Chris Matthews to Mike Pence: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

posted at 8:50 pm on May 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

For your amusement or dismay, as the case may be, five minutes of increasingly awkward ducking o’ the question. “I think you believe in evolution,” says Matthews at one point, “but you’re afraid to say so because your conservative constituency might find that offensive.” Actually, my hunch is that he doesn’t believe in it but is afraid to say so lest he be deemed a total crank by the media. I thought the standard line for creationist Republican politicians when asked this question is to say yes, of course they accept Darwin, before quickly adding that that’s not strictly incompatible with belief in a Christian God. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too. Why would Pence decline to do so unless he couldn’t utter both parts of that rote answer in good faith?

Maybe Matthews is just grumpy because he knows that, despite the left’s best efforts, the public still doesn’t much care about global warming. Watch it all the way through, incidentally, or else you’ll miss his salute to the intellects of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and, of course, Sarah Palin. And to think, I thought he misspoke that time when he accused her of not knowing how to read.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 4 5 6 7

Requires serious genetics coursework to understand.

Well, that would spoil a good magic bullet! Can’t have that.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Flippancy does not an argument make. Arrogance does not garner accomplice.

My point was shotgunning links to ‘peer reviewed’ articles is nice and all if you are into honest debate. It does no good if done without understanding and humility.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Well, that would spoil a good magic bullet! Can’t have that.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM

ok if thats too hard then tell me the exact sequence of mutations, in order, that led to an eye…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

My point was shotgunning links to ‘peer reviewed’ articles is nice and all if you are into honest debate. It does no good if done without understanding and humility.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM

and why would you accuse me of dishonest debate?

have I come in and started calling evolutionists names? thats the first thing the darwiniacs do…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM

and since that article was too hard…try to answer the question about the tuatara…

why with the fastest rate of molecular evolution, is it still a ‘living dinosaur’

in other words micro does NOT add up to macro…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM

uh, that article wasnt too hard. Iv’e done molecular biology for a major Bio-technology company.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

usually they try to silence, sue, and harass those who disagree, like the ‘tolerant’ little brown-shirts they are…see sternberg, gonzales..
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Are you referring to this Richard Sternberg…?

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

http://www.skepdic.com/sternberg.html

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM

yes. and why don’t you post to a legit news org like I did yesterday??

instead of some darwiniac agit-prop site..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

“They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a “creationist.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.”
linnk

good little brown-shirt darwiniacs…

right4life on May 5, 2009 at 10:59 PM

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:54 AM

you do realize that evolution is useless in science? and in medicine? as coyne admitted:
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

1) I’m pretty sure evolution IS a science…
2) My point was: Science is great – and accepted – in some cases, but really bad and evil in other cases.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Kangie,

The problem is when adult, somewhat intelligent human beings – who are running for high office – state that they’re just not sure if the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Again, I posted that Youtube link to show that this shouldn’t even be an issue. MANY scientists are very religious, but accept the proven scientific, peer-reviewed data regarding evolution.
Those same scientists must groan and shake their heads when a Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, or Bobby Jindal hems and haws, or expresses some doubt regarding the science behind it all.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Who exactly is the person who beleives the earth is 10,000 years old?
I saw your youtube video. didn’t phase me.
I’m not doubting evoultion from a religous perspective
Foy years these very same scientist said neanderthals were in our tree of life but we now know they were different.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm

They also stated this as fact when we learned this in school and now uh oh. They were wrong

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

yes. and why don’t you post to a legit news org like I did yesterday??
instead of some darwiniac agit-prop site..
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Is there anything at either of those links that isn’t true….?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Who exactly is the person who beleives the earth is 10,000 years old?
kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Mike Huckabee.
And many creationists and ID’ers.
Pretty much anyone who takes the Bible literally.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Is there anything at either of those links that isn’t true….?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM

considering the source, probably..I don’t have time to read through them…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Many of the false claims at “Expelled Exposed” about Richard Sternberg also seem to parrot the arguments of Michael Shermer, and thus my response to Shermer provides rebuttals to many of the website’s claims: see “Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists.” “Expelled Exposed” makes the unbelievable assertion that “the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another.“ My rebuttal to Shermer documents the precise e-mails and evidence which show that, contrary to the claims of “Expelled Exposed,” Sternberg did experience harassment and persecution, including pressure to resign, investigations into his outside activities regarding evolution, and inappropriate restrictions on his research.

More facts about Richard Sternberg’s unfortunate story can be found on his home page at RichardSternberg.org as well as at the following links:

“Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, And The Paper That Started It All”

“Statement of Facts / Response to Misinformation” rebuts the false claim by “Expelled Exposed” that Stephen Meyer’s paper was outside the scope of Proceedings for the Biological Society of Washington.

