Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 16 Next »
God looks around and doesn’t see humans. God wants to create humans. God invents “humans.” Now that’s a theory as good as yours.
sdd on December 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Well, with drugs, anything is possible.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM
My post above missed your point. Feathers or proto-feathers also serve as a mechanism to conserve body heat. They probably came in some form before flight, then evolved to make flight more effcient for the creatures that flew/glided and had them
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM
You are not alone, but I’ve found HA is not the venue for dispassionate discussions about scientific topics.
Y-not on December 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM
You’re right!
Well I don’t want to stir up any trouble.
Enjoy your weekend, LM.
aengus on December 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Whats more Gullible? The beleif in an Infinit Creator God
OR….
that everything came to exist in a world that [inexplicably] came from a cellular explosion, randomly with no purpose, and by definition no meaning. Just a bunch of atoms bumping up against each other for no real reason or purpose.
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM
As our society tries it’s best to remove God right before our eyes, it’s not turning out so great, is it? (Eugenics, Infanticide, Gay Marriage, Blogojavich, etc…)
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
How does that strike you?
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM
And if modern day birds had evolved fleshy wings that’d be a little more understandable (glide -> fly)
But they don’t. They have, basically, arms with feathers on them. And then a chest structure to support it. If you pluck a bird, it can’t fly. So they evolved into something that can’t fly without feathers – but I don’t see the path. I don’t see how feathers were selected for.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Emu, ostrich, dodo………. not sure what their advantage is. Do peacocks fly?
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
its a better theory, because it gives Humans a Purpose
something that came to be randomly and from within itself CAN NOT have a Purpose.
There is no Rational Reason for an Atheist not to Blow their brains out, or give a rip about politics or life in general. Its all meaningless, your final reality is Nothingness and we are all just a bunch of atoms bumping up against each other randomly. Nothing more…
Some Nihilist artist figure that out and follow through with it, Kurt Cobain, abstract Art founders…..Columbine Killers are another, which they made videotapes explaining it.
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
You too.
Lance Murdock on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Ah I just saw your follow up. Yeah, I mean … but weren’t dinosaurs warm blooded? :P
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Faith is not a theory. I would be very interested in a coherent theory of God’s emmergence however. As far as I can tell, the God hypothesis is just a lame way of pushing the difficult and probably irresovable questions further away.
I have no faith in (so-called) macro-evolution. Provide me with internally consistent, credible, verifiable evidence for other alternatives that out weigh that for macro-evolution and I’ll turn on a dime. How about you?
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
don’t forget Obama, the secular messiah
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I have the same problem…if you believe in science then you believe in the theory of relativity.
Basically no two objects “see” time the same way if they are displaced or moving at different speeds.
So it could have been 6 days of observation in one location, but in the time/space relativity theory it could any amount of time, depending upon the speed and location (time dilation).
Class is now ended…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
But with those, they were birds first, then grew too large for flight. That path is more understandable, to me anyway.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Well, it’s good to have friends anyway XP
I talk to my familya bout this and they just kind of go “@_@ … uh huh”
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Bryan Preston wrote a great article on that and the Infallibility of the Bible and Genesis in this case. Last year on this blog, or he linked it in his post on the Genome Project
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I wouldn’t use those examples. That can be thrown right back in your face with the priest scandals, Ted Haggard and any number of people like them, not to mention Christianity’s failure in the past in regards to issues like slavery and the Inquisition.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
What exactly does it mean to “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution”?
To accept it as plausible? To agree that it is consistent with observations? To deny that anything else could have happened?
(I have come to the conclusion that the last amounts to another religion, and, being atheist myself, I don’t think I want anything to do with it.)
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I think the big bang created the devil…and he evolved into a liberal.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Well contrary to popular belief I am not an atheist, but I am not sure if there is a God or not. What I can be sure of is that the supernatural fable books are lame attempts to explain that which they cannot, and to keep their followers in line, and atheism is jumping to conclusions. The need to have a finite explanation for creation and, if there is a higher being, to pretend to know what it did and its intentions, seems to be strictly in man’s interest because “God” if he does exist, doesn’t seem to care to let us in on his secret, doesn’t seem to care about genocide, and doesn’t seem to care about the sad facts regarding the state of human existence.
