted.
>>
>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
>> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>> Since pure atheism is now being
>> taught in the schools under cover
>> of "science", God is dethroned as
>> our Creator, the One who directed
>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>>
>> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
>> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>>
>> Respectfully yours,
>>
>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>> Who's Who in America,
>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
>> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
>> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
Origin of Species.
>holy places,
Darwin's home.
> sacraments,
Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>rituals,
Creationist bashing.
>priests,
Dawkins et al.
>meetings for the purpose of worship,
Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
> heck, and worship, for that matter.
Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>
>"Eric Root" <eric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Supreme Court error noted.
>>>
>>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
>>> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>>> Since pure atheism is now being
>>> taught in the schools under cover
>>> of "science", God is dethroned as
>>> our Creator, the One who directed
>>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>>>
>>> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
>>> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>>>
>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>
>>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>>> Who's Who in America,
>>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
>>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
>>> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
>>> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>>
>> Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
>
>Origin of Species.
Nonsense.
>
>>holy places,
>
>Darwin's home.
How silly of you.
>
>> sacraments,
>
>Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
I see you are another religious nut who is opposed to education.
>
>>rituals,
>
>Creationist bashing.
That's just entertainment. Creationists tell their lies, we shoot them
down.
>
>>priests,
>
>Dawkins et al.
Hardly.
>
>>meetings for the purpose of worship,
>
>Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
More silliness from you.
>
>> heck, and worship, for that matter.
>
>Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
>
100% wrong on your part. Congratulations on being unable to think or
learn. You will be a great creationist.
Inez
> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
Kalkidas
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It's significant that no one has pointed out any flaws in the analogy of
Darwinism to religion..
Free Lunch
<savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
If he had ever shown a sense of humor in the past, I might have assumed
it was a joke.
UC
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science", God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Jacob, is Obediah there?
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>
Your flaws are legion and manifest to all who can think.
Inez
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 9:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> >> >> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> >> >> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> >> >> Since pure atheism is now being
> >> >> taught in the schools under cover
> >> >> of "science", God is dethroned as
> >> >> our Creator, the One who directed
> >> >> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> >> >> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> >> >> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> >> >> Respectfully yours,
>
> >> >> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> >> >> Who's Who in America,
> >> >> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> >> >> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> >> >> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
> >> >> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> >> > Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
>
> >> Origin of Species.
No one treats this book as holy.
> >> >holy places,
>
> >> Darwin's home.
>
No one treats Darwin's home as holy.
> >> > sacraments,
>
> >> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>
How is this a "sacrament?" Is the awarding of a degree in dentistry
also a sacrement? What is the difference?
> >> >rituals,
>
> >> Creationist bashing.
>
In what sense is this a ritual?
> >> >priests,
>
> >> Dawkins et al.
>
In what sense is Dawkins a priest, rather than a guy with an opinion?
> >> >meetings for the purpose of worship,
>
> >> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
>
How is this worship? Is it worship when people meet at irish pubs on
St. Patricks day? Give a definition of worship that fits the
situation.
> >> > heck, and worship, for that matter.
>
> >> Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
Again, how is that worship?
> > It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
>
> It's significant that no one has pointed out any flaws in the analogy of
> Darwinism to religion..
It's absurd.
deadrat
Probably because they were too busy laughing at the post. For instance, The
Origin of Species is a strange holy book. Scientists who by analogy should
worship the book and consider it inerrant, don't.
But the reason that evolution (which is to say biology) is not religion is
that evolution doesn't posit a supernatural being who explains our ultimate
origins, predicts our eventual ends, and dictates rules for our behavior.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have a 10AM creationist bashing service to attend.
John Harshman
John Harshman
your comparisons are valid. Origin of Species isn't a holy book. Nobody
worships it or considers its words infallible. In fact any biologist
would agree that there is much Darwin wrote that is wrong. Your other
comparisons are equally lame. I could as easily compare cheese to a
religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
and so on.
Kalkidas
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4bednUKMdq5...@giganews.com...
There are many Christians who don't worship the Bible or consider its words
infallible (any liberal protestant denomination, or some members of the
Jesus Seminar, for example). Yet they certainly accept the Bible as a "holy
book" and acknowledge that it has some authority.
>In fact any biologist would agree that there is much Darwin wrote that is
>wrong.
As I pointed out, there are many Christians (liberal protestants, and even
liberal Catholics) who agree that there is much in the Bible that is wrong,
yet they accept it as a "holy book".
Your other
> comparisons are equally lame. I could as easily compare cheese to a
> religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
> and so on.
I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
[Point to beginning]
[Hold down <shift> key]
[Point to end]
There, what's now highlighted is the flaw.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Nashton
> Your flaws are legion and manifest to all who can think.
>
You're out of your league. Why not let the adults have their discussions?
Thanks.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4bednUKMdq5...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No you have not - you have shown yourself to be a liar and an idiot.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Good question - why don't you?
johnetho...@yahoo.com
You mean except for all the people who have pointed out how it is
completely false? I can't figure out whether your dishonesty or
stupidity is greater - they are both gigantic.
Prof Weird
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
That's because the analogy is exceedingly weak - by your strained and
twisted 'logic', ANYTHING people do could be called a 'religion'.
Jim thinks the Steelers are a great football team. Then, by your
'logic', you could assert he practices the 'religion' of Steelerism
('thou shalt have no other quarterbacks before Roethlisberger' ...)
Tom really likes collecting stamps. And so, by your 'logic', you
could whine he practices the 'religion' of philatelism.
Harry designs websites for fun and profit. Then, by your 'logic', you
could sneer about his adherence to HTMLism (and there ARE books called
'bibles' for things like this).
Conclusion : your 'analogy' is weak, pathetic, and strained.
Generally happens when one tries to make reality conform to peculiar
delusions. You're kinda like Procrustes, only lamer.
Boikat
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> Evolution =
It already has one. "The change in genetic characteristic of a
population of organism through time.
> The atheistic religion.
What does that have to do with biology or the ToE?
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science",
Science does not address any god since there is no scientific evidence
of any gods. Science is actually agnostic.
> God is dethroned as
> our Creator,
Unless you were born in India....
> the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
This begs the question: Why does the Old Testament have "First
Kings", and "Second Kings", and not "First Presidents" and "Second
Presidents"? No, seriously. Why would God wait untill the mid 1700's
to dictate how people were supposed to govern themselves?
>
> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
Dawkins' personal opinion, noted. And?
Boikat
Boikat
What does that have to do with you?
Boikat
Boikat
> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> >> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> >> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> >> Since pure atheism is now being
> >> taught in the schools under cover
> >> of "science", God is dethroned as
> >> our Creator, the One who directed
> >> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> >> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> >> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> >> Respectfully yours,
>
> >> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> >> Who's Who in America,
> >> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> >> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> >> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
> >> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> > Sorry, it's science. �Religion has holy books,
>
> Origin of Species.
Not a holy book. Sorry.
>
> >holy places,
>
> Darwin's home.
Not a holy place. Sorry.
>
> > sacraments,
>
> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
Not holy. Sorry.
>
> >rituals,
>
> Creationist bashing.
That's not a ritual, it's a moral obligation, asshole. Sorry.
>
> >priests,
>
> Dawkins et al.
Not a priest. Sorry.
>
> >meetings for the purpose of worship,
>
> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
Honoring a great scientist does not equal "worshiping". Sorry.
>
> > heck, and worship, for that matter.
>
> Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
Not the same as the veneration of a holy icon. Sorry.
Wrong on every count. Are you trying to set some sort of "error"
record?
Boikat
Jeffrey Turner
> On Oct 22, 10:08 am, "Kalkidas"<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On Oct 22, 9:12 am, "Kalkidas"<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> "Eric Root"<eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> Creationist bashing.
>>
> In what sense is this a ritual?
We're always coming up with new ways, that's hardly ritual.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Jeffrey Turner
> I could as easily compare cheese to a
> religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
> and so on.
Blessed are the cheesemakers. (Possibly misheard.)
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"JacobSmith" <tins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:463c469c-bbb5-4b3a...@f16g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science", God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
What a pile of crap!
Inez
>
> news:4bednUKMdq5...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
exclude some books, or are all books holy in your opinion?
> Your other
>
> > comparisons are equally lame. I could as easily compare cheese to a
> > religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
> > and so on.
>
> I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
> not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?-
Here is a book on Cheesemaking that has good reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Farmstead-Cheese-Complete-Selling/dp/1931498776/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287777368&sr=8-2
Can you explain why it's not a holy book? Or is it?
Kalkidas
"Prof Weird" <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:e86b0891-488e-4308...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Your insults are irrelevant. Darwinism, because it makes statements about
God (for example, that God did not create the species in the same forms as
they exist today), and because it has in common with other religions the
items already listed, is indeed a religion.
Boikat
The ToE does not address God at all. The fact that the ToE conflicts
with a religious claim comes under the heading of "so what?" If you
want some "god" to be relevant, the please present the evidence that
makes the claim of any "god" relevant. If you have none, than any
claims about any "gods" are as irrelevant as claiming that the IPU is
relevant.
> and because it has in common with other religions the
> items already listed,
Your "list" was bogus and demonstratedyour ignorance.