U.S. Office of Special Counsel Letter (2005)

“Transcript of NPR Report on Sternberg Case”

U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report (2006): Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian

Appendix to U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report (2006): Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian

link

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM

considering the source, probably..I don’t have time to read through them…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Translation: I simply don’t want to deal with facts…. or anything that might blow my false argumant out of the water.

Got it.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Mike Huckabee.
And many creationists and ID’ers.
Pretty much anyone who takes the Bible literally.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Interesting
I didn’t know this and I know some fundamentalist christians.
I would like to read more about this because I have never heard it.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM

1) I’m pretty sure evolution IS a science…

I’m pretty sure it leads to a metaphysical dilemma. Then again, I am not a logical positivist.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM

God created the heavens and earth in six days.

Six GOD DAYS.

Not six “24 hour MAN days”. Dude, a God Day is millions and millions of man years! All of human history has probably been but a yawn and stretch to GOD.

God made us (and animals, plants, the heavens) THEN HE LET US GO- to evolve or not, to follow HIM or not, to do good or not, to make war or not.

I would guess that the exact term that GOD used to describe his making of “heaven and earth” may NOT HAVE BEEN A 24HOUR PERIOD OF TIME,
THAT would be MAN’S DEFINITION- and obviously flawed.

The theory’s are NOT inconsistent.

Oh- and, the BIBLE wasn’t originally written in English- and Genesis wasn’t even WRITTEN for a VERY long time.

ExTex on May 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Richard Sternberg’s ‘theory’ failed the peer-review.
Boo-hoo.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17

“Here’s the bottom line: Richard Sternberg went to great lengths to sneak a substandard and inappropriate paper through the peer review procedures of the journal he was editing. His actions, unsurprisingly, caused a great deal of embarrassment to his colleagues and some of them were quite angry about it and wanted him fired. But despite a few harsh words contained in emails that he never saw prior to filing his OSC complaint, ultimately nothing discriminatory or retaliatory ever happened to Sternberg. To this day (April 2008), he retains the same access to the collections at the NMNH that he had prior to this incident. The worst thing that happened to Sternberg was that his clearly unethical actions were met with the disapproval and criticism of his colleagues, which is a far cry from violating his civil liberties.”

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Translation: I simply don’t want to deal with facts…. or anything that might blow my false argumant out of the water.

Got it.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM

just did blow your lies and BS out of the water *smirk*

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

more atheist lies and BS…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM

God created the heavens and earth in six days.

Six GOD DAYS.
ExTex on May 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM

‘God days’…..?????
That’s a new one.

Which then begs the question:

Which god……?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM

oh guitardude…you must have missed this..

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.”
linnk

let me guess..the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is DEN OF CREATIONISTS!!!

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Foy years these very same scientist said neanderthals were in our tree of life but we now know they were different.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm

They also stated this as fact when we learned this in school and now uh oh. They were wrong

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

There’s the difference between science and religion. Unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are not static. They’re expected to be challenged by new evidence and possibly adjusted or discarded as part of the normal process.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Again, Sterberg failed the peer review.
His theory was not based on sound science.
He lost.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM

The entire evolution/creation/intelligent-design debate is a flagrant example of how large numbers of people can be misled by a few self-proclaimed “intellectuals” into believing an agenda in the name of pseudo-science. The purpose of evolution theory was not scientific, but philosophical, to influence people’s thinking about morality.

In the mid-19th century, before Darwin published his “Origin of Species”, most Americans and Europeans believed that man and woman were created by God in a “perfect” state, then fell into corruption and death through sin, and needed the saving grace of Jesus to have eternal happiness after natural death. Evolution theory teaches that mankind IMPROVED ITSELF over many generations, and doesn’t need God, although it offers no hope for life after death to an individual human being. By removing the “need” for God, and obedience to Him, from human conscience, evolution theory proclaims freedom from any moral restrictions on human behavior in the name of “science”. This is its ultimate purpose–an amoral, anarchist society where the “strong” dominate the “weak”, and do whatever they can get away with.

Based on the scientific knowledge available in 1859, when “Origin of Species” was published, the idea of evolving of life forms over millions of years through random mutations may have seemed plausible to scientists at that time. Since then, generations of school-children have been taught that evolution is “scientific truth”, and that anyone who questions it is labeled as ignorant, stupid, or a religious fanatic stuck in the past. Meanwhile, scientific evidence AGAINST evolution theory has been accumulating, and the gatekeepers, editors, and peer-reviewers at scientific publications have been struggling to hide it from the general public.

From what we now know about cell chemistry and thermodynamics, the chances that a single cell, or even one functional enzyme or DNA molecule could form randomly from non-living matter even over billions of years are so ridiculously low (like winning the lottery 100 times in a row) that the most objective chemist would have to consider it a miracle.

