Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[midcan5]

I never thought I would agree with Si Modo, hell has frozen over and cows now fly.

"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." Karl Popper

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.

2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.

3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.

Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards


As for Singer?
He is the logical extension of Darwinian thought....after all, if we are simply another animal, than whatever animals do, and whatever happens to animals, should be true for human beings.


Do you have any doubt that, if mice are 'sacrificed' for scientific study, Singer et al would agree to the same treatment for humans???


See...and I mean this in the kindest way, you are unable to comprehend the larger view. Marx, Darwin, socialism, the end to American sovereignty, and lots of other things, are all tied together.

I even believe that the dumbing-down of our system of of education is tied in with same.


And, sadly, it's working. You are the proof.

 

[Si modo]

Hey....neat!

And while I'm reviewing that, you might see if you can grasp the significance of these:


1. Alfred Wallace, co-author of Darwin's opus, in an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), wrote the following: Wallace observes in this essay, "Certain of our "physical characteristics are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" --

2. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

4. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution.


5.Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)


Alfred Wallace, David Kitts, the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Robert Carroll, Steven J. Gould.....

...did you notice that none of 'em say '"PoliticalChic" wrote this.'?


Did you want to label them as "cringeworthy"?

Or...you can simply ignore them and pretend that supports your view of science.


I like you too....but you seem to, at least in this area, choose to ignore the flaws in Darwinian evolution, that should more correctly assign it to the area of political philosophy than to science.
Trotsy understood it as such.

And, that behavior, is why I contend that the acceptance is more based on faith than empirical data.


Of course, even folks with your belief agree, I assume, agree that the theory doesn't comport with the scientific method as far as being based on reproducible experimentation.
True?

PC, yeah...you are making me cringe.

You have zero understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Nothing you posted falsifies the theory of evolution. What you did quote, were valid scientific questions - they drive the furtherance of knowledge.

Scientific theory without valid scientific questions ends inquiry...ends the pursuit of knowledge.

Questions are good. But they do nothing to disprove a scientific theory.


You should read what a scientific theory actually is, but I understand your resistance to do so.

"PC, yeah...you are making me cringe."

And...does that apply to Gould and the others quoted?

I usually assume that folks who respond to the messenger do so because they have no logical way to answer the message.

I would be sad if that were true of you.


"You should read what a scientific theory actually is,..."
Having read the thread, you know that I am fully aware of the above....but it is another kind of attack on the messenger.
Weak.

“ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”

It is blatantly obvious that you are not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, yeah...you are making me cringe.

You have zero understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Nothing you posted falsifies the theory of evolution. What you did quote, were valid scientific questions - they drive the furtherance of knowledge.

Scientific theory without valid scientific questions ends inquiry...ends the pursuit of knowledge.

Questions are good. But they do nothing to disprove a scientific theory.


You should read what a scientific theory actually is, but I understand your resistance to do so.

"PC, yeah...you are making me cringe."

And...does that apply to Gould and the others quoted?

I usually assume that folks who respond to the messenger do so because they have no logical way to answer the message.

I would be sad if that were true of you.


"You should read what a scientific theory actually is,..."
Having read the thread, you know that I am fully aware of the above....but it is another kind of attack on the messenger.
Weak.

“ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”

It is blatantly obvious that you are not.

What's obvious is that you have some fear that your beliefs are weak.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on ‘facts,’ which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusion…and searched for ‘facts’ to support same?



2. Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie.

a. “The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation." Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com

b. Positivism: a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo, “Skeptics and True Believers,” p.138.




4. Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it"
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.

a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'

5. The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

a. Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).




6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

a. Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).


Again?

“It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . .

You're easily one of the 10 dumbest posters on here.

 

[Si modo]

"PC, yeah...you are making me cringe."

And...does that apply to Gould and the others quoted?

I usually assume that folks who respond to the messenger do so because they have no logical way to answer the message.

I would be sad if that were true of you.


"You should read what a scientific theory actually is,..."
Having read the thread, you know that I am fully aware of the above....but it is another kind of attack on the messenger.
Weak.

“ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”

It is blatantly obvious that you are not.

What's obvious is that you have some fear that your beliefs are weak.

What beliefs do you assume I have?