Frankly, if people would just give up this creation/evolution and god/atheism nonsense we could be more concerned about the present. Most likely one’s consciousness before birth is similar to after death and if we cared more about “what is” and what happens in between these points versus before and after then maybe we could all approach a general state of progress. Outsourcing the who, why, what, and how seems to me to be a very regressive psychological trait.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Evolution has been verified by observation, many times. Darwin’s original insight came after he’d observed finches and the variation of their beaks on the Galapagos Islands, and how it was related to how they fed. Genetic variation coupled with natural selection in reproduction was the elegant explanation that accounted for the seeming design found in nature. The natural theology of the time became an unnecessary hypothesis as a result, as is its theological descendent, so-called “intelligent design”.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM
The probabilities are really not as extreme as you might think. It all depends on the assumptions that you make. On a very basic level (which is the level of most of the calculations of evolutionary probabilities you see), it’s kind of like looking at a mountain range and pondering the extreme improbability that the vast majority of the water on it is located in a few lakes in a few valleys – until you take driving forces (gravity) and shortcuts (streams) that cause the localization into account. In chemical/biological evolution, these driving forces and shortcuts are not always apparent at first glance. In fact, just looking for them is a major purpose of modern natural sciences.
Big S on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Just remember folks, these data define what people believe, it does not define our God.
For instance, when trying to reconcile ideas like intelligent design with evolution, I finally had to conclude that God just might be a lot more powerful, wonderful, imaginative and clever than I can ever conceive, and both theories might have rich elements of truth; reconciled by God’s design, not by me, or even human minds better than mine.
After all, if I cut cut God down to a size that my puny mind can embrace, then is he qualified for the job? I think not…
ElRonaldo on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I’ve read scientific estimates of the earth’s age in the 4~5 billion year range since I was a kid 40 years ago. When were a few billion years added?
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I know a few physicists who might dispute your primary assumption.
Big S on December 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
If the theory of macro-evolution isn’t weird and incredible, I don’t understand “weird” or “incredible”. How did that consciousness pop into your head? And why does it matter?
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’ve got a way easier solution:
Who’s to say God wasn’t just speaking metaphorically?
Why is it everyone’s cool with Revelation being metaphorical, but not Genesis? 7 days easier to swallow than 10 headed dragon with 10 horns on its head attempting to swallow the child born in the desert, being ridden by a whore?
I mean seriously: I don’t think all of the Bible is metaphorical, but some is. Why not Genesis? What was God supposed to tell the author of Genesis: “Okay so let me explan some physics to you, then we can get down to the chemical and biological processes necessary to create Adam. I’ve got some formulas you’ll need to jot down.”
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I think someone said it earlier, but it is possible to believe in evolution and creationism.
God could have created this big hodge-podge of various forms of life and simply said “Alright, go at it.”
Then, he sat back and watched them evolve.
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
That’s not true. Their purpose just becomes their own, just not supernatural. There’s no reason to insult them on this.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:59 PM
First of all, this poll isn’t reliable, based on the fact that it claims 47% believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. This directly contradicts every other poll I’ve seen done on the topic. At best it’s like 35%, but usually I think around 25%, the rest either believe God created us sometime within the last 10,000s, pretty much as we are today (i.e. Creationism, even if those believers don’t realize it is), and a small group who say God used evolution… Saying that nearly half the country believes in Darwin’s theory of Evolution is so far off from what every other poll shows, it destroys the poll’s credibility.
That said, I’m not going to get in to the whole Catholics vs. Protestants debate, because it’s always a waste… but come on, don’t we all know why Catholics are more apt to believe in UFOs, evolution, etc.?
RightWinged on December 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Quite often when I study and read about science, it is filled with weird and incredible happenings and discoveries. And I’m even more awed by God’s awesomeness.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I don’t know if you heard, but philosophy is an interest humans have had for…oh…thousands of years. Telling billions of people to stop thinking about where we came from, and abandon the ideas we’ve come up with altogether, is not only incredibly arrogant(as your insistence implies you know they are wrong, which you don’t), but ultimately challenges the concept of freedom of religion.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
That’s the way science works. You us it to make predictions and build technology so long as it works, and revise it when it doesn’t.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
The only difference between so-called “macro” and “micro” evolution is the former involves a longer period of time than the latter.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
This is nonsense and your personal psychological issues are spread throughout this post. Just because you think that nothing else matters if there were not a god shows your own feelings of worthlessness, your need for something to rationalize your existence. Frankly if there was no god, or no afterlife, then what happens in the present is all there is, and you might as well make the most of it, Carpe Diem. I really don’t think that there is an afterlife, but would be willing to be pleasantly surprised, yet this alleged feeling of nothingness as you see it doesn’t compell me to return to dirt, compost, or any other organic matter anytime soon.