The idea that a reptile could hatch from a fish egg, or a bird could hatch from a reptile egg, due to random mutations no longer passes the laugh test–the vast majority mutations are harmful, and the number of mutations needed to change a fin to a leg or a leg to a wing is so high that they could never occur in one generation. An animal with one or two of the required mutations would then breed with the general population, and the mutation would be drowned out.

There have been many discoveries showing co-existence of dinosaurs and man (such as a human child’s footprint inside a dinosaur footprint in the same rock in Texas, or a sculpture of a stegosaurus on a 14th-century temple in Thailand) which cast doubt on dinosaurs being extinct millions of years ago.

Fossils themselves only form when an organism is rapidly buried, away from oxygen (which can cause decomposition) and scavengers, which could eat the corpse. But how can one explain hundreds of woolly mammoths buried in one small area, or a whale fossil standing on its tail in Wyoming, if sediment was laid down slowly at less than a millimeter per year? Wouldn’t rapid burial from a major flood, such as that described for the time of Noah in the Bible, be a more likely explanation?

The basic problem is that life could not evolve or “create itself” from non-living matter under the natural laws we now observe. So, an objective scientist is forced to conclude that either some extremely intelligent being organized life in the past, or the laws of nature were different in the past, but if so, what caused them to change?

Science, which is based on human observation of controlled experiments, can never “prove” evolution or creation. Both evolution theory and the Old Testament say that animals existed before mankind, so either way no human being observed the experiment! Evolution theory or creationism is based on speculation and faith, not science.

Of course, this is a political, not a scientific blog, so we need to address the problem of conservatives being ridiculed POLITICALLY for not believing in evolution by a media (and general public) which overwhelmingly believes in evolution. Probably, the best way for a politician to address this question is to state that an individual’s belief in any theory on the origin of life is a matter of free choice and faith, and no “faith” should be imposed on children by the state through public schools, according to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Evolution theory has been used by its proponents to ridicule those who question it as being ignorant or unscientific. We need to take the stand that the origin of life is truly unknown to science, and true science needs to be open-minded to all theories of the origin of life.

But since many of the principles held by social conservatives are based on God’s laws as expressed in the Bible, we must seek to keep scientific thought and the general public, open to the possibility of His existence, His influence over the world, and the need to obey His laws in our daily lives.

Steve Z on May 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Again, Sterberg failed the peer review.
His theory was not based on sound science.
He lost.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM

laughable…the darwiniac brown-shirt reaction is what is telling…bunch of intolerant little nazis…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM

They’re expected to be challenged by new evidence and possibly adjusted or discarded as part of the normal process.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

not with evolution!! data is ‘interpreted’ to match the theory…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM

ok if thats too hard then tell me the exact sequence of mutations, in order, that led to an eye…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Ah, your favorite red herring. As I and other’s have explained to you before, no one claims to know the exact sequence of mutations, in order, that led to eyes. In fact it’s probably unknowable, since genetic information is not preserved in fossils and in order to answer this question every single stage would need to be both recorded and recovered.

I may as well ask you for your proof that no possible sequence of mutations could lead to an eye.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM

laughable…the darwiniac brown-shirt reaction is what is telling…bunch of intolerant little nazis…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM

…..but he still failed…..
He proposed a theory…..and his peeers rejected it…..because it was junk.

He failed.

And you cited him as a good example.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM

not with evolution!! data is ‘interpreted’ to match the theory…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM

kangjie helpfully provided a well-known example that proves your assertion wrong.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Ah, your favorite red herring. As I and other’s have explained to you before, no one claims to know the exact sequence of mutations, in order, that led to eyes. In fact it’s probably unknowable, since genetic information is not preserved in fossils and in order to answer this question every single stage would need to be both recorded and recovered.

I may as well ask you for your proof that no possible sequence of mutations could lead to an eye.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM

why is it a red herring?? its a legit question. you say evolution is science…sounds more like faith..

I may as well ask you for your proof that no possible sequence of mutations could lead to an eye.

its rather obvious, isn’t it? no one has been able to do it, now have they?

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

link

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM

…..but he still failed…..
He proposed a theory…..and his peeers rejected it…..because it was junk.

He failed.

And you cited him as a good example.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM

he succeeded brilliantly in exposing darwiniacs for what they are

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM

kangjie helpfully provided a well-known example that proves your assertion wrong.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM

uh yeah sure…tell me how what he posted destroyed evolution??

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I may as well ask you for your proof that no possible sequence of mutations could lead to an eye.

but keep the faith!! darwin of the gaps…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM

why is it a red herring?? its a legit question. you say evolution is science…sounds more like faith..

I think I explained in a few words why it’s a bogus question.

I may as well ask you for your proof that no possible sequence of mutations could lead to an eye.
its rather obvious, isn’t it? no one has been able to do it, now have they?

