I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Darwinists' double standard on Jefferson


The Prayer at Valley Forge by Arnold Friberg

* Sung to the tune of Old-Time Religion

=====================================


An article in Evolution News & Views says,

When Stephen C. Meyer wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Thomas Jefferson as a proto-ID supporter, outraged science journalist Callaway at the New Scientist [use this link -- the link in EN&V is wrong] couldn’t even mount an argument. He calls linking Jefferson and ID a “ridiculous assertion.” But he doesn’t tell us why it’s ridiculous.

The Darwinists have a hypocritical double standard -- they are allowed to invoke Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders but the critics of Darwinism are not. In his commencement speech at Dickinson College, Judge John E. Jones III had Jefferson in particular in mind (in fact, he praised Jefferson in his speech) when he said that his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions -- he said,

. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion."

Labels:

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion." <

In what way? Just stating this does not make it a fact, especially when there is no obvious connection.

Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8150000/8150333.stm

Sunday, July 19, 2009 5:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion." <

In what way? Just stating this does not make it a fact, especially when there is no obvious connection. <<<<<<<

Read the Boston Globe article.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Gizmo said...

[quote]Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion."[/quote]

No it's not. Theistic evolution arguably might have been part of Jefferson's "true religion." Theistic evolution is not the same thing as ID, and Jefferson abhorred the types of arguments that proponents of ID make.

Jefferson believed that the only way to distinguish between true religion and false religion was through free, rational enquiry. According to Jefferson, whether or not a religion was organized had no bearing on whether it was true or false.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Gizmo said,
>>>>> Theistic evolution arguably might have been part of Jefferson's "true religion." <<<<<<

What did Jefferson know about evolution?

>>>>> and Jefferson abhorred the types of arguments that proponents of ID make. <<<<<<

He did? That is not what Meyer's Boston Globe article indicates.

Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> What did Jefferson know about evolution? <

Well take one side or the other on this. You are trying to take both.

Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:01:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> What did Jefferson know about evolution? <

Well take one side or the other on this. You are trying to take both. <<<<<<<

Well, it's true that the way I defined ID as the study of the probability that evolution theory alone could account for the complexity and diversity of living things, someone would have to know something about evolution to be an ID supporter. But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck.

Actually, Jefferson could be considered to be an ID supporter just because he saw design in nature.

Friday, July 24, 2009 2:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Garstang said...

> But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck. <

How do you know what "Anonymous" accepts? Is "Anonymous" one of your sock puppets?

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck. <

How do you know what "Anonymous" accepts? Is "Anonymous" one of your sock puppets? <<<<<<<

I have never known an "Anonymous" here who thinks otherwise. Well, Anonymous, am I mistaken about you?

Friday, July 24, 2009 8:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home