Frankly, some magicland where everything is lovely white and where milk and honey flow, like description of a paradise, a heaven, would be more of a reason to leave this earth as soon as possible than its nonexistence.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Remember, Darwin wanted to shore up his theory of the “survival of the fittest”, he wanted to be sure that his theory that certain “tribes” of people were inferior.
His theory really was just an excuse for being a racist…to put it into the simplest terms.
He was against slavery, that is what most point to as his saving grace…but no doubt he thought of the black race as being savages, and he needed to prove that.
So tell me all you “evolutionists” do you thing the black race is just a step away from the gorilla, but we (caucasions) are further away?
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I know a few physicists who contend that not only do we not exist and are not now discussing this, but contend they do not exist either.
So if they don’t exist, how can they be right?
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Just by stating “there is…” you already have something. In fact, from a certain perspective, you might already have everything.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The devil’s easy to believe in: we elected him and he’s currently occupying the “office” of “President Elect”.
mr.blacksheep on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I suppose infinity could produce a God. Intuitively, infinity should produce infinity of gods and infinity of universes. On the other hand, infinity could also produce viable universes without a God.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
There are some strange and wonderful things out there that man may never understand.
Just spend a day in the world of quantum mechanics.
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Yes! That would have been incredible!
I wasn’t disputing that it is. In fact, that was my point, and the point of the poster I was responding to (though I was thinking more towards “big bang” actually).
Multi-tasking. Apparently only some are capable of it.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM
It’s happening, and look around, how’s that working out for us? Not so good if you ask me. But at least you have the narcissism nailed.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM
There is a difference between “thinking” and vulgarly making stuff up. And if one were to truly think about the subject they would learn that the answer is unattainable.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Fervent Christians and fervent atheists aplenty. Both work on the idea that they have supreme knowledge, and neither have a shred of proof.
It’s like Rock’Em Sock’Em Robots.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The difference is … okay imagine a block of granite.
What is the probability that, over time, that block gets worn down into the general shape of a man. The probability is probably pretty reasonable.
Now what are the odds that it gets worn down into something that looks like Michaelangelos David? Not even exactly David, just that it gets worn down into the exact shape of a person.
It’s probably close to the probability that a creature gets a random mutation, that mutation proves to be beneficial, that mutation is capable of being passed on, that creature finds a mate, that mating is successful, that mutation passes on, that mutation proves beneficial in the offspring, and the offspring survive, a then repeats this process, succesfully, a million times.
You have to admit these are some pretty long odds. Even if you have billions of years, at some point the odds are so bad, it’s just not going to happen.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Woh, where did that come from?
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I generally use machines.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
What I was showing is that the 6 days does fit the theory of relativity…time is not objective, but subjective, depending on the who is keeping time, and where they are standing, and how fast they are moving.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Bolded portion shows you have misplaced arrogance. You do not know they are wrong any more than I. Likely we never will. So stop condescending to those you disagree with.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I agree that only a few are capable, many are not.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Macro-evolution is simple. General relativity is weird, and quantum mechanics is incredible. We have accumulated a lot of evidence for all three.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Why would you think gorillas are black?
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I’ve read lots about quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking and the like. But I get just as big a charge out of C.S. Lewis. If we could just give up all this macro-evolution nonsense and obey Jesus, wouldn’t the world be a better place? :-)
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Has anyone else besides ME noticed that the Darwinists are ALL talk and NO action?
What I would give if just ONE of them would set aside his cushy, pasteurized, homogenized, sterilized, inoculated, hypoallergenic, air-conditioned, cosmetically enhanced, MSM laced miserable existence just long enough to get up off of their lazy, lethargic, apathetic, fat, dead *ss and actually EVOLVE into something that is clearly, markedly, measurably, demonstrably, indisputably SUPERIOR to Homo-sapiens. But NOOOOO! — they just can’t DO that, can they?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Ya know… I’ve never heard a credible explanation by Big Bangers as to just how the Big Bang was set off. Who lit the fuse… or what? Where did whoever lit the fuse come from, or where did whatever lit the fuse come from?