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM

No, they haven’t. You’re making my point for me.

We gone around in these circles before. Why don’t we head over to the “Obama to Force Israel to give up nukes” thread where we can probably agree ;-)

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I think I explained in a few words why it’s a bogus question.

uh yeah right…basically since evolution has no answers it an illegitimate question…

No, they haven’t. You’re making my point for me.

We gone around in these circles before. Why don’t we head over to the “Obama to Force Israel to give up nukes” thread where we can probably agree ;-)

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM

actually you’re making my point…a DARWIN OF THE GAPS argument…they’ll figure it out someday…just have faith…

and of course you know its impossible to prove a negative…talk about an illegitmate question..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

There’s the difference between science and religion. Unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are not static. They’re expected to be challenged by new evidence and possibly adjusted or discarded as part of the normal process.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

What makes you think I don’t know the difference between science and religion you pompus bore.
I simply stating what evoultionist stated as fact a mere few years ago turned out to be wrong.
I’m insuating they it is possible they are wrong and macro-evoultion is not a fact.
Read my posts asshole. I’m not arguing for or against creationsim.
I’m saying to question evoultion is perfectly valid.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

There’s the difference between science and religion. Unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are not static. They’re expected to be challenged by new evidence and possibly adjusted or discarded as part of the normal process.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

I have never argued there is no difference between science and religion you pompus bore.
I simply stated that evoultionst can be wrong and have been wrong before as to what they stated as fact a mere few years ago.
Questioning evoultion is valid and macro-evoultion is not a fact or even close to one.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Ah, your favorite red herring. As I and other’s have explained to you before, no one claims to know the exact sequence of mutations, in order, that led to eyes. In fact it’s probably unknowable, since genetic information is not preserved in fossils and in order to answer this question every single stage would need to be both recorded and recovered.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM

the problem you have is that you have no sequences for anything evolving…you take it all on faith…we have never observed anything evolving into something else..and we cannot see it in the fossil record…

so its a ‘red herring’ you have to dismiss it because you cannot deal with it..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Steve Z on May 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM

+1 – Good Write up!

romanianhacker on May 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM

What makes you think I don’t know the difference between science and religion you pompus bore.
I simply stating what evoultionist stated as fact a mere few years ago turned out to be wrong.
I’m insuating they it is possible they are wrong and macro-evoultion is not a fact.
Read my posts asshole. I’m not arguing for or against creationsim.
I’m saying to question evoultion is perfectly valid.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You’ll have more credibility if you can keep your emotions under control. There’s no need for name calling.

Of course it’s perfectly valid to question evolution. You raised a specific example of a part of evolutionary theory that was previously widely accepted by scientists, but later found to be likely wrong, based on new evidence. As a result of that new evidence the theory was adjusted, exactly as how science is supposed to work.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

the problem you have is that you have no sequences for anything evolving…you take it all on faith…we have never observed anything evolving into something else..and we cannot see it in the fossil record…

so its a ‘red herring’ you have to dismiss it because you cannot deal with it..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM

right4life, as I noted above, we’ve been through these same arguments before and I’ve seen you go through them with many others as well. We’ll never convince each other.

As a matter of fact, I’d rather live in the universe you believe in than the one I do. I’d find it infinitely more comforting. Unfortunately I’m far away from being able to do so.

Since I’ve seen all your arguments before and you’ve seen mine, I’m headed over to the thread about Obama trying to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. I know we agree on most political things, so hopefully I’ll see your comments there.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM

I have never argued there is no difference between science and religion you pompus bore.
I simply stated that evoultionst can be wrong and have been wrong before as to what they stated as fact a mere few years ago.
Questioning evoultion is valid and macro-evoultion is not a fact or even close to one.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM

You’d have more credibility if you could keep your emotions under control. There’s no need for name calling.

Of course it’s perfectly valid to question evolution. You raised a specific example of a part of evolutionary theory that was previously widely accepted by scientists, but later found to be likely wrong based on new evidence. As a result of that new evidence the theory was adjusted, exactly as how science is supposed to work.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Just as there is good in the world, there is evil.

Chris Matthews exists. There MUST be a God. There is other explanation, to explain this monstrocity, at MSNBC!

Now go tingle on yourself, Matthews.

capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Matthews is confusing me.

1. Everybody believes in global warming/climate change. It is a fundamental belief we all have. We all know that our weather changes and we all know that the earth’s temperature gets warmer and colder. What we disagree about is how much of an impact, if any, humans play. Most Democrats seem to think most climate change is our fault, therefore propose drastic measures to fix the so-called problem. While on the other hand, most Republicans feel that climate change is mostly natural, and requires only minor government intervention.