 

[Si modo]

I never thought I would agree with Si Modo, hell has frozen over and cows now fly.

"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." Karl Popper

Or, in my less-than-eloquent saying: "The more I know, the more I know that I don't know"


Of course, no one beats Rummy (and he makes perfect sense to me)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." .... Donald Rumsfeld

 

[PratchettFan]

In response to the question posed..... yes.

I won't bother to explain why. If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.

Can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen, essentially, the very same post!

It always means one of the following:

1. The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science….but doesn’t want anyone to know that.
2. The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isn’t toeing the party line.
3. The poster couldn’t comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

So that I may address you correctly….which of the above apply?

None of the above. I can't tell you how many times I read this type of nonsense which demonstrates a clear failure to understand how science works or even what Darwin was talking about. If your world view is going to be driven by the fear that what you believe might not be absolute fact, then discussion is pointless.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.

2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.

3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.

Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards


As for Singer?
He is the logical extension of Darwinian thought....after all, if we are simply another animal, than whatever animals do, and whatever happens to animals, should be true for human beings.


Do you have any doubt that, if mice are 'sacrificed' for scientific study, Singer et al would agree to the same treatment for humans???


See...and I mean this in the kindest way, you are unable to comprehend the larger view. Marx, Darwin, socialism, the end to American sovereignty, and lots of other things, are all tied together.

I even believe that the dumbing-down of our system of of education is tied in with same.


And, sadly, it's working. You are the proof.

Damn. Lady, you are more than just stupid.

Darwin's work was based on natural selection. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the meanest and toothiest. It means survival of organisms most fitted to environment they exist in. And that can be achieved in many ways.

As for your quote from Stephen Jay Gould, that shows how truly ignorant and ill read you truly are. I, and anyone else interested in evolutionary biology, have read several books of his wonderful articles. That you take that quote out of context and try to make it mean something it does not simply shows the depth of your disconnect with reality.

As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion, and demonstrates how you wish to politisize the most robust of the Scientific Theories.

Lady, you are a fool. Big words and no thought at all behind them.

Evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life exists on this planet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.

2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.

3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.

Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards


As for Singer?
He is the logical extension of Darwinian thought....after all, if we are simply another animal, than whatever animals do, and whatever happens to animals, should be true for human beings.


Do you have any doubt that, if mice are 'sacrificed' for scientific study, Singer et al would agree to the same treatment for humans???


See...and I mean this in the kindest way, you are unable to comprehend the larger view. Marx, Darwin, socialism, the end to American sovereignty, and lots of other things, are all tied together.

I even believe that the dumbing-down of our system of of education is tied in with same.


And, sadly, it's working. You are the proof.

Damn. Lady, you are more than just stupid.

Darwin's work was based on natural selection. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the meanest and toothiest. It means survival of organisms most fitted to environment they exist in. And that can be achieved in many ways.

As for your quote from Stephen Jay Gould, that shows how truly ignorant and ill read you truly are. I, and anyone else interested in evolutionary biology, have read several books of his wonderful articles. That you take that quote out of context and try to make it mean something it does not simply shows the depth of your disconnect with reality.

As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion, and demonstrates how you wish to politisize the most robust of the Scientific Theories.

Lady, you are a fool. Big words and no thought at all behind them.

Evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life exists on this planet.

"As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion,..."

Did you not see this in an earlier post?


"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”


Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers “disabilities”. ... “We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.”

What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


“The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.”Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

 

[rdean]

Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards


As for Singer?
He is the logical extension of Darwinian thought....after all, if we are simply another animal, than whatever animals do, and whatever happens to animals, should be true for human beings.


Do you have any doubt that, if mice are 'sacrificed' for scientific study, Singer et al would agree to the same treatment for humans???


See...and I mean this in the kindest way, you are unable to comprehend the larger view. Marx, Darwin, socialism, the end to American sovereignty, and lots of other things, are all tied together.

I even believe that the dumbing-down of our system of of education is tied in with same.


And, sadly, it's working. You are the proof.

Damn. Lady, you are more than just stupid.

Darwin's work was based on natural selection. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the meanest and toothiest. It means survival of organisms most fitted to environment they exist in. And that can be achieved in many ways.