> is indeed a religion.-
Nope. You were wrong in your claims, and guess what: You are still
wrong.
Boikat
Burkhard
> "Eric Root"<eric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith<tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Supreme Court error noted.
>>>
>>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
>>> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>>> Since pure atheism is now being
>>> taught in the schools under cover
>>> of "science", God is dethroned as
>>> our Creator, the One who directed
>>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>>>
>>> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
>>> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>>>
>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>
>>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>>> Who's Who in America,
>>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
>>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
>>> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>>
>> Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
>
> Origin of Species.
I'd doubt that many scientists have read OoS, but you could probably say
that this is true for lots of people who claim to be religious and their
books too - but they tend to feel guilty about it. (Unless of course it
is a religion that keeps the texts intentionally secret from the
followers.) If it is a holy book, then maybe in the way the Bible is
treated by the more extreme descendants of German biblical criticism -
as a sort of interesting piece of work that tells us a bit about our
intellectual origins and history, ultimately man made and fallible, and
generally inferior to any more recent study.
Which is a difference to most religions, I'd say who tend ot have a
"thing used to be good/perfect, but now the knowledge of hte elders is
lost/tainted" approach which puts a premium on the age of knowledge
>
>> holy places,
>
> Darwin's home.
That would be the District Valuer and Valuation Office of Shrewsbury.
Hardly any biologist would know that, let alone make a pilgrimage there.
A better candidate might be his grave in Westminster Abbey, next to
Newton and Herschel, where he was buried in a state funeral (and full
religious ceremony, of course). But this one also plays no role in
scientific practice in my experience.
>
>> sacraments,
>
> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>
>> rituals,
>
I'd group the two together, arguably the most convincing part of your
analogy. The reason is of course that the modern university has roots
in the Church, which founded the earliest ones. Academia kept many of
the rituals, ceremonies and formalities, especially in Anglo-American
countries and their former colonies.
> Creationist bashing.
neither ritualistic (i.e following a formal, outward pattern), nor
common amongst biologists.
Creationists are an irrelevance outside the US, where the issue is
politics much more than anything else, and few biologists can be
bothered even there.
>
>> priests,
>
> Dawkins et al.
Doesn't work too well. Any academic would do given the above analogy to
ritual.
>
>> meetings for the purpose of worship,
>
> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
You mean something like this?:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/events.html
My guess is the CoE which participated very actively in the celebrations
woudl object to the characterisation as worship. Etymologically, it sort
of works (worship simply means: "recognising worth") but as an analogy
it is pretty pants, unless you devalue the concept of worship beyond
recognition.
>
>> heck, and worship, for that matter.
>
> Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
>
>
I have no issue with a sociological approach to religion, and find the
concept of secular religions perfectly intelligible, from football to
the state, so why not science. That makes your analogies are in varying
degrees debatable. The state of course surpasses universities in
creating a secular religion and appropriating the rituals and
ceremonies, by a long distance. (just think of the various rules around
"American Flag Disposal" that has its roots in the treatment of leftover
hosts).
but I'm surprised that you would argue that position, folks with
allegiance to specific religions typically feel that important
distinctions get lost. The analogy, and the ease with which secular
entities, from football clubs to nation states, appropriated religious
concepts lends itself to the notion that all of them are just equally
valid reactions to early childhood development. Children crave
predictability and patterns, develop as a response early rituals, and
those adults that never grow up (most, with other words) keep them.
Doesn't matter if they go to Church or THE GAME on Sunday, both are
equally valid expressions of the same psychological need.
Now personally, I'd say the sociological perspective has its role, but
would not go as far as that and the inevitable reductionist position
regarding religion. Strange though that apparently, you would.
Inez
Leaving aside the rather major problem that this claim is false, that
is not a definition of religion that anyone uses.
If I claim that God didn't eat my ham sandwich, does that mean I am a
follower of the religion of Nonhamsandwicheatery?
John Harshman
Nobody accepts the Origin as a holy book or acknowledges that it has
some authority, depending on what you mean by authority. I will agree
that Darwin was right about a lot, and that his book pretty much founded
the science of evolutionary biology. But that doesn't make it a holy
book. Is Newton the messiah of physics, and Principia Mathematica a holy
book too?
>> In fact any biologist would agree that there is much Darwin wrote that is
>> wrong.
>
> As I pointed out, there are many Christians (liberal protestants, and even
> liberal Catholics) who agree that there is much in the Bible that is wrong,
> yet they accept it as a "holy book".
But nobody accepts the origin as a holy book.
> Your other
>> comparisons are equally lame. I could as easily compare cheese to a
>> religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
>> and so on.
>
> I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
> not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?
No, you haven't shown any such thing. At most you have shown that some
of my criteria for "holy book" aren't universal. But your sole argument
that the Origin is a holy book is the assertion that it is. Not really
an argument, is it?
What makes a book holy, and how does the Origin display that characteristic?
John Harshman
John Harshman
> Darwinism, because it makes statements about
> God (for example, that God did not create the species in the same forms as
> they exist today), and because it has in common with other religions the
> items already listed, is indeed a religion.
Interesting. Is chemistry also a religion because it claims that water
won't turn into wine? Is physics a religion because it claims that
gravity, not god, sustains the planets in their courses? Is astronomy a
religion because it claims that the stars aren't little lights embedded
in the solid dome of the sky? Is geology a religion because it denies a
recent, worldwide flood? Hey, it looks as if everything is a religion!
Burkhard
Did your sandwich have pickles? In that case you'd be a blasphemous
heretic.
Kalkidas
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:i9sv81$7vp$1...@news.albasani.net...
If creationism is "religion" then anti-creationism is also "religion". Both
creationism and Darwinism make assertions about God. Darwinism may make
negative assertions about what God didn't, or couldn't do, but they are
still assertions about God. Therefore, they are religious positions.
I'd be perfectly happy to call neither creationism nor Darwinism
"religions". But it's neither or both.
Ernest Major
<e...@joes.pub> writes
Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim that
heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements about God (for
example that God did not create the universe with the earth at its
centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
is a holy book?
--
alias Ernest Major
UC
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:i9sv81$7vp$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
> > On 22/10/2010 17:12, Kalkidas wrote:
False, it's philosophical criticism.
>Both
> creationism and Darwinism make assertions about God.
False. Darwinism makes no assertions about God or gods. It has nothing
whatsoever to say about deities.
> Darwinism may make
> negative assertions about what God didn't, or couldn't do, but they are
> still assertions about God. Therefore, they are religious positions.
False. See above.
>
> I'd be perfectly happy to call neither creationism nor Darwinism
> "religions". But it's neither or both.
False. See above.
Burkhard
Both
> creationism and Darwinism make assertions about God.
Not really, no, For that God would need to be a concept expressible in
terms of the theory, which is isn't.
Darwinism may make
> negative assertions about what God didn't, or couldn't do, but they are
> still assertions about God.
Not really. Some folks with bad theology might interpret it that way,
but the imposition on God's ability that it entails would be rightly
considered by other religious folks to be blasphemous.
> Therefore, they are religious positions.
So much the worse for religion, I'd say. If the only thing religion does
is to offer botched empirical claims, we can really get shot of it.
John Harshman
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> If creationism is "religion" then anti-creationism is also "religion".
Provide an argument why this claim is true.
> Both
> creationism and Darwinism make assertions about God. Darwinism may make
> negative assertions about what God didn't, or couldn't do, but they are
> still assertions about God. Therefore, they are religious positions.
In that case, everything is religious. Everything is a claim about god.
I just typed this. Not god. Therefore this post is a religion.
> I'd be perfectly happy to call neither creationism nor Darwinism
> "religions". But it's neither or both.
Your inability to settle on a position is noted. But both your suggested
positions are wrong. Creationism is religious, "Darwinism" isn't. In the
same way, Zeus as the cause of lightning is religious, but electricity
isn't. See how that works?
Walter Bushell
<e86b0891-488e-4308...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> Jim thinks the Steelers are a great football team. Then, by your
> 'logic', you could assert he practices the 'religion' of Steelerism
> ('thou shalt have no other quarterbacks before Roethlisberger' ...)
But *that* one *is* a religion.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Kalkidas
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply, you'll
see that some of the intelligences on this thread richly deserve insulting.
But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications, that
it makes assertions about God?
If you like, I can broaden my statement to something like "Secular Humanism
is a religion (many of them have explicitly claimed this), and one of its
principal tenets is Darwinism".
Boikat
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <i9stgf$rm...@news.eternal-september.org>, Kalkidas
Yes, most of your posts only deserve insults. Being rational doesn't
seem to register with you.
>
> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications,
Yes. But, then again, so does the Big Bang Theory. Is Astronomy a
religion, too?
> that
> it makes assertions about God?
Nope. The ToE does not even mention any gods, nor does it make any
supernatural claims.
>
> If you like, I can broaden my statement to something like "Secular Humanism
> is a religion (many of them have explicitly claimed this), and one of its
> principal tenets is Darwinism
So what? Someone can make up their own religion and adopt "Alice in
Wonderland" as a basic tenet of their "religion" if they wanted to.
But guess what? That does not make "Alice in Wonderland" religious,
in and of itself.