2. Many Republicans believe that we should teach creationism in the classrooms, as in Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark stuff? I don’t think so. If you can present examples of this, please let me know. I think they favor teaching evolution and intelligent design (God had a plan and played a significant role in the creation of our society) in the classrooms.

Frank T.J Mackey on May 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Some people are really invested in creating a conflict between science and religion where none need exist.

I wonder why?

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM

With reading this last page of posts, it’s no wonder the lefties have a point that the people on the far right are insane. I believe in God, and I also believe the Bible was meant to be read in more than one literal way. It’s “The Living Word of God” which means interpretations change every time you read it, it adapts to you as well as you to it.
These people want creation taught alongside evolution in the classroom. That’s insane. Every religion has its own Creation story, which are you going to teach? Evolution is scientifically provable, religion and creation are matters of faith. Spiritual doesn’t depend on material and vice versa. Some of the posts here, I feel I’m reading stuff by that crazy Phillips clan that was protesting troop burials.

If the Republicans don’t give up the sham of believing these intellectually flawed Nazis to be essential to winning elections, we’re in for decades of socialism if not a dictatorship. The Republican party doesn’t believe this crap any more than say Noam Chomsky does. Bush and Rove were laughing everytime that “fixed homo” Ted Haggard left the room. If the Republicans truly believed that Roe v. Wade should be overturned they had six years of majority and a supposed “pro life”(anti-choice realistically)President in which to do it. Nobody touched it because they know they’ll be in a political desert for the next 100 years.

I believe in Creation, but don’t believe it should be taught by the school systems. I believe Creation took billions of years. I believe I’ll never vote for another Republican as I’d like to see the Libertarian Party, one which has a lot more common sense and the Founder’s intentions than this “Democrat Lite-let’s use the religious nuts as a base”party. I wasted a vote on McCain and Democrat Lite. If more common sense isn’t used soon, the Libertarian Party for me. Where are the Republicans as this Socialist Coup is taking place? They are aiding and abetting by letting this happen in the first place.

Get rid of the Fundamentalist lunatics and send them back to the Democrat Party. Engaging them was the worst thing Reagan ever did for votes..

There’s my rant for the day, now I’ll go pray the Literalists can one day grow a brain….

adamsmith on May 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM

These people want creation taught alongside evolution in the classroom…Every religion has its own Creation story, which are you going to teach?

I don’t think many Republicans want to teach the story of Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark in the science classrooms. If you can name any, please let me know. I think they want to teach evolution as well as intelligent design. Creationism and intelligent design are two different things.

Frank T.J Mackey on May 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Creationism and intelligent design are two different things.

No, they’re not. Judge Jones in his decision on Kitzmiller v. Dover in Pennsylvania found ample evidence that so-called “intelligent design” was in fact a cover for Christian creationism.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Probably, the best way for a politician to address this question is to state that an individual’s belief in any theory on the origin of life is a matter of free choice and faith, and no “faith” should be imposed on children by the state through public schools, according to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Evolution theory has been used by its proponents to ridicule those who question it as being ignorant or unscientific. We need to take the stand that the origin of life is truly unknown to science, and true science needs to be open-minded to all theories of the origin of life.

But since many of the principles held by social conservatives are based on God’s laws as expressed in the Bible, we must seek to keep scientific thought and the general public, open to the possibility of His existence, His influence over the world, and the need to obey His laws in our daily lives.

Steve Z on May 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Science class isn’t a place for everyone to express personal belief. Science is a discipline that deals with experimentation and measurable evidence, without resort to supernatural explanations.

Most people accept that faith and reason coexist, that the Bible isn’t a science book, and that it is dumb to derive moral systems from Darwin. Pence could have easily answered the question better.

dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

No, they’re not. Judge Jones in his decision on Kitzmiller v. Dover in Pennsylvania found ample evidence that so-called “intelligent design” was in fact a cover for Christian creationism.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

more darwiniac talking points…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Evolution is scientifically provable, religion and creation are matters of faith. Spiritual doesn’t depend on material and vice versa. Some of the posts here, I feel I’m reading stuff by that crazy Phillips clan that was protesting troop burials.

laughable…evolution is a faith.

I believe in God, and I also believe the Bible was meant to be read in more than one literal way. It’s “The Living Word of God” which means interpretations change every time you read it, it adapts to you as well as you to it.

right, words have no meaning…sure…

There’s my rant for the day, now I’ll go pray the Literalists can one day grow a brain….

adamsmith on May 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I’ll pray you evolve one…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM

more darwiniac talking points…

Tell that to Judge Jones, dude:

H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. …

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

With reading this last page of posts, it’s no wonder the lefties have a point that the people on the far right are insane. I believe in God, and I also believe the Bible was meant to be read in more than one literal way. It’s “The Living Word of God” which means interpretations change every time you read it, it adapts to you as well as you to it.