As for your quote from Stephen Jay Gould, that shows how truly ignorant and ill read you truly are. I, and anyone else interested in evolutionary biology, have read several books of his wonderful articles. That you take that quote out of context and try to make it mean something it does not simply shows the depth of your disconnect with reality.

As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion, and demonstrates how you wish to politisize the most robust of the Scientific Theories.

Lady, you are a fool. Big words and no thought at all behind them.

Evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life exists on this planet.

"As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion,..."

Did you not see this in an earlier post?


"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”


Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers “disabilities”. ... “We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.”

What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


“The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.”Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

You really are one of the most disgusting people ever. A true piece of shit. You use some right wingnut website as "proof" to back up sickening assertions. Singer turns over a huge portion of his salary to organizations that help feed the poor. If he believed as you said, why would he do that? It wouldn't be in character.

But you, vile, disgusting, evil. Satan is your God. And you do his work well. Maligning a good person to further your master's evil agenda.

Besides winning "Miss Petri Dish of 1998", you have never achieved anything of value in your entire life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on ‘facts,’ which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusion…and searched for ‘facts’ to support same?



2. Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie.

a. “The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation." Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com

b. Positivism: a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo, “Skeptics and True Believers,” p.138.




4. Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it"
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.

a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'

5. The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

a. Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).




6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

a. Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).


Again?

“It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . .

You're easily one of the 10 dumbest posters on here.

When you were seven or eight years old, how did you deal with those who said something counter to your opinion?

"You're easily one of the 10 dumbest ...."


That might even have been clever for a seven or eight year old.


Imagine: what ever your current age......

.....you haven't advanced intellectually beyond that!!!

Wow!!

You couldn’t be a spell-checker at an M & M factory.

 

[Si modo]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

There is no principle involved, simply your petulance.

The neg you sent reveals both the weakness of your argument and a weakness in your character.
I never neg those I disagree with, in fact, I often sent a positive rep for a good fight.

Based on the way you've behaved, science is your religion, and I've questioned it. The horror.

You didn't prove that you were correct....merely that you were petty.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, and think about what I've said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Damn. Lady, you are more than just stupid.

Darwin's work was based on natural selection. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the meanest and toothiest. It means survival of organisms most fitted to environment they exist in. And that can be achieved in many ways.

As for your quote from Stephen Jay Gould, that shows how truly ignorant and ill read you truly are. I, and anyone else interested in evolutionary biology, have read several books of his wonderful articles. That you take that quote out of context and try to make it mean something it does not simply shows the depth of your disconnect with reality.

As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion, and demonstrates how you wish to politisize the most robust of the Scientific Theories.

Lady, you are a fool. Big words and no thought at all behind them.

Evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life exists on this planet.

"As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion,..."

Did you not see this in an earlier post?


"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”


Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers “disabilities”. ... “We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.”

What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


“The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.”Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

You really are one of the most disgusting people ever. A true piece of shit. You use some right wingnut website as "proof" to back up sickening assertions. Singer turns over a huge portion of his salary to organizations that help feed the poor. If he believed as you said, why would he do that? It wouldn't be in character.

But you, vile, disgusting, evil. Satan is your God. And you do his work well. Maligning a good person to further your master's evil agenda.

Besides winning "Miss Petri Dish of 1998", you have never achieved anything of value in your entire life.

Every quote I've provided of Peter Singer's is attributed correctly.


Dunce.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny, PC, I have never read any of Singer's works on evolutionary biology. But have read the works of Ernst Myer and Stephen Jay Gould. Perhaps you should expand your reading to actual recognized authorities on the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny, PC, I have never read any of Singer's works on evolutionary biology. But have read the works of Ernst Myer and Stephen Jay Gould. Perhaps you should expand your reading to actual recognized authorities on the subject.

I sure would like to see some of you folks expand your views of reality.....

Lots of aspects of the world are connected in ways you seem not to understand.

But...that's for tomorrow.

Today....have a great Turkey Day....and don't over-do the stuffing!!!

 

[newpolitics]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

So you're implying that AGW is inherently political. That somehow, the evidence doesn't support AGW, even though a vast majority of the scientific community believes it does. Yet, you know better... interesting.