Boikat
Don Cates
[snip]
>
> Here is a book on Cheesemaking that has good reviews:
> http://www.amazon.com/American-Farmstead-Cheese-Complete-Selling/dp/1931498776/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287777368&sr=8-2
>
> Can you explain why it's not a holy book? Or is it?
>
does it concern Swiss cheese?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Prof Weird
Translation : 'dang ! He's not falling for my arrogant posturing !
Must insult in reply !!'
Initiating surreal delusion :
> Darwinism, because it makes statements about
> God (for example, that God did not create the species in the same forms as
> they exist today), and because it has in common with other religions the
> items already listed, is indeed a religion.
In the first place, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'DARWINISM'. Calling
evolution 'Darwinism' makes as much sense as calling gravity
'Newtonism', or relativity 'Einsteinism'.
Secondly, the ToE makes NO STATEMENTS ABOUT GOD EITHER WAY. The FACT
that it doesn't mention Him/Her/It/Them is what drives god-botherers
insane (they have the silly notion that everything and everyone MUST
kneel before their Imaginary Sky Daddy).
Algebra textbooks don't mention God anywhere - does this make them
atheist manifestos ? Or the 'sacred texts' of algebraism ?
Plumbing and car repair manuals don't mention God - does this make
them atheistic too ? Are they the 'sacred texts' of copper pipeism or
automobilism ?
If someone's car didn't start, would you call them atheists because
they DIDN'T pray to The Great Mechanic In The Sky, Henry Ford ?
Again, simpleton : going by those 'things evolution has in common with
other religions' MAKES ALL HUMAN ENDEAVORS A 'RELIGION'.
Your analogy was pathetic, flaccid, weak and easily shot down and
dismissed. Get over it.
Rooting for a particular football team could be construed (by your
twisted 'logic') to be a religion.
Collecting stamps could be construed (by your vainglorious posturing)
to be a religion.
Working diligently and with care at any job could be construed (by the
willfully dense) to be a religion.
By your 'logic', earning a degree is receiving a 'sacrament' - this
means that dentistry, podiatry, information technology, and English
literature are religions. As this is OBVIOUSLY stupid, your 'analogy'
is thus debunked.
By your 'standards', ANY activity anyone does could be called a
religion. If willing to twist and bend, fold, spindle or mutilate
common sense and rationality, ANY activity can be called 'something
like a religion'.
Too bad that 'LIKE a religion' is NOT 'a religion'.
And, by broadening the definition of 'religion' to include science
(and even atheism !), you strip the word of its significance.
Actual religion is essentially 'the care, maintenance and appeasing of
supernatural beings' - bellowing declarations of what an uneffable
being wants, blubberings about how He/She/It/They want people to act
(and what will happen if they don't), etc.
Also about glorifying ignorance, the unknowable and the unsolvable -
when confronted with something they currently don't understand,
creotards blubber something about the unknowable whim of their
favorite Magical Sky Pixie; reality-based folk actually TRY to figure
things out (they realized millenia ago that invoking the whim of
unknowable supernatural beings is a dead end, a science stopper, and
anti-knowledge).
Explaining the unknown in terms of the known is good sense; explaining
the unknown in terms of the unknowable is theological lunacy;
explaining the known in terms of the unknowable is idio-creotardic
gibberf*ckery.
Earle Jones
<463c469c-bbb5-4b3a...@f16g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
JacobSmith <tins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science", God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
*
Well, it's about time!!
earle
*
David Hare-Scott
> On Oct 22, 9:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Supreme Court error noted.
>>
>>>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
>>>> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>>>> Since pure atheism is now being
>>>> taught in the schools under cover
>>>> of "science", God is dethroned as
>>>> our Creator, the One who directed
>>>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>>
The Big K joking? No, no, no he is far too sanctimonious to joke. How can
you look down on lesser mortals if comedy is a possibility? How can you
live in your own private universe if somebody might laugh at you? He is
feeling really smug right now as he has tagged on to a thread started by
somebody who is as out of touch with reality as he is. Until now he was
sure he was the only sane person in the world.
David
David
David Hare-Scott
> "Eric Root" <eric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This is a tactic that you have used before. By claiming that your opponents
hold their position by faith the evidence-free zone that you inhabit becomes
a happy place. You attempt to bring everybody down to your level so you
won't stand out looking quite so silly. It's not original having been used
by anti-science propagandists many times. If your faith was as strong as
your masquerade you could go about your business without such flimsy props.
David
Will in New Haven
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> quoted text -
>
> > It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
>
Religion is handed down from authority. Evolutionary biology is
studied on the basis of evidence. There is really no such thing as
Darwinism.
--
Will in New Haven
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
[...]
> > Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim that
> > heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements about God
> > (for example that God did not create the universe with the earth at
> > its centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
> > Systems" is a holy book?
> I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply,
> you'll see that some of the intelligences on this thread richly deserve
> insulting.
> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications,
> that it makes assertions about God?
"Lightning is an electrical discharge." Does this statement have religious
implications? It is, after all, an assertian that lightning is not Zeus's
thunderbolts, except perhaps metaphorically.
"The town of Davis is 52 feet above sea level." Does this statement have
religious implications? It is, after all, an assertion that God has not
chosen to put Davis on the top of a mountain.
Can you give an example of anything that *doesn't* have religious
implications in the sense you're using the phrase?
Steve Carlip
Will in New Haven
> >news:i9sv81$7vp$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> On 22/10/2010 17:12, Kalkidas wrote:
Of course sitting on the couch is a sport. I do stretching exercises
before I do it because I don't want to pull what passes for a muscle.
Kalkidas
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:i9tbif$239$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
>
> [...]
>> > Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim that
>> > heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements about God
>> > (for example that God did not create the universe with the earth at
>> > its centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
>> > Systems" is a holy book?
>
>> I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply,
>> you'll see that some of the intelligences on this thread richly deserve
>> insulting.
>
>> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications,
>> that it makes assertions about God?
>
> "Lightning is an electrical discharge." Does this statement have
> religious
> implications? It is, after all, an assertian that lightning is not Zeus's
> thunderbolts, except perhaps metaphorically.
Does that statement deny that Zeus's thunderbolts are electrical discharges?
> "The town of Davis is 52 feet above sea level." Does this statement have
> religious implications? It is, after all, an assertion that God has not
> chosen to put Davis on the top of a mountain.
No it's not. The statement does not refer to God. You added a gratuitous
claim to it. But Darwin and his modern followers explicitly deny that the
species were created in their present forms, or that they were created at
all, thus it immediately follows that God did create them thus.
> Can you give an example of anything that *doesn't* have religious
> implications in the sense you're using the phrase?
Yes, the second example you gave has no religious implications.
It's no use trying to pretend that the sense in which Darwinism is a
religion is trivial. It's not. The residents of Davis are not trying to
prevent Irvine from being taught in science classrooms in the name of
"Davisism". Neither are Steelers fans trying to prevent the Denver Broncos
from being taught in science classrooms in the name of "steelerism".
The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or implicit
claims about God is a religious worldview.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 22, 11:03 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4bednUKMdq5...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>>news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Supreme Court error noted.
>> >>>>>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
>> >>>>>> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>> >>>>>> Since pure atheism is now being
>> >>>>>> taught in the schools under cover
>> >>>>>> of "science", God is dethroned as
>> >>>>>> our Creator, the One who directed
>> >>>>>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>> >>>>>> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
>> >>>>>> atheist."
>> >>>>>> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>> >>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>> >>>>>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>> >>>>>> Who's Who in America,
>> >>>>>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
>> >>>>>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
>> >>>>>> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>> >>>>> Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
>> >>>> Origin of Species.
>>
>> >>>> Darwin's home.
>>
>> >>>> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>>
>> >>>>> rituals,
>>
>> >>>>> priests,
>> >>>> Dawkins et al.
>>
>> >>>> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
>>
>> >>>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
>>
>> >> It's significant that no one has pointed out any flaws in the analogy
>> >> of
>> >> Darwinism to religion..
Declaring yourself the "winner", when reality shows you more deranged than
educated, is merely a false and distorted ego at work.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:i9stgf$rm5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Prof Weird" <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote in message
> news:e86b0891-488e-4308...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> That's because the analogy is exceedingly weak - by your strained and
>> twisted 'logic', ANYTHING people do could be called a 'religion'.
>>
>> Jim thinks the Steelers are a great football team. Then, by your
>> 'logic', you could assert he practices the 'religion' of Steelerism
>> ('thou shalt have no other quarterbacks before Roethlisberger' ...)
>>
>> Tom really likes collecting stamps. And so, by your 'logic', you
>> could whine he practices the 'religion' of philatelism.
>>
>> Harry designs websites for fun and profit. Then, by your 'logic', you
>> could sneer about his adherence to HTMLism (and there ARE books called
>> 'bibles' for things like this).
>>
>> Conclusion : your 'analogy' is weak, pathetic, and strained.
>> Generally happens when one tries to make reality conform to peculiar
>> delusions. You're kinda like Procrustes, only lamer.
>
> they exist today), and because it has in common with other religions the
> items already listed, is indeed a religion.
It makes statements about a reality based conclusion supported by valid
facts and evidence.