Way to throw Christians under the bus. Especially if you really are a christian yourself. “Yeah, I’m a Christian. I just don’t believe in the Bible”.

These people want creation taught alongside evolution in the classroom. That’s insane.

Wrong! At the most they want it to be mentioned, MENTIONED, that some poeple believe in intelligent design. That’s it. They aren’t saying to have it taught, just mentioned. Other jsut want a sticker on books saying that evolution is a theory. Well gee, last time I check, evolution was a theory.

It’s the macro-evolutionists/atheist that are making the big stink. They won’t even allow a biology teach to say “And we evolved from apes. Oh, and somebelieveinintelligentdesign. Tomorrow we’ll be studying photosynthesis.”

And I say again. Notice how the macro-evolutionists/atheist aren’t complaining at all that evolution is being taught in history classes. Hell, I remember being taught in world history that we came from apes and this was back in the early 90s. Schools are even more liberal/anti-christian now.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

As a matter of fact, I’d rather live in the universe you believe in than the one I do. I’d find it infinitely more comforting. Unfortunately I’m far away from being able to do so.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM

your ‘universe’ is a product of your mind…where you atheists get to construct your own right and wrong…be your own god…its what you want..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

If the GOP keeps on pandering to ignorant bigots, it’ll only reflect badly on Republicans in the end.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

No, they’re not. Judge Jones in his decision on Kitzmiller v. Dover in Pennsylvania found ample evidence that so-called “intelligent design” was in fact a cover for Christian creationism.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, because only christians believe in a creator.

/sarc

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM

No, they’re not. Judge Jones in his decision on Kitzmiller v. Dover in Pennsylvania found ample evidence that so-called “intelligent design” was in fact a cover for Christian creationism.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I guess you agree with every single court decision ever made.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Yeah, because only christians believe in a creator.

No, it’s because so-called “intelligent design” was ginned up by Christian creationists in places like the Discovery Institute.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I guess you agree with every single court decision ever made.

I guess you don’t have a point to make.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM

If the GOP keeps on pandering to ignorant bigots, it’ll only reflect badly on Republicans in the end.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Since when has the GOP pandered to Dawkins-type atheists?

Look at this entire thread. I dare you to list the number of insults given by an IDer and those given by macro evolutinists.

Hell, let’s make this even more fun. Just list the number of people on each side that has used even one insult.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Since when has the GOP pandered to Dawkins-type atheists?

I guess you don’t have a point either.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I guess you don’t have a point to make.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Well let’s see. You said that ID and christian creationism are the same thing. You listed a judge saying so as being your evidence. Therefor, I guess we are to assume that judges are always right.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

JUDGE JONES SAID IT I BELIEVE IT!!!

Dover in Review: An Analysis of Judge Jones’ Flawed Ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

link

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Guys, when judges voice passages like this in their decisions:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

it might be wise to consider whether or not it’s really worth being willfully ignorant and bigoted.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM

right4life, for a “flawed” ruling, it seems as if it would be a no-brainer for it to be appealed. It wasn’t, because the Christian legal eagles who backed the Dover School Board knew Judge Jones’ decision was not going to be overruled by any other court.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious atheist convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID evolution Policy.

I take it if you believe in ID there you aren’t allowed to be a christian, otherwise you are a lyer.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Starfleet_dude, how would you feel if neither was taught in school and instead college students could choose wether they want to take a class in either?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Starfleet_dude, how would you feel if neither was taught in school and instead college students could choose wether they want to take a class in either?

The same way I’d feel if someone proposed waiting to teach whether or not the Earth was flat until college. I have more respect for students in K-12 than to keep them in ignorance simply to appease a bunch of fundamentalist bigots.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

keep them in ignorance simply to appease a bunch of fundamentalist bigots.

You use that word “bigot” a lot. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

The same way I’d feel if someone proposed waiting to teach whether or not the Earth was flat until college. I have more respect for students in K-12 than to keep them in ignorance simply to appease a bunch of fundamentalist bigots.

We are 100% sure that the Earth is round. The evidence around it doesn’t contain words/phrases like “possibly”, “might be”, “there’s a change”, etc.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM

your ‘universe’ is a product of your mind…where you atheists get to construct your own right and wrong…be your own god…its what you want..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

If I were a god in my universe you wouldn’t be in it… but here you are.