Faithers like me have an explanation for all that.
Big Bangers? Nope.
44Magnum on December 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Yeah, I was just cautioning against over thinking it :P
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
That is what Darwin theorized…read my whole post and you will see “where that came from”…kind of ugly now isn’t it? You didn’t know that is what evolution embraces…you can’t just pick out what you are comfortable with and discard the rest…this is Darwin’s theory of evolution…caucasians are further away form gorilla’s then aborigines, who are much closer to gorillas.
Sorry to burst you bubble, but that is evolution…take it or leave it.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM
:)
The only difference? Sure you went to high school?
True. I’m sure that’s what suicide bombers think.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM
True infinity might even be required to produce an infinite amount of all of the above.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
The evidence of God is all around us too. Not only in the stars, sun, rotation and angle of earth, distance from the sun, wind, rain and lightning, but in the hearts of people. I’ve seen many a stone cold heart changed by the love of Jesus. That ain’t gonna happen if you just hand them a book on quantum mechanics.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Gotcha, the bible isn’t a chemistry or geology science book.
Pretty hard to explain quantum physics to the ancient Hebrews…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
We don’t blow our brains out because any predisposed to such activity left fewer offspring to compete with those who didn’t. It’s not rational, it’s genetic.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
The experiment to test that hit a snag. But they’re working on it.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
The first flaw in your reasoning is a misinterpretation of the word “random” based on the structure of matter, there are very specific sets of rules that chemical or biochemical systems must follow.
Also: in the world of chemistry, the numbers involved (rates of reactions, numbers of molecules, etc.) are often so large, and reactions so selective that any analogy based on rocks and erosion is not really meaningful.
Big S on December 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Esthier, there’s a reason why we have so much biologically in common with other mammals, namely that all mammals had a common ancestor. Which refutes the mistaken argument about how so-called “macro-evolution” is somehow not possible.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Self destruction is not what I am talking about. If life is all you have then you would do your best to maintain it well, from good health, to good relations with your neighbors, to fulfillment of happiness. Religion is not necessary for this. If you also look at the dual nature of people, striving for both community and individuality at the same time, you would see why primitive fables drenched in absolutes are just horrible and regressive to mankind.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
That’s taking the fun out of it.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Why wouldn’t there be significant differences? Catholics are more likely than Protestants, uh, I’ll just say Christians, to believe in evolution and the other things on that list for a whole bunch of reasons, one being that the Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible. They think parts of the Bible are not actually true. Two being the Catholic and Christian Bibles are different. For instance, Catholics delete the Second Commandment about worshipping images. How can they delete a commandment and still have ten? I tell no lies — just get out the Bible and compare. No 2nd Commandment! Makes sense as many Catholics bow down in front of statues and pray. Third reason: Vatican Official defends evolution against ‘useless’ Creationism. These are are major major major differences between Christianity and Catholicism, thus it should be no surprise that there would be differences between them in a poll about what you believe. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM
So we live in absolute moral relativity? No definition of wrong? Fantastic. I’ll start by taking your HDTV.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM
The error you are making here is thinking that I care what Darwin thought on the topic of racism just because I think he had some neat ideas about the origin of species. It doesn’t work that way. There are no saints in science, nor should there be. It is the ideas that survive inspection that matter, not the ideas that happen to have a good pedigree (so to speak).
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
It’s supposed so based on the morphological similarity with birds. No harder evidence is available as far as I’m aware. If they were in fact warm-blooded, the emergence of feathers from scales as a heat-conserving mechanism seems to make sense. If that happened, later adaption to flight control surfaces also seems plausible.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
It’s also why Ledeen said that Machiavelli would have loved evangelical christianity.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
And yet we can’t reproduce with them. Similarities aren’t proof of common ancestry. I’m not saying macro-evolution is impossible. I’m just saying the opposite isn’t necessarily true either.
A genetic disposition to offing yourself? Not so sure about that one.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Well, I was going to use tornado whipping through a junk yard and assembling a fully functioning 747, but I thought that one was a little overdone.