That your delusional "gawd", does not fit any criteria of reality - that is
not the fault of science.
Tom McDonald
> REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> that you must remember that different persons
> have different definitions of what they mean
> by God."
>
> Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> there ever has been any revelation."
>
> Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> scientific research makes a man cautious
> in admitting evidence."
>
> Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> but man can do his duty."
>
> Therefore, man does his duty. Ergo, he draws
> upon his own holy intellect.
>
> Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> of one's own self identification.
>
> Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> and natural selection.
>
> Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> future forms of material combination will exist,
> depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy& History Internet Education Directory
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
You're repeating yourself. Senility, it seems, has snuck up on you, mugged
you, and taken your lunch money.
--
Tom
Harry K
> "Prof Weird" <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:e86b0891-488e-4308...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 1:08 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 22, 9:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Oct 21, 8:54 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> >> >> >> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> >> >> >> taught in the schools under cover
> >> >> >> of "science", God is dethroned as
> >> >> >> our Creator, the One who directed
> >> >> >> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> >> >> >> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
> >> >> >> atheist."
> >> >> >> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
>
> >> >> >> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> >> >> >> Who's Who in America,
> >> >> >> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> >> >> >> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are, of course, going to post the excerpt or at least a page or
two cite fore that assinine claim?
Harry K
Inez
> <carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:i9tbif$239$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
>
> > [...]
> >> > Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim that
> >> > heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements about God
> >> > (for �example that God did not create the universe with the earth at
> >> > �its centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
> >> > Systems" is a holy book?
>
> >> I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply,
> >> you'll �see that some of the intelligences on this thread richly deserve
> >> insulting.
>
> >> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications,
> >> that it makes assertions about God?
>
> > "Lightning is an electrical discharge." �Does this statement have
> > religious
> > implications? �It is, after all, an assertian that lightning is not Zeus's
> > thunderbolts, except perhaps metaphorically.
>
> Does that statement deny that Zeus's thunderbolts are electrical discharges?
>
> > "The town of Davis is 52 feet above sea level." �Does this statement have
> > religious implications? �It is, after all, an assertion that God has not
> > chosen to put Davis on the top of a mountain.
>
> No it's not. The statement does not refer to God. You added a gratuitous
> claim to it. But Darwin and his modern followers explicitly deny that the
> species were created in their present forms, or that they were created at
> all, thus it immediately follows that God did create them thus.
That's the same thing. The only difference is there is no extant
religion that claims that Davis is on top of a mountain, but the
presence or absence of such a religion doesn't make the claim any more
or less of a religion by itself. You're just using the word
"religion" incorrectly.
> > Can you give an example of anything that *doesn't* have religious
> > implications in the sense you're using the phrase?
>
> Yes, the second example you gave has no religious implications.
>
> It's no use trying to pretend that the sense in which Darwinism is a
> religion is trivial. It's not. The residents of Davis are not trying to
> prevent Irvine from being taught in science classrooms in the name of
> "Davisism". Neither are Steelers fans trying to prevent the Denver Broncos
> from being taught in science classrooms in the name of "steelerism".
Your problem is that you don't seem to know what a religion is.
Making a claim about how the world operates based on real world
observation is not a religion, not even if the reality it describes
conflicts with some religions looney-tunes ideas.
This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
science religion.
> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or implicit
> claims about God is a religious worldview.-
"I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
but it certainly isn't a religion.
Kalkidas
news:c368209f-e62e-4e6c...@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
I know what religion is. I'm analyzing it as a social phenomenon, and I
find that Darwinism in many respects mirrors the sociological pattern of a
religion.
> This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
> science religion.
Darwinism is definitely not science.
>> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
>> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>
> "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
> but it certainly isn't a religion.
Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
there is no God. It does this by denying one of the principal claims of
traditional religions, the claim that God created the species in their
present forms. Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
claim that the species arose through purely impersonal mechanistic means by
an evolutionary process from a single primitive organism.
"I see no evidence of Darwinian evolution of the origin of all species from
a single primitive organism" is a religious claim only because Darwinism is
itself making a religious claim. Otherwise, it's just an observation.
If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
"theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
Darwinism started the fight.
Ganesh J. Acharya
> On Oct 21, 8:54�pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Supreme Court error noted.
>
> > Obviously, a definition is needed.
> > Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> > Since pure atheism is now being
> > taught in the schools under cover
> > of "science", God is dethroned as
> > our Creator, the One who directed
> > the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> > "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> > -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> > Respectfully yours,
>
> > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > Who's Who in America,
> > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
So it is good for science to teach false?
Ganesh J. Acharya
> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> >> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> >> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
> >> Since pure atheism is now being
> >> taught in the schools under cover
> >> of "science", God is dethroned as
> >> our Creator, the One who directed
> >> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
>
> >> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> >> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
>
> >> Respectfully yours,
>
> >> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> >> Who's Who in America,
> >> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> >> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> >> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
> >> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> > Sorry, it's science. �Religion has holy books,
>
>
> >holy places,
>
> Darwin's home.
>
> > sacraments,
>
> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>
> >rituals,
>
> Creationist bashing.
>
> >priests,
>
> Dawkins et al.
>
> >meetings for the purpose of worship,
>
> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
>
> > heck, and worship, for that matter.
>
> Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").
GOD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
Burkhard
Only until someone founds a religion that does - which is pretty easy
to do.
>
> >> It's no use trying to pretend that the sense in which Darwinism is a
> >> religion is trivial. It's not. The residents of Davis are not trying
> >> to prevent Irvine from being taught in science classrooms in the name
> >> of "Davisism". Neither are Steelers fans trying to prevent the Denver
> >> Broncos from being taught in science classrooms in the name of
> >> "steelerism".
>
> > Your problem is that you don't seem to know what a religion is.
> > Making a claim about how the world operates based on real world
> > observation is not a religion, not even if the reality it describes
> > conflicts with some religions looney-tunes ideas.
>
> I know what religion is. I'm analyzing it as a social phenomenon, and I
> find that Darwinism in many respects mirrors the sociological pattern of a
> religion.
>
as do football, the ceremonies of the nation state and fan clubs
following Hollywood actors. So much the worse for religion, I'd say.
Or to use an analogy: If my business is to build horse carts, it is a
really really bad idea insist that Ferraris are "in a way" also just
horse carts, because they still use expressions like horse power, have
wheels etc since everyone can see they are faster, more comfortable
and have better suspensions. Instead, I would focus on what makes the
horse cart experience unique.
> > This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
> > science religion.
>
> Darwinism is definitely not science.
>
> >> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
> >> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>
> > "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
> > but it certainly isn't a religion.
>
> Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
> there is no God.
Give a cite please from a standard textbook in evolutionary biology,
or an article in one of the standard journals, say the Journal of
Evolutionary Biology
that makes this claim. Indeed, were a biology teacher in class to make
such a claim, this would indeed be a violation of the 1. amendment
Ernest Major
<e...@joes.pub> writes
>
>Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
>there is no God.
Darwinism is an ill-defined term. But evolutionary biology does not say
that it sees evidence that there is no God. If you claim that the
evidence addressed by evolutionary biology implies that there is no God
you are effectively arguing in favour of atheism.
> It does this by denying one of the principal claims of traditional
>religions, the claim that God created the species in their present
>forms. Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
>claim that the species arose through purely impersonal mechanistic
>means by an evolutionary process from a single primitive organism.
Have you forgotten that speciation has been observed in the wild, under
domestication and in the laboratory?
>
>"I see no evidence of Darwinian evolution of the origin of all species
>from a single primitive organism" is a religious claim only because
>Darwinism is itself making a religious claim. Otherwise, it's just an
>observation.
>
>If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
>"theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
>
>Darwinism started the fight.
I am skeptical of the truth of that assertion.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>> It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
>>
>> It's significant that no one has pointed out any flaws in the
>>
> Still hard to tell if you're joking. OK, the main flaw is that none of
> your comparisons are valid. Origin of Species isn't a holy book.
> biologist would agree that there is much Darwin wrote that is wrong.
> cheese to a religion; there are books about cheese, and places where
> cheese is made, and so on.
OB Monty Python: "Blessed are the cheesemakers."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
> On Oct 22, 7:19�ｿｽpm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > On 10/22/2010 8:47 PM, JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > > REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > > Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> > > is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> > > that you must remember that different persons
> > > have different definitions of what they mean
> > > by God."
>
> > > Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> > > there ever has been any revelation."
>
> > > Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> > > with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> > > scientific research makes a man cautious
> > > in admitting evidence."
>
> > > Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> > > conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> > > [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> > > but man can do his duty."
>
> > > upon his own holy intellect.
>
> > > Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> > > the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> > > associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> > > Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> > > of one's own self identification.
>
> > > Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> > > and natural selection.
>
> > > Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> > > future forms of material combination will exist,
> > > depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> > > "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> > > or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > >http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> > You're repeating yourself. Senility, it seems, has snuck up on you, mugged
> > you, and taken your lunch money.
>
> > --
> > Tom
>
> REPLY: Hi, Sneaky Tom.
>
> No, the composition of the first reply
> was presented incorrectly and thus
> redone for clarity and readability.