If I could really believe I existed in a universe where simply confessing my sins (got plenty, even by my own self-created standards) to Almighty God would reward me with eternal life in Heaven, I’d do it. Unfortunately I can’t honestly force myself to believe I live in such a universe. I’d like to, but I don’t.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM

right4life, for a “flawed” ruling, it seems as if it would be a no-brainer for it to be appealed. It wasn’t, because the Christian legal eagles who backed the Dover School Board knew Judge Jones’ decision was not going to be overruled by any other court.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

I think its funny as hell that darwiniacs have to SUE to SILENCE their opponents…shows they can’t win the argument otherwise…

I also think its funny for anyone to rely upon court rulings for their ‘science’…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

If I could really believe I existed in a universe where simply confessing my sins (got plenty, even by my own self-created standards) to Almighty God would reward me with eternal life in Heaven, I’d do it. Unfortunately I can’t honestly force myself to believe I live in such a universe. I’d like to, but I don’t.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM

its OK, you get to choose for now…but someday that choice will be actualized, shall we say, and we will all have to live the results of our choices…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

You’d have more credibility if you could keep your emotions under control. There’s no need for name calling.

Of course it’s perfectly valid to question evolution. You raised a specific example of a part of evolutionary theory that was previously widely accepted by scientists, but later found to be likely wrong based on new evidence. As a result of that new evidence the theory was adjusted, exactly as how science is supposed to work.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

It would be easier to keep my emotions in control if I and others not in agreement weren’t talked down to like 3 year olds in this thread.
Secondly I don’t need you tell me it is ok to question evoultion. I am telling you it is jr, your not telling me.

They adjusted the theory but never for one moment called into question the theory as a whole. That is the problem.
Evoultion is religion for many many people

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Hell, let’s make this even more fun. Just list the number of people on each side that has used even one insult.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

You could do so as easily as anyone else. Since it’s your proposal, why don’t you implement it?

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Honestly? We are talking about Evolution again!!!!! Why is this ever an issue for anyone? This is part of American culture I just don’t get–the emotion that surrounds evolution and how it somehow applies to religion.

And does Matthew believe in God? Cause that is the correct response. He accuses the other guy of believing in evolution and God. But doesn’t he? I don’t remember Matthews declaring himself Atheist. So pot calling the kettle…

But look at how many posts it gets. Almost as many as the half naked woman thread…

petunia on May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

[Deep breath] The aggressive casuistry that is oh-so-typical of ID proponents, showing itself here again in this thread, will continue to be a prime target of the Chris Matthewses of the media, whose purpose is to kookify the Republican party in public.

Just keep talking, ID sophists. Liberals absolutely LOVE you, and are more than willing to parade you around as the face of the Republican Party just as you see in this Mike Pence video, in order to try to run us aground and ridicule conservatism.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

its OK, you get to choose for now…but someday that choice will be actualized, shall we say, and we will all have to live the results of our choices…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Yes, I understand. But my understanding is it also needs to be an honest choice. I can’t honestly believe it, so I guess I’m just screwed.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

We are 100% sure that the Earth is round. The evidence around it doesn’t contain words/phrases like “possibly”, “might be”, “there’s a change”, etc.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM

When was that proven? Were there theories before it was proven? Might the theories have been useful?

dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Yes, I understand. But my understanding is it also needs to be an honest choice. I can’t honestly believe it, so I guess I’m just screwed.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

it is an honest choice, you have made it.

there’s still hope for you… CS lewis was an atheist, and turned out to be one of the great christian apologists of this, or any other age.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM

We are 100% sure that the Earth is round. The evidence around it doesn’t contain words/phrases like “possibly”, “might be”, “there’s a change”, etc.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Exactly right, we also know nuclear fission works because someone built a bomb and dropped it.
You are really powning star trek fan there I mean star_fleet dude.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Evoultion is religion for many many people

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

For many that is so. But I’ve spoken to not a few who keep the evidence in proper perspective and have an open mind on future possibilities. All scientists are not God haters.

I even had one Ivy league Anthropologist admit to me (after he found me not wholly opposed to the theory) that the evidence for evolution is based on much more story making than any physical evidence. At least as far as human evolution is concerned. But he said that was a fact kept mostly secret to the public and even to scientists who did not plan to study deeply in this field.

Much of this debate could be softened if people were not so tied up in knots over it.

petunia on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Deep breath] The aggressive casuistry that is oh-so-typical of ID proponents, showing itself here again in this thread, will continue to be a prime target of the Chris Matthewses of the media, whose purpose is to kookify the Republican party in public.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

well why don’t you just point out what you think is unsound?? maybe you could try answering some of the questions raised, instead of just dismissing them like a typical darwiniac?