How come a mutant dinosaur turns into a beautiful bird and flies away, and a mutant human turns into a Down’s Syndrome baby? :P
No wait, I got it! We’re the pinnacle of evolution. You can’t GET better than us, that’s why! On a sadder note, it all goes downhill from here.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
“CJ, the Creationist Slayer” – LMAO. He maintains a perfect echo chamber by banning anyone who disagrees with him, and he is a “Creationist Slayer”. LOL
Atheism is a religion. Most atheists are more committed to their religion then theists are. Period.
BuckNutty on December 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
“To GOD, a thousand years is as a day, and a day a thousand years”.
To some, that may come off as jibberish, but to those of us “faithers” we know that it means GOD exists both in and outside of time as we know it. SO when the Bible says the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, that could literaly be 6 days as we know it, or 6K years or 6 Million years or or or or.
If GOD truely IS an all powerfull being, HE could merely speak it into existence in an instant, call it done and kick back and enjoy a cold one.
I enjoy science and all its fascinating stuff, cause its cool and we get to find out how some stuff works, but some science heads irk the gall bladder out of me when they can’t see the forest for the trees.
And just remember… “No matter where you go.. There you are.”
44Magnum on December 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
MadisonConservative, you know it looks quite possible that you, right4life, and I are all in agreement on this one.
mwdiver on December 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Yes, I’m sure. But he did just fine on his own as have other leaders without religion to abuse.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM
8 hours bottle to throttle is the basic rule.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Social contract my friend. I don’t want others to wrong me, so I don’t wrong others. If it doesn’t pick my pocket nor break my leg fine, it’s your life. We all have a need for both community and individuality, I would not infringe on anyone’s individuality via laws if they are not causing injury to anyone else.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I don’t think you quite grasp the magnitude of the numbers involved here.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Well, I just hope their experiment doesn’t open up a wormhole so the GD Frikken Borg can come through it or we’re all Democrats.
44Magnum on December 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Gotta get back to real world work. Merry Christmas everyone, and that little dog Toto too!
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
That would be morality, as you see something wrong with having your things taken.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
That’s not something I look forward to. I just view both theists and atheists as mirror images of each other. Two groups who claim to know the supreme truth, but neither of them can prove it. Both have fundamentalists, right4life being a prime example, and those fundamentalists both rip on each other while bemoaning that they are ripped on by the other.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Actually, an eternity of that sounds a lot more to me like hell.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I’m not going to dive deep in to this debate that never goes anywhere, again, but you raise a point, right2bright, that leads me to the conclusion that all evolutionists should be vegetarians. Whether they believe blacks are closer to apes than us, or that we are closer to apes, they certainly believe that we are evolving on different paths. Similarly they believe every living creature has evolved and is evolving on different paths, but all from the same starting point. Meaning we shouldn’t eat our “relatives” or make them our pets. Or, we should figure out which race is the most evolved, and then that race should be able to enslave us, or at least use us to make their lives easier an more enjoyable (the way we do with dogs, horses, and cows).
I mean, who are we to think there is just a “human race”? We all came from the same single celled organism (which came from nothing exploding in to everything, and magically rain showing up and hitting some rocks), right evolutionists? We’re all just animals, evolving on different paths, therefore, we should treat all other living things as equal, right?
RightWinged on December 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Well Machiavelli wrote about religion in Discourses and the need for it. Ledeen was referring to the evangelical christianity that his ilk has exploited with their end times, christian zionism, and “left behind” nonsense which was different than the christianity that Machiavelli knew, espcially living in Italy at the time that he did.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Absolute moral relativity eliminates the concept of right and wrong. What’s wrong to you may be right to me. Justification for the prevention of things such as murder and robbery can only come out of self-interest in a relative society.
If you are to explain to me why I can’t take your HDTV, you will inevitably have to cite a code with no basis, unless it’s based in some sort of higher meaning. Even if you cite justice, justice is an ethereal concept. There’s no natural basis to justice.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Similarities are evidence in support of common ancestry, and Darwin’s theory was based on his many observations of such similarities, along with modification by descent that results in different species. What you’re claiming is a bug is actually a feature of Darwin’s theory!
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Lactose intolerant?
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Yes, I do grasp the magnitude of the numbers, hence my doubt.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
That’s a good movie.
BadgerHawk on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Why do vegetables get exempted from that?
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
You would have better luck teaching a gerbil long division.
ronsfi on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Tornadoes through junk yards produce nothing bus Airbus and other random junk heaps. 747s are obviously the result of intelligent design.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 16 Next »