>
> The issue at hand is not me, but
> a critical error made on the part
> of the United States Supreme Court.
So you say, but without offering anything even remotely like an
intelligible argument as to why that would be so
>
> According to the Supreme Court,
> In Torcaso v. Watkins, . . . [the first
> amendment precluded government
> from aiding "those religions based
> on a belief in the existence of God
> as against those religions founded
> on different beliefs." The Court noted
> that "[a]mong religions in this country
> which do not teach what would generally
> be considered a belief in the existence
> of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical
> Culture, Secular Humanism and others."]
>
So what? This was a footnote (or technical, an obiter)
that means simply that believe in a supreme being is
not a necessary condition for something to count
as a religion, even though it is one diagnostic factor. In this
specific case,
it can be compensated for by the self-description of the group in
question
(it's a religion when its members say it is) though that too is merely
diagnostic,
not a definition (If Microsoft declared tomorrow that building and
selling computers is a holy duty
they still have to pay taxes)
> Additionally, in the past, [the American
> government and the courts have been
> reluctant to examine the content of religious
> belief. . . . Neither this court, nor any branch
> of this government, will consider the merits
> or fallacies of religion. �ｿｽNor will the court
> compare the beliefs, dogmas and practices
> of a newly organized religion with those of
> an older, more established religion. Nor will
> the court praise or condemn a religion,
> however excellent or fanatical or
> preposterous it may seem. Were the court
> to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantee
> of the First Amendment.]
Again, so what? That simply gives you a list of factors that are
insufficient to deny a group
the label of religion if they want it.
> [In United States v. Ballard, Justice Douglas,
> writing for the majority, embraced a much
> broader definition of religion: . . .Freedom of
> religious belief, is basic in a society of free men.
> It embraces the right to maintain theories of life
> and of death and the hereafter which are rank
> heresy to followers of orthodox faiths . . . .];
> of which pedigrees include the High Priests
> of the Academic Darwin Family Genealogy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin-Wedgwood_family
Your comments have nothing to do with the ratio of Ballard. You are
again confusing necessary, sufficient and merely diagnostic conditions
of the court's reasoning, and you ignore that in all these cases, the
group itself describes its believes as religious. The argument by the
court, quite consistently, is simply that this is a very strong
diagnostic factor, and that it is not competent to present certain
types of counter evidence.
> The exclusionary method used by evolutionary
> coreligionists creates the atheistic orthodox faith:
> Darwinian science, that contravenes the dictum
> that [Men may believe what they cannot prove.
> They may not be put to the proof of their religious
> doctrines of beliefs.]
No, it doesn't, in fact, the statement is unintelligible.
>�ｿｽSince evolution and the form
> of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> conflicting vague probabilities,
As all scientific theories are.
>justice can only be
> done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
no such thing
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Klaus Hellnick
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
TRUE
> Evolution = The atheistic religion.
FALSE
> Since pure atheism is now being
> taught in the schools under cover
> of "science",
FALSE
God is dethroned as
> our Creator, the One who directed
> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
FALSE
>
> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
True (that the Dawkins did write this)
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy& History Internet Education Directory
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
Someone seems very fond of paying to have his name listed in vanity
meaningless books.
I see no "Supreme Court error" noted anywhere in this post. Perhaps the
OP could fix the omission.
Klaus
Boikat
wrote:
What "false" is being taught?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Oct 21, 10:30�pm, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > �JacobSmith wrote:
> > > Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > invented evolution to make it work? �Many scientists go to church
> > every Sunday, you know.
>
> > > Since pure atheism is now being
> > > taught in the schools under cover
>
> > Balderdash and nonsense. �Try to do some thinking.
>
> > Doug Chandler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�--------------
> REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
Since it's been pointed out several times that the ToE is not a
religion and why, you either ignored the posts, are being dishonest,
willfully ignorant, or are too stupid to comprehend.
<snip mindless distortions>
Boikat
John Harshman
> Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> I know what religion is. I'm analyzing it as a social phenomenon, and I
> find that Darwinism in many respects mirrors the sociological pattern of a
> religion.
You don't know what religion is, and you demonstrate this regularly.
Your response to Inez is no more detailed an analysis than saying "Is
too! Is not! Is too! Is not!".
>> This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
>> science religion.
>
> Darwinism is definitely not science.
See? Nothing more than naked assertion. That won't pass for argument.
>>> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
>>> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>> "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
>> but it certainly isn't a religion.
>
> Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
> there is no God.
No it doesn't. First, "Darwinism" doesn't say anything. It's not a
person, it's an obsolete term that's been resuscitated by creationists.
The term you're looking for is "evolutionary biology". Evolutionary
biology doesn't say anything either, not being a person, but at least
it's the real term for the science. Now, many evolutionary biologists
say there is no god too, but they do it in their spare time, not as part
of their evolutionary biologist jobs. Atheism is not a component of
evolutionary theory.
> It does this by denying one of the principal claims of
> traditional religions, the claim that God created the species in their
> present forms.
So do a great many theists. Do most educated Christians also say they
see evidence that there is no god, because they accept that evolution
happens? You just aren't making sense here. Saying "god didn't do x" is
not the same as "god doesn't exist". And even if it were, an argument
against religion is not itself a religion.
> Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
> claim that the species arose through purely impersonal mechanistic means by
> an evolutionary process from a single primitive organism.
You are conflating two hypotheses here. But even species arising by
purely natural processes doesn't make a claim that there is no god, nor
would that qualify as religion even if it did. The bible also says the
world is flat. Does round-earthism therefore qualify as atheism and
simultaneously as a religion?
> "I see no evidence of Darwinian evolution of the origin of all species from
> a single primitive organism" is a religious claim only because Darwinism is
> itself making a religious claim. Otherwise, it's just an observation.
That's not a religious claim either. It's just stupidity. I will agree
that some stupid claims are religious, but stupidity is not of itself
evidence of religion.
> If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
> "theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
>
> Darwinism started the fight.
Why are you equating "certain Darwinists" with "Darwinism". Do you also
blame Islam for terrorist attacks? And why does an attack on religion
automatically qualify as a religion itself? That just makes no sense. Or
does my attack on you mean that I must now share your beliefs?
Inez
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:c368209f-e62e-4e6c...@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 6:29锟絧m, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> <carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>
> >>news:i9tbif$239$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> >> > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >> >> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
>
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim
> >> >> > that heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements
> >> >> > with the earth at 锟絠ts centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue
> >> >> > Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" is a holy book?
>
> >> >> I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply,
> >> >> deserve insulting.
>
> >> >> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious
> >> >> implications, that it makes assertions about God?
>
> >> > religious
> >> > implications? 锟絀t is, after all, an assertian that lightning is not
> >> > Zeus's thunderbolts, except perhaps metaphorically.
>
> >> Does that statement deny that Zeus's thunderbolts are electrical
> >> discharges?
>
> >> > statement have religious implications? 锟絀t is, after all, an
> >> > assertion that God has not chosen to put Davis on the top of a
> >> > mountain.
>
> >> No it's not. The statement does not refer to God. You added a
> >> gratuitous claim to it. But Darwin and his modern followers
> >> explicitly deny that the species were created in their present forms,
> >> or that they were created at all, thus it immediately follows that
> >> God did create them thus.
>
> > religion that claims that Davis is on top of a mountain, but the
> > presence or absence of such a religion doesn't make the claim any more
> > "religion" incorrectly.
>
> >> > Can you give an example of anything that *doesn't* have religious
> >> > implications in the sense you're using the phrase?
>
> >> Yes, the second example you gave has no religious implications.
>
> >> It's no use trying to pretend that the sense in which Darwinism is a
> >> religion is trivial. It's not. The residents of Davis are not trying
> >> to prevent Irvine from being taught in science classrooms in the name
> >> of "Davisism". Neither are Steelers fans trying to prevent the Denver
> >> Broncos from being taught in science classrooms in the name of
> >> "steelerism".
>
> > Your problem is that you don't seem to know what a religion is.
> > Making a claim about how the world operates based on real world
> > observation is not a religion, not even if the reality it describes
> > conflicts with some religions looney-tunes ideas.
>
> I know what religion is.
Why don't you prove that then by using the term correctly?
>I'm analyzing it as a social phenomenon, and I
> find that Darwinism in many respects mirrors the sociological pattern of a
> religion.
There are a large number of problems packed into this poor little
statement. One is that you are not analyzing a social phenomenon, you
are making up a social phenomenon based on your paranoid fantasies.
Another is that you are conflating minor similarities with defining
markers. Religions have temples and churches, scientists have labs.
See! Exactly the same!
>
> > This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
> > science religion.
>
> Darwinism is definitely not science.
What then is science and how is "Darwinism," whatever you mean by
that, not it?
> >> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
> >> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>
> > "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
> > but it certainly isn't a religion.
>
> Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
> there is no God. It does this by denying one of the principal claims of
> traditional religions, the claim that God created the species in their
> present forms.
"Darwinism" might well be something that you made up that says this
but evolutionary biology does not say this. How can you prove a sneaky
God did or didn't do anything? You can't. God isn't necessary to
explain the changing of life over time, and the ToE doesn't postulate
one. This is not the same as making the definite statement that there
isn't one.
>Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
> claim that the species arose through purely impersonal mechanistic means by
> an evolutionary process from a single primitive organism.
>
> "I see no evidence of Darwinian evolution of the origin of all species from
> a single primitive organism" is a religious claim only because Darwinism is
> itself making a religious claim. Otherwise, it's just an observation.
Your definition of religion is not one used by anyone else for reasons
we've already been over and you're afraid to address.
> If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
> "theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
>
You have this exactly backwards. Evolutionary biology simply explains
what it sees; it is creationists who have decided reality is a threat
to their theories. Many religious people just adapt to say that God
works behind the scenes, and so to them there is no conflict.
> Darwinism started the fight.-
Boikat
<snip>
>
> If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
> "theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
Bullshit. The loudest screamers were, and still are, the anti-
evolution *religious* fanatics. They are the ones who see the ToE as
the threat to their belief system, and in many cases, their power over
others, not the other way around (since the ToE is not a "belief
system", and does not grant one "power over others".) And when you
get down to it, it's that threat to "power over others" is where the
heart-burn lies with the religious fanatics.
>
> Darwinism started the fight.
Nope. Religious fanatics started it because they did not like the
implications.
Boikat
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> Your insults are irrelevant. Darwinism, because it makes statements
> about God (for example, that God did not create the species in the same
> forms as they exist today), and because it has in common with other
> religions the items already listed, is indeed a religion.
Except Darwinism does not make statements about God, not even the one you
claim. Except making statements about God does not make something a
religion. Excpet none of the things that *do* make something a religion
(regular rituals, sacred places and things, concern with ultimate
meanings) exist in Darwinism in any coherent way. Except nobody -- and I
mean absolutely nobody -- considers it a religion except its enemies.
Religion, to you, is a dirty word that you use to disparage people with.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> [huge snips]
>
> I know what religion is.
Sorry, no. You don't have a clue what religion is.
chris thompson
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4bednUKMdq5...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >>news:868cd371-d762-4aff...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Oct 22, 9:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> "Eric Root" <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:0cd4d3c6-92f3-40af...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>> Supreme Court error noted.
> >>>>>> Obviously, a definition is needed.
> >>>>>> taught in the schools under cover
> >>>>>> our Creator, the One who directed
> >>>>>> the writing of the U. S. constitution.
> >>>>>> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> >>>>>> -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
> >>>>>> Respectfully yours,
> >>>>>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> >>>>>> Who's Who in America,
> >>>>>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> >>>>>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> >>>>>> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education
> >>>>>> Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
> >>>>> Sorry, it's science. Religion has holy books,
>
> >>>>> holy places,
> >>>> Darwin's home.
>
> >>>>> sacraments,
> >>>> Awarding of degrees in Evolutionary Biology.
>
> >>>>> rituals,
> >>>> Creationist bashing.
>
> >>>>> priests,
> >>>> Dawkins et al.
>
> >>>>> meetings for the purpose of worship,
> >>>> Darwin Day, The Darwin Centennial Celebration
>
> >>>>> heck, and worship, for that matter.
> >>>> Steven J. Gould surrounded by his sychophants (called "students").-
> >>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> It's difficult to tell when creationists are joking.
>
> >> It's significant that no one has pointed out any flaws in the analogy of
> >> Darwinism to religion..
> > Still hard to tell if you're joking. OK, the main flaw is that none of
> > your comparisons are valid. Origin of Species isn't a holy book. Nobody
> > worships it or considers its words infallible.
>
> infallible (any liberal protestant denomination, or some members of the
> Jesus Seminar, for example). Yet they certainly accept the Bible as a "holy
> book" and acknowledge that it has some authority.
Of course. But this is where you fail. No one, least of all
biologists, consider _Origin of Species_ holy, let alone inerrant. And
while you are not supposed to question religious tenets, biologists
question the findings of evolutionary biology all the time. Not only
are they questioned, they are repeatedly put to the test of real-world
observation. Is that also true of religion? I don't think so.
>
> >In fact any biologist would agree that there is much Darwin wrote that is
> >wrong.
>
> As I pointed out, there are many Christians (liberal protestants, and even
> liberal Catholics) who agree that there is much in the Bible that is wrong,
> yet they accept it as a "holy book".
And you have yet to point to a single person, biologist or not, who
holds the _Origin of Species_ a "holy book." Because there is no one.
You could burn a copy of the _Origin_ in front of me, and I would not
feel any more or less revulsion than if you burned a copy of the Bible
or Finnegans Wake.
>
> Your other
>
> > comparisons are equally lame. I could as easily compare cheese to a
> > religion; there are books about cheese, and places where cheese is made,
> > and so on.
>
> I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
> not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?
You've shown that there are a few elements in common, none
significant. By your reasoning, a donut is a cake is a loaf of bread
is a pan of gravy, since they all contain flour.
Chris
chris thompson
Of course it isn't- not as you construct the straw man you call
Darwinism. But if you are calling evolutionary biology "not science"
you're going to have to justify it. Let's take one example:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040321
It's open-access, so you won't have any trouble reading it.
Please critique the article and tell me why it isn't science.
>
> >> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
> >> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>
> > "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
> > but it certainly isn't a religion.
>
> Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
> there is no God. It does this by denying one of the principal claims of
> traditional religions, the claim that God created the species in their
> present forms. Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
The (former) leader if one of those traditional religions- Roman
Catholicism- came out in favor of evolution, and that position has
been supported by the current leader. Not all Catholics share that
view, but that's the official position of a traditional religion.
Chris
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"JacobSmith" <tins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea087cd0-98fb-45d2...@p37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> REPLY: Hi, Sneaky Tom.
>
> No, the composition of the first reply
> was presented incorrectly and thus
> redone for clarity and readability.
>
> The issue at hand is not me, but
> a critical error made on the part
> of the United States Supreme Court.
>
> In Torcaso v. Watkins, . . . [the first
> amendment precluded government
> from aiding "those religions based
> on a belief in the existence of God
> as against those religions founded
> on different beliefs." The Court noted
> that "[a]mong religions in this country
> which do not teach what would generally
> be considered a belief in the existence
> of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical
> Culture, Secular Humanism and others."]
>
> government and the courts have been
> reluctant to examine the content of religious
> belief. . . . Neither this court, nor any branch
> of this government, will consider the merits
> compare the beliefs, dogmas and practices
> of a newly organized religion with those of
> an older, more established religion. Nor will
> the court praise or condemn a religion,
> however excellent or fanatical or
> preposterous it may seem. Were the court
> to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantee
> of the First Amendment.]
>
> writing for the majority, embraced a much
> broader definition of religion: . . .Freedom of
> religious belief, is basic in a society of free men.
> It embraces the right to maintain theories of life
> and of death and the hereafter which are rank
> heresy to followers of orthodox faiths . . . .];
> of which pedigrees include the High Priests
> of the Academic Darwin Family Genealogy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin-Wedgwood_family
>
> coreligionists creates the atheistic orthodox faith:
> Darwinian science, that contravenes the dictum
> that [Men may believe what they cannot prove.
> They may not be put to the proof of their religious
> of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
Just more delusional crap.
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
TomS
<pan.2010.10.23....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:51:17 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Your insults are irrelevant. Darwinism, because it makes statements
>> about God (for example, that God did not create the species in the same
>> forms as they exist today), and because it has in common with other
>> religions the items already listed, is indeed a religion.
>
>Except Darwinism does not make statements about God, not even the one you
>claim. Except making statements about God does not make something a
>religion. Excpet none of the things that *do* make something a religion
>(regular rituals, sacred places and things, concern with ultimate
>meanings) exist in Darwinism in any coherent way. Except nobody -- and I
>mean absolutely nobody -- considers it a religion except its enemies.
>
>Religion, to you, is a dirty word that you use to disparage people with.
>
If someone makes the claim that God did not create centaurs, or that
God did not make a flat earth, or that God did not make all earthly
material things out of earth, air, fire, and water and nothing else
- does that make natural history, geography, and chemistry religions?
No.
Natural history says that there are no centaurs. A theist may therefore
be led to say that God did not create centaurs. That does not make
natural history a religion.
Similarly for geography and chemistry.
Evolutionary biology says that species have not always been as they are
today. A theist may be led to say that God did not create species from
the beginning, fixed in their present forms. That does not mean that
evolutionary biology says anything about God.
Did God make 1+1 equal to 17?
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
chris thompson
snip
>
> If you like, I can broaden my statement to something like "Secular Humanism
> is a religion (many of them have explicitly claimed this), and one of its
> principal tenets is Darwinism".
It's so CUTE when someone calls a philosophy whose name contains the
word "secular" a religion. You kids say the darndest things!
Chris
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
Oh ... then it's just the fact that you cannot, nor have ever, provided a
rational, reasonable, and reality based example to defend your claim - that
has everyone confused.
If you bellow that "Darwinism" is akin to a religion - you obiously DON'T
know what religions is.
BTW - Being a fan of baseball, in some ways, mirrors religons.
Belonging to the most insane cult mirrors religons.
>
>> This may not be a trivial problem for religion but that doesn't make
>> science religion.
>
> Darwinism is definitely not science.