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM

M

uch of this debate could be softened if people were not so tied up in knots over it.

petunia on May 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Agree 100 percent

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Wrong! At the most they want it to be mentioned, MENTIONED, that some poeple believe in intelligent design. That’s it. They aren’t saying to have it taught, just mentioned.
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Why?
For what purpose?
It is not science, so why mention it in a science classroom, or in a science debate?
I guess we could mention it…..and how it’s not science.
And then we could resume learning real science.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Deep breath] The aggressive casuistry that is oh-so-typical of ID proponents, showing itself here again in this thread, will continue to be a prime target of the Chris Matthewses of the media, whose purpose is to kookify the Republican party in public.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

You guys constantly make the mistake that everybody who doesn’t agree with macro-evoultion is an ID proponent.
Proving that macro-evoultion is not true would not automatically prove the existence of God.
You athiest need to take a deep breath

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It would be easier to keep my emotions in control if I and others not in agreement weren’t talked down to like 3 year olds in this thread.
Secondly I don’t need you tell me it is ok to question evoultion. I am telling you it is jr, your not telling me.

They adjusted the theory but never for one moment called into question the theory as a whole. That is the problem.
Evoultion is religion for many many people

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I don’t believe I talked down to you like you were a 3 year old. I also didn’t presume to tell you it was ok or otherwise to question evolution, simply acknowledged your point.

The example you cited didn’t require the entire theory of evolution to be called into question. It simply required a minor adjustment, which was in fact the result.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

well why don’t you just point out what you think is unsound?? maybe you could try answering some of the questions raised, instead of just dismissing them like a typical darwiniac?

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM

You are an especially hopeless case. You are a prime sophist. The burden of proof is on you, Mr Sophist, not on me. This is the same trick that the ancient Sophists tried to pull on Socrates. This rhetorical gamesmanship was sophistry then, irritating Socrates and wasting his time, and it remains so today.

YOU are the one making the arguments, YOU are the one who must show how resoundingly Intelligent Design absolutely DESTROYS the evolution argument. Since doing so is entirely not possible, you resort to casuistry and tricks of equivocation and try to foist your own burden of proof onto others. Not going to fly with me, Poindexter.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I think they want to teach evolution as well as intelligent design. Frank T.J Mackey on May 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

….which would be a mistake…..because then people of differing faiths would want input……a huge can of worms….

Creationism and intelligent design are two different things.

Frank T.J Mackey on May 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

How?
In what ways?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM

You are an especially hopeless case. You are a prime sophist. The burden of proof is on you, Mr Sophist, not on me. This is the same trick that the ancient Sophists tried to pull on Socrates. This rhetorical gamesmanship was sophistry then, irritating Socrates and wasting his time, and it remains so today.

I’ve already posted quite a few issues….your ducking and dodging is very typical and telling…..

YOU are the one making the arguments, YOU are the one who must show how resoundingly Intelligent Design absolutely DESTROYS the evolution argument. Since doing so is entirely not possible, you resort to casuistry and tricks of equivocation and try to foist your own burden of proof onto others. Not going to fly with me, Poindexter.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

already have dumbass

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

why don’t you dazzle us all with your uh ‘brilliance’ *smirk* and demolish my points one by one?

should be easy for one such as yourself, you’re obviously a legend in your own mind..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM

there’s still hope for you…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Good to hear you not laughing at my coming torment in hell for a change ;)

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

here oh wise one, lets start with how hemaglobin and soft tissue can survive for 80 MILLION years..in a dinosaur fossil…

go ahead, this should be good..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I thought the standard line for creationist Republican politicians when asked this question is to say yes, of course they accept Darwin, before quickly adding that that’s not strictly incompatible with belief in a Christian God.

It is wholly incompatible with the core Christian doctrine of “sin=death, death=enemy, grave=no decay, resurrection=conquering death”… but Christianity long ago dispensed with many of its core truths for temporal, political approval.

mankai on May 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Good to hear you not laughing at my coming torment in hell for a change ;)

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I don’t laugh at them..but some people are really asking for it…you know? and it really bothers them to think of such a fate, and so I tend to point it out to them…I also find it interesting that it SO offends some of the most rabid atheists…when they don’t believe in such a thing..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM

The example you cited didn’t require the entire theory of evolution to be called into question. It simply required a minor adjustment, which was in fact the result.

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I will leave it at this
When you state something as fact and later it is suddenly disproved it does in fact call the whole thing into question in the same way a person on the witness stand swore under oath and later was proven to be wrong.
Secondly I say it calls the whole thing into question and that makes it so. My opinion counts as much as yours.
We could go back and forth on this all day but this aire of mental superiority that evoultionsit have(especially on the right) has really got to go. Makes no sense

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I don’t laugh at them..but some people are really asking for it…you know? and it really bothers them to think of such a fate, and so I tend to point it out to them…I also find it interesting that it SO offends some of the most rabid atheists…when they don’t believe in such a thing..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Sure, it bothers me to think you could be right. I don’t think you are, but I admit there’s a very tiny possibility I could be wrong. And if I am wrong it would really really suck to have right4life up in Heaven laughing at me. That would make hell unbearable…

DarkCurrent on May 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7