"Darwinism," rock & roll and homosexuality
Frank J
music." Then that good creationist Pat Boone dared to sing a Little
Richard song. Even though the lyrics and instrumentation were watered
down, it was the first step down the slippery slope. Maybe the recent
Adam Lambert debacle might cause good Christians to see how far it has
degraded and reconsider. Maybe "Christian Rock" is just a passing fad
and we'll get back to good old hymns.
Rock's assosiation with homosexuality started long before those long-
haired, eye-linered trans-somethings. I was listening to an oldie from
not long after Boone's era - even long before "Lola" - and a
distinctly male voice said: "Come a little bit closer, you're my kind
of man, so big and so strong..."!
Now some of you will cry "foul" and accuse me of quote mining:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Technically, the singer was quoting the woman he was trying to pick
up, and those words are what *she* was saying to *him,* and what she
repeated to bad man Jose when he showed up, and the frightened singer
dropped his drink and ran through the window.
But the main point is that if "Darwinism" is indeed evil, shouldn't
one do whatever is necessary to destroy it? Even quote mining? And if
one quote mines, shouldn't one just *admit* it instead of trying to
hide it and leave it to a critic to catch it?
Anyone?
Behe?:
Inez
If you're doing whatever is necessary to destroy evil then it stands
to reason you wouldn't admit your quote mine if that made your
argument less effective, unless you're bothered by that pesky
commandment about bearing false witness.
Really though, the dedicated crusader ought to take up arms against
those sins that no one much thinks about anymore. Eating shellfish
and wearing mixed fibers, for example. Those crimes are going
entirely unnoticed these days, whereas the bible doesn't actually say
that believing in evolution is wrong.
Frank J
Exactly.
>
> Really though, the dedicated crusader ought to take up arms against
> those sins that no one much thinks about anymore. Eating shellfish
> and wearing mixed fibers, for example. Those crimes are going
> entirely unnoticed these days, whereas the bible doesn't actually say
> that believing in evolution is wrong.
Yeah but it does discuss rock & roll. Or was it rap? ;-)
Steven L.
Not by orthodox Jews.
You can't order shellfish in a restaurant in an orthodox Jewish
neighborhood.
Been there, done that.
These Jews take the Old Testament seriously. To them, it's not a
backstory for Jesus.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
Well, yours is certainly what they call an "oblique argument." I had to
get through 4/5 of it before you finally got to the pivot.
But to answer your main point:
Creationists want to be considered as *scientific* critics of evolution.
(Behe certainly thinks of himself as a scientist. So did our very own
Seanpit.)
But they constantly *act* like politicians, using all the tools of dirty
politics to make their case. They lobby local school boards. They use
innuendo and smears against evolutionists. They use slippery slope
arguments and scare tactics (that whole "evolutionism leads to eugenics"
thing). And yes, they use quote mining too.
In the Dover case, the judge ruled that creationism was religion. In
fact, it's also politics. It's the Religious Right political movement.
Frank J
But only to nonscientists who don't have the time or interest to see
what they are really doing. They know that scientists and science-
literate people with more than a passing interest in the "debate" are
wise to their antics. And if "Expelled" is any indication, they are
not even trying hard anymore to convince the "masses" that they have a
new and better "scientific theory."
> (Behe certainly thinks of himself as a scientist. So did our very own
> Seanpit.)
Sean knows enough science to know that he's "running from a
'theory' (his supposed YEC)" not trying to support it. I'm not sure if
he has ever conducted any original research, but Behe does, and is
quite aware that none of it supports that elusive "theory" of what
happens beyond that mysterious "edge" of evolution.
>
> But they constantly *act* like politicians, using all the tools of dirty
> politics to make their case. They lobby local school boards. They use
> innuendo and smears against evolutionists. They use slippery slope
> arguments and scare tactics (that whole "evolutionism leads to eugenics"
> thing). And yes, they use quote mining too.
>
> In the Dover case, the judge ruled that creationism was religion. In
> fact, it's also politics. It's the Religious Right political movement.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com>:
If everyone implemented the strictures (interesting how that
sounds like "scriptures"...) in Leviticus, Dr. Ehrlich could
rest easy; the "population bomb" would have fizzled.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
I believe they tend to avoid stoning (or burning) people to
death; they leave that to the fundies, Christian and
Islamic.
Xavier Onnasis
7de6e3...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Now some of you will cry "foul" and accuse me of quote mining:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
is there a spelling error here? should the URL really be
http://www.talkorigins.org/fags/quotes/mine/project.html
--
XO