According to whom? Why? What FACTS support that assertion?
and - "Darwinism" doesn't exist in the minds of scientists - it is only an
intentional moronic attempt to warp the whole concept of the science called
evolution.
>
>>> The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or
>>> implicit claims about God is a religious worldview.-
>>
>> "I see no evidence of God" may or may not be a religious worldview,
>> but it certainly isn't a religion.
>
> Darwinism says a lot more than that. It says that it sees evidence that
> there is no God. It does this by denying one of the principal claims of
> traditional religions, the claim that God created the species in their
> present forms. Darwinism attempts to justify this denial by making its own
> claim that the species arose through purely impersonal mechanistic means
> by
> an evolutionary process from a single primitive organism.
Cites? References? Facts? Evidence?
Or just more of your ignorant, meaningless, bull shit.
>
> "I see no evidence of Darwinian evolution of the origin of all species
> from
> a single primitive organism" is a religious claim only because Darwinism
> is
> itself making a religious claim. Otherwise, it's just an observation.
>
> If certain Darwinists had not been so dogmatically zealous to use their
> "theory" to get on religion's case, there would have been no hostility.
>
> Darwinism started the fight.
?????????????????????????
There is no fight.
Evolution is a part of reality; sick believers think they can ignore,
distort, and lie about the whole scenario and replace reality with their
fanatical religious beliefs.
The "fight" started when mankind invented religion, and then pretended it
meant something.
JohnN
>
> > Sorry, it's science. �Religion has holy books,
>
> Origin of Species.
The Origins of Species is just a science book. It is read with
interest by historians of science and those who appreciate a
nineteenth century naturalism. Modern evolutionary biology does not
use it as a textbook. Science advances, it tests, it reasons and when
it finds errors it corrects. When was the last time you read of any
religious dogma being corrected?
JohnN
Burkhard
Well, it is how some secular humanists describe themselves - see e.g.
Statement 8 from the First Humanist Manifesto: Religious Humanism
considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end
of man's life and seeks its development and fulfilment in the here and
now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion." In the
40s and 50, "secular religion", "naturalistic religion" etc were
frequently used e.g in the Humanist journal, to which Sir Julian
Huxley contributed an article: �The Coming New Religion of Humanism.�
Apart from self-characterisaiton,something might not be a religion
from the point of philosophy or comparative religious studies,
but usefully classified as a religion from the point of view of
sociology or anthropology. For the latter two, secular religion is not
a contradiction in terms. Raymond Aron (an atheist himself) used it
widely, e,g, in The Opium of the Intellectuals. (1957), as does S
Alomes (for football) . Other examples from the academic literature
are M. Zeldin, "The Religious Nature of Russian Marxism," Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 8(1969):100-11;
My own take is for instance that nationalism and the cult of the
nation state took over much of the territory vacated by religion
after the 30years war, and many of its features are best understood as
forms of religious activities - it is for instance difficult to
explain in purely physical or biological terms why a coloured piece of
cloth would cause many Americans to move their right hand to their
left nipple. But it makes lots of sense when described in the
vocabulary of religious studies.
As far as constitutional law, the them of this thread is concerned the
answer is equally affirmative. Leading cases are Fellowship of
Humanity v. County of Alameda; and Washington Ethical Society v.
District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371
JohnN
> In article
> <e86b0891-488e-4308-927f-1abbda824...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> �Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > Jim thinks the Steelers are a great football team. �Then, by your
> > 'logic', you could assert he practices the 'religion' of Steelerism
> > ('thou shalt have no other quarterbacks before Roethlisberger' ...)
>
> But *that* one *is* a religion.
It is a religion, but a false one. Alas, my home team is the Panthers,
0-5 this season, so gods help them.
JohnN
Frank J
> Supreme Court error noted.
>
> Obviously, a definition is needed.
(snip)
So what you want taught to prevent what you fear is promotion of some
"atheistic religion"?:
1. Evolution plus misrepresentations "designed" to promote
unreasonable doubt, as the DI demands?
2. Neither evolution nor creationism nor ID, as Kansas demanded in
1999?
3. Evolution plus some form of creationism, and if so YEC, OEC ID or
other?
4. Only creationism, and if so YEC, OEC, ID or other?
If you're serious about your original post you should have no problem
choosing one.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>
><carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>news:i9tbif$239$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:vNrvIrxK...@meden.invalid...
>>
>> [...]
>>> > Your argument is an insult to our intelligence. Would you claim that
>>> > heliocentrism is a religion, because it makes statements about God
>>> > (for example that God did not create the universe with the earth at
>>> > its centre), and Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
>>> > Systems" is a holy book?
>>
>>> I think if you look at some of the responses to my original reply,
>>> you'll see that some of the intelligences on this thread richly deserve
>>> insulting.
>>
>>> But that aside, can you deny that Darwinism has religious implications,
>>> that it makes assertions about God?
>>
>> "Lightning is an electrical discharge." Does this statement have
>> religious
>> implications? It is, after all, an assertian that lightning is not Zeus's
>> thunderbolts, except perhaps metaphorically.
>
>Does that statement deny that Zeus's thunderbolts are electrical discharges?
No, but the accompanying evidence and data do, since they
ascribe lightning to wholly natural sources.
>> "The town of Davis is 52 feet above sea level." Does this statement have
>> religious implications? It is, after all, an assertion that God has not
>> chosen to put Davis on the top of a mountain.
>
>No it's not. The statement does not refer to God. You added a gratuitous
>claim to it. But Darwin and his modern followers explicitly deny that the
>species were created in their present forms, or that they were created at
>all, thus it immediately follows that God did create them thus.
Oh, the irony...
A statement which doesn't mention God isn't religious, but
another statement which doesn't mention God is. The ToE
doesn't say that God didn't create life and doesn't act to
modify it. It merely shows, through evidence, how life is
self-modifying.
>> Can you give an example of anything that *doesn't* have religious
>> implications in the sense you're using the phrase?
>
>Yes, the second example you gave has no religious implications.
Then neither does the ToE, other than by omission. Do you
actually not see this?
>It's no use trying to pretend that the sense in which Darwinism is a
>religion is trivial. It's not. The residents of Davis are not trying to
>prevent Irvine from being taught in science classrooms in the name of
>"Davisism". Neither are Steelers fans trying to prevent the Denver Broncos
>from being taught in science classrooms in the name of "steelerism".
>
>The issue is over worldviews. A worldview which makes explicit or implicit
>claims about God is a religious worldview.
A statement which makes claims about nature, such as the
ToE, is not religious, even if it doesn't take religious
claims into account, except in the minds of those who see
*everything* through a filter of religion. Not looking
through such a filter isn't a religion.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>On 10/22/10 2:28 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> Your flaws are legion and manifest to all who can think.
>You're out of your league. Why not let the adults have their discussions?
You're so cute when you're intentionally ironic...
>Thanks.
You're welcome.
Boikat
> On Oct 23, 3:11�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Oct, 04:27, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On 10/22/2010 8:47 PM, JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > > > > REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > > > > Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> > > > > is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> > > > > that you must remember that different persons
> > > > > have different definitions of what they mean
> > > > > by God."
>
> > > > > Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> > > > > there ever has been any revelation."
>
> > > > > Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> > > > > with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> > > > > scientific research makes a man cautious
> > > > > in admitting evidence."
>
> > > > > Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> > > > > conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> > > > > [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> > > > > but man can do his duty."
>
> > > > > upon his own holy intellect.
>
> > > > > Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> > > > > the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> > > > > associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> > > > > Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> > > > > of one's own self identification.
>
> > > > > Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> > > > > and natural selection.
>
> > > > > Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> > > > > future forms of material combination will exist,
> > > > > depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> > > > > "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> > > > > or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> > > > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > > > Who's Who in America,
> > > > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> > > also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> > > conflicting vague probabilities,
>
> > As all scientific theories are.
>
> > >justice can only be
> > > done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> > > pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
>
> > no such thing
>
> > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> REPLY:
> Your error is in "the label of religion if they want it."
> and " the group itself describes its believes as religious. "
>
> "religion", by dictionary.com is noted to be a noun,
> 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
> and purpose of the universe, . . .
You left off this bit:
esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or
agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Rule #1 when posting to Talk.Origins: Never assume the reader will
take you at your word, especially if you're a creationist since
creationists are habitually dishonest.
Your trunication of the definition, willfully omitting the bits about
creation via a supernatural agency or agencies, devotionals and moral
codes, is pure dishonesty.
Why do you feel you have to resort to dishonesty to attempt to make
your point (which has already been beaten down to a greasy spont on
the ground)?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Oct 23, 3:11�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > On 10/22/2010 8:47 PM, JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > > > > REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > > > > Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> > > > > is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> > > > > that you must remember that different persons
> > > > > have different definitions of what they mean
> > > > > by God."
>
> > > > > Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> > > > > there ever has been any revelation."
>
> > > > > Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> > > > > with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> > > > > scientific research makes a man cautious
> > > > > in admitting evidence."
>
> > > > > Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> > > > > conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> > > > > [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> > > > > but man can do his duty."
>
> > > > > upon his own holy intellect.
>
> > > > > Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> > > > > the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> > > > > associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> > > > > Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> > > > > of one's own self identification.
>
> > > > > Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> > > > > and natural selection.
