I can't believe that someone said that
A crackpot Darwinist commenter said,
The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence.
Darwinists are sick, sick, sick!
I have a suspicion that much of the neocon skepticism about evolution is nothing more then a policy of sucking up to religious conservatives because of their support for Israel.
The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence.
Darwinists are sick, sick, sick!
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/23/2009 08:23:00 PM
11 Comments:
"The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence."
Yes, and the reason is simple: There is NO weakness of the scientific evidence for evolution. But I think you knew that anyway, you fraud!
>>>>>>"The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence."
Yes, and the reason is simple: There is NO weakness of the scientific evidence for evolution. But I think you knew that anyway, you fraud! <<<<<<
You incredibly stupid fathead, I was only talking about various motives for questioning evolution, regardless of whether the motives are justifiable and/or sincere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence."
Yes, and the reason is simple: There is NO weakness of the scientific evidence for evolution. But I think you knew that anyway, you fraud! <<<<<<
You incredibly stupid fathead, I was only talking about various motives for questioning evolution, regardless of whether the motives are justifiable and/or sincere. <<<<<<
Justifiable and sincere motives? Well, a justifiable and sincere motive for questioning evolution would indeed be a lack of evidence. I suspect that using it as a way of promoting an idea with no evidence as an alternative is not justifiable to most people (although it probably is to you), however. As for sincerity... Well, I'm sure you are very sincere in your beliefs and also your intent to force them upon children who are less able to make an unbiased opinion on the subject and are susceptible to the faith = knowledge argument simply because the do not know any better.
>>>>>> Well, a justifiable and sincere motive for questioning evolution would indeed be a lack of evidence. <<<<<<
By saying that "lack of evidence" is a "justifiable motive" for questioning evolution, you appear to be conceding that it can reasonably be argued that evolution lacks evidence.
>>>>>> I suspect that using it as a way of promoting an idea with no evidence as an alternative is not justifiable to most people (although it probably is to you), however. <<<<<<<
If -- as you appear to concede in your previous sentence -- a reasonable argument can be made that evolution lacks evidence, then how is evolution necessarily better than an alternative that lacks evidence?
Also, first you say that "lack of evidence" is a "justifiable motive" for questioning evolution, then you say that I have an "intent" to "force" my beliefs "upon children who are less able to make an unbiased opinion on the subject and are susceptible to the faith = knowledge argument simply because the do not know any better." How can a "lack of evidence" argument be a "faith = knowledge" argument?
>>>>>>By saying that "lack of evidence" is a "justifiable motive" for questioning evolution, you appear to be conceding that it can reasonably be argued that evolution lacks evidence.<<<<<<
No, what I'm saying is that IF there was a lack of evidence then that would be a good reason to criticise it. What I'm not saying is that there IS a lack of evidence. That's what an if is for: stating possibilities. Acknowledging a possibility does not make it true. And seeing as I have not conceded that evolution has a lack of evidence your following questions need no answer.
Oh, my apologies. In my haste (and dare I say excitement that my opinion was deemed valuable enough to require a response) I failed to read your third question properly and therefore dismissed it as being based upon my supposed concession that the theory of evolution suffers from a lack of evidence. I shall endeavour to answer it.
True, an argument from a lack of evidence is not equivalent to faith being equal to knowledge. I'm just assuming that you would use faith in the word of God as evidence for a creationist argument, as that is the most likely alternative you would offer in contest against the theory of evolution. If I am mistaken in believing that is your intent then I apologise for judging you so harshly without reason.
>>>>>> No, what I'm saying is that IF there was a lack of evidence then that would be a good reason to criticise it. <<<<<<<
It is hard to understand what in the hell you are trying to say. Your original comment has no "IF's" and does not explicitly claim that evolution does not lack evidence.
As for your original comment's statement, "Well, I'm sure you are very sincere in your beliefs and also your intent to force them upon children who are less able to make an unbiased opinion on the subject and are susceptible to the faith = knowledge argument simply because the do not know any better," how can my beliefs be sincere if I have an intent to deceive?
I really get annoyed by Darwinists' constant quibbling. As I said, I was only talking about motives for questioning evolution. M-O-T-I-V-E-S. I did not intend to get into a big argument regarding scientific evidence for and against evolution. The fact is that Darwinists -- or at least many of them -- have been pretending that the only motives for questioning evolution are religious and none are scientific.
>>>>>> Of course that may have something to do with the fact that science lessons are supposed to be about science, and science has certain expectations when it comes to scientific theories. <<<<<<<
There are often good reasons for teaching bad science -- e.g., encouraging critical thinking, preventing and correcting misconceptions, broadening students' education, and helping to ensure that technically sophisticated pseudoscience is taught only by qualified science teachers (you Darwinists think that ID is false, so why do you want it to be taught be unqualified teachers, who are more likely to teach that it is true?).
Neocons are usually former liberals who began to question liberalism. So it's not suprising that they might also question Darwinism, which has long been a pillar of liberal doctrine.
Many scientific objections to Darwinism obviously exist. Hence it's no suprise that Darwinism has been rejected and blasted at length by many eminent scientists who have had no religious motives: such as the late Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist.
Many of those scientists who are still Darwinists are so ignorant that they are unaware of the many criticisms of Darwinism by Hoyle, by quantum physiscist Ulrich Mohrhoff, and by many biologists with no apparent religious motives. Although the great biologist Pierre Grasse also had vehemently rejected Darwinism by the 1970's, they also seem to be ignorant of such long-established views and criticisms.
Note that the word "evolution" generally isn't used to mean simply descent of all higher species from lower ones over long periods: Michael Behe and many other intelligent design proponents believe in that. It's used to refer to Darwinism, to the notion of descent due to perfectly materialistic causes: and at least primarily due to chance and natural selection. Thus quite a few ID proponents can be said to believe in "evolution" of a sort, but with intelligent causes playing a detectable role.
Many Darwinists seem to be ignorant of that point, also.
Neocon skepticism about the old notions of the Darwinists goes back at least to 1959, when the noted scholar and historian Gertrude Himmelfarb debunked Darwin's so-called "science" in her book Darwin and The Darwinian Revolution. Himmelfarb's husband was Irving Kristol, a leading neoconservative thinker. She also discussed the influence of Darwinism in spurring the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.
So anti-Darwinism among neocons probably has something to do with the well-established Darwin-to-Hitler influence; but it's unlikely that it has any real connection with the "Christian right," which didn't rise to prominence until the 1980's.
It's also true that some neocons are still clueless Darwinists; and so are some old-fashioned conservatives, for that matter.
"The Darwinists will think up every possible motive people might have for questioning evolution -- all except weakness of the scientific evidence."
Yes, and the reason is simple: There is NO weakness of the scientific evidence for evolution. But I think you knew that anyway, you fraud!
This is more like a religious statement, proclaiming evolution as the infallible word of science...lol
I can't believe that anyone is stupid enough to be unaware of any weaknesses in Darwinism, or of the immense amount of evidence that rather clearly contradicts it. These Darwinists seem to be incredibly ignorant.
Here's Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, on the new book Signature in the Cell, by Stephen Meyer:
"Meyer demonstrates what I as a chemist have long suspected: undirected chemical processes cannot produce the exquisite complexity of the living cell. Meyer also shows something else: there is compelling positive evidence for imtelligent design in the digital code stored in the cell's DNA. A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science."
Do you suppose that Judge Jones will allow Dover students to be told about what some members of the National Academy of Sciences, such as Skell, think about ID?
Forget it. Real education is Strictly Taboo, according to Jones.
Post a Comment
<< Home