>
> > > > > Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> > > > > future forms of material combination will exist,
> > > > > depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> > > > > "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> > > > > or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> > > > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > > > Who's Who in America,
> > > > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> > > also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> > > conflicting vague probabilities,
>
> > As all scientific theories are.
>
> > >justice can only be
> > > done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> > > pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
>
> > no such thing
>
> > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> REPLY:
> Your error is in "the label of religion if they want it."
> and " the group itself describes its believes as religious. "
>
> "religion", by dictionary.com is noted to be a noun,
> 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
> and purpose of the universe, . . .
The rest of the definition:
"esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or
agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
<Snip>
>
> Respectfully yours,
You are not being "respectful" when you are being dishonest.
Boikat
Burkhard
> On Oct 23, 3:11�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Oct, 04:27, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On 10/22/2010 8:47 PM, JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > > > > REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > > > > Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> > > > > is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> > > > > that you must remember that different persons
> > > > > have different definitions of what they mean
> > > > > by God."
>
> > > > > Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> > > > > there ever has been any revelation."
>
> > > > > Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> > > > > with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> > > > > scientific research makes a man cautious
> > > > > in admitting evidence."
>
> > > > > Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> > > > > conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> > > > > [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> > > > > but man can do his duty."
>
> > > > > upon his own holy intellect.
>
> > > > > Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> > > > > the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> > > > > associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> > > > > Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> > > > > of one's own self identification.
>
> > > > > Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> > > > > and natural selection.
>
> > > > > Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> > > > > future forms of material combination will exist,
> > > > > depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> > > > > "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> > > > > or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> > > > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > > > Who's Who in America,
> > > > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> > > also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> > > conflicting vague probabilities,
>
> > As all scientific theories are.
>
> > >justice can only be
> > > done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> > > pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
>
> > no such thing
>
> > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> REPLY:
> Your error is in "the label of religion if they want it."
> and " the group itself describes its believes as religious. "
It is the description of the reasoning of the court in the cases you
cited.
>
> "religion", by dictionary.com is noted to be a noun,
> 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
> and purpose of the universe, . . .
Pretty much irrelevant.
>
> It is a fact that Evolution = The atheistic religion.
No, that is your claim, unsupported by any argument or reason
> Also included is the "big bang" theory, as:
> �noun Astronomy .
> "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth
> of the universe (big bang) �from the observed
> expansion of the universe, cosmic background
> radiation, abundance of the elements, and the
> laws of physics."
Nothing about purpose here, nor about it's "nature", the way this is
understood in metaphysics.
Cause yes, but not ultimate cause, which is again a metaphysical, not
a physical position
> [Without any evidence associated with the
> earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
> theory cannot and does not provide any explanation
> for such an initial condition; rather, it describes
> and explains the general evolution of the universe
> since that instant.]
Indeed, hence it is not a religion. it restricts itself to what we
have data about.
Of course, future research may push this further and further back
> Darwinian science, brought forward to modern
> times, is embodied by Stephen Hawking,
> [originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but,
> after considering G�del's Theorem, concluded that
> one was not obtainable. . . .Some people will be very
> disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can
> be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to
> belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.]
<snip more meaningless flow of conscious rambling that has nothing to
do with the SCOTUS decision or its alleged mistake>
Nashton
>> I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
>> not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?
>
> No you have not - you have shown yourself to be a liar and an idiot.
>
I'm sure Kalkidas will need a couple of weeks to recover from your
fantastic comeback, wit and charm.
Please keep the insults coming as it adds to the perception that
atheists are as fanatically religious as the Taliban.
Nashton
[snip]
In fact, I am very satisfied with this analogy and even though I don't
expect the atheist fanatics to agree with him or anybody that dares to
compare Darwinism to a religion, I'm pretty certain that deep down they
agree with him also. But you see, they have to save face and fit with
the crowd so they repeat the same mantra of insults and turn into cyber
bullies at the drop of a coin.
Even Harshman et al., the wannabe M. Python, seems to indulge himself in
a mild form of cyber bullying from time to time.
No other branch of science needs a forum chalk full of advocates
defending something as fluid and tentative as evolutionary biology.
How insecure can you get?
Frank J
> On Oct 23, 3:11�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Oct, 04:27, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On 10/22/2010 8:47 PM, JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > > > > REPLY: Evolution = The atheistic religion.
>
> > > > > Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution
> > > > > is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but
> > > > > that you must remember that different persons
> > > > > have different definitions of what they mean
> > > > > by God."
>
> > > > > Darwin says "For myself, I do not believe that
> > > > > there ever has been any revelation."
>
> > > > > Darwin suggests "Science has nothing to do
> > > > > with Christ, except in so far as the habit of
> > > > > scientific research makes a man cautious
> > > > > in admitting evidence."
>
> > > > > Furthermore, Darwin notes that "The safest
> > > > > conclusion seems to me that the whole subject
> > > > > [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
> > > > > but man can do his duty."
>
> > > > > upon his own holy intellect.
>
> > > > > Evolution is the atheistic religion, as it defines
> > > > > the unknowable "God", who provides no evidence
> > > > > associated with any instance of an initial condition.
>
> > > > > Evolution makes every person an image prophet
> > > > > of one's own self identification.
>
> > > > > Evolution's cathedral is the world of nature, DNA
> > > > > and natural selection.
>
> > > > > Evolution's Priesthood of Order, out of which all
> > > > > future forms of material combination will exist,
> > > > > depends on future conflicting vague probabilities,
> > > > > "innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven,
> > > > > or as the sand upon the seashore"
>
> > > > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > > > Who's Who in America,
> > > > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > of the Universe, going back to big bang beliefs, are
> > > also not proven facts, only partial constructs of past
> > > conflicting vague probabilities,
>
> > As all scientific theories are.
>
> > >justice can only be
> > > done, when there is a single standard for teaching
> > > pure "science" along with basic principles of "truth".
>
> > no such thing
>
> > > Respectfully yours,
>
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> > > Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directoryhttp://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------
> REPLY:
> Your error is in "the label of religion if they want it."
> and " the group itself describes its believes as religious. "
>
> 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
> and purpose of the universe, . . .
>
Until you answer my other question I will consider this "feeding,"
but:
What do think of those evolution-deniers who think that the Big Bang
is anything but an "atheistic theory" and in fact "evidence" God?
Don't you find it embarrassing that, among many other things,
evolution-deniers can't agree (1) whether to accept the BB and pretend
it's their "theory" or deny it as "atheistic," and (2) on the age of
the Universe within a factor of ~2 million? Don't you also find it
embarrassing that they prefer to cover up those differences rather
than have healthy debates among themselves as "Darwinists" do?
While we're at it, how old do you think the Universe is?
Boikat
> On 10/22/10 3:38 PM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> I have shown that the comparison of Origin of Species to a "holy book" is
> >> not at all "lame" but substantial. Care to try another tactic?
>
> > No you have not - you have shown yourself to be a liar and an idiot.
>
> I'm sure Kalkidas will need a couple of weeks to recover from your
> fantastic comeback, wit and charm.
Since he's used to being called on his parroted lies and idiocy, it
shouldn't take that long.
>
> Please keep the insults coming as it adds to the perception that
> atheists are as fanatically religious as the Taliban.
Projection.
Boikat
Boikat
That's because you're delusional.
> But you see, they have to save face and fit with
> the crowd so they repeat the same mantra of insults and turn into cyber
> bullies at the drop of a coin.
> Even Harshman et al., the wannabe M. Python, seems to indulge himself in
> a mild form of cyber bullying from time to time.
Pointing out the errors, lies, and distortions made by creationists is
not "cyber bullying". If you think it is, you need to grow up.
>
> No other branch of science needs a forum chalk full of advocates
> defending something as fluid and tentative as evolutionary biology.
But then again, every branch of science has been challenged in this
group by creationist lack-witts.
> How insecure can you get?
Again, you display your vast range of ignorance: T.O's main purpose
is to collect the creationist garbage from the other science news
groups. They think you're a bunch of idiots and morons too.
Boikat
John Harshman
> In fact, I am very satisfied with this analogy and even though I don't
> expect the atheist fanatics to agree with him or anybody that dares to
> compare Darwinism to a religion, I'm pretty certain that deep down they
> agree with him also.
Interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? Revelation?
And you're satisfid with that analogy? How about cheese as a religion,
then? Is that a good analogy too? But let's engage the argument. What
makes a holy book, and how does the Origin display those features?
> But you see, they have to save face and fit with
> the crowd so they repeat the same mantra of insults and turn into cyber
> bullies at the drop of a coin.
> Even Harshman et al., the wannabe M. Python, seems to indulge himself in
> a mild form of cyber bullying from time to time.
Lots of bullying in Monty Python, actually.
> No other branch of science needs a forum chalk full of advocates
> defending something as fluid and tentative as evolutionary biology.
> How insecure can you get?
It's true that biologists feel insecure and need forums chock full of
advocates to defend their discipline. That's because no other branch of
science has so many religious fanatics attacking it. There's no need to
defend chemistry. There probably would be a need to defend heliocentrism
if fundamentalists were even more prominent than they are. What's your
position on heliocentrism, by the way?