| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2007 02:40:47 AM |
| Object: |
David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-4f91-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
26 Aug 2007 12:44:46 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally.
Why must a scientific discovery with a wealth of verifiable evidence to
support it be 'attacked frontally'. Is the writer more concerned about
discovering the truth regarding man's origins or feeling warm and fuzzy in
the comfort of a belief in an utterly undetectable deity and his 'Son' for
purely psychological and emotional reasons? What's so wrong with the truth?
For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality.
Oh really? Now that 'reality' wouldn't be that a 'God' and his 'Son' -- also
a 'God' -- came into existence without actually coming into existence
because both 'Father' and 'Son' existed before 'existence' itself came into
existence? That this Father-Son duo (without the benefit of a supernatural
'mother) created the universe and both man and woman in order that the 'Son'
would, ultimately, pretend to die the death of crucifixion in order for
mankind to be absolved of the 'sins' this duo would eventually create and
subject man to in order to protect certain individuals from eternal torment
and damnation in Hell? *That* 'reality'? Or are we talking about a deity who
has has nothing to do with mankind and the universe and who *too* defies
detection?
They subvert our grasp of moral issues.
Oh spare me.
They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research.
And why is that? Because art, philosophy, and science could not possibly
exist without mankind accepting the existence of a mother-less God-Jesus and
his 'Father'? Is it possible that atheists and agnostics would be incapable
of creating art, philosophizing, and doing good science without accepting
Jesus as their personal 'Lord' and 'Savior'? Somehow, I just don't buy that.
They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless.
Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Elizabeth, dear ... could you grab me a couple of those
Hitler/Mussolini/Franco pills? I'm not feeling quite fascist enough at the
moment? Could you tear open that package of Stalin pills and grab one or two
of those too while you're at it, snook-ums? I want to feel a little more
Communist-fascist before watching Bill Moyers and Religion & Ethics on the
'telly'. Oh, did I tell you that since life is ultimately meaningless and
that we are rather insignificant in the overall scheme of things that I
think you're insignificant and meaningless too? Yes, I love you too dear.
David Warren, get real. Cut the crap. You want reality? Look at all the
death, destruction, misery, agony, anguish, death and destruction religion
has been directly responsible for in man's past. And that is religion of
which I speak. Not the discovery that life on this planet as we know it is
the product of evolution.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
Now the word 'randomly' is being abused here. But I doubt the author cares
one whit about that. 'Contrived'? Name anything *more* 'contrived' than
'religion'
Greywolf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-4f91-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
27 Aug 2007 01:58:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:44:46 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
Why must a scientific discovery with a wealth of verifiable evidence to
support it be 'attacked frontally'. Is the writer more concerned about
discovering the truth regarding man's origins or feeling warm and fuzzy in
the comfort of a belief in an utterly undetectable deity and his 'Son' for
purely psychological and emotional reasons?
Come on, you know the answer - the latter.
What's so wrong with the truth?
It contradicts "revealed Truth".
They subvert our grasp of moral issues.
Oh spare me.
You don't consider Christians automatically moral? (What do I need to
get my tongue out of my cheek for that? A bulldozer?)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
27 Aug 2007 06:16:35 PM |
|
|
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 09:59:42 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house <sigh>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 06:08:54 PM |
|
|
In article <5jirglF3to5p2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-
4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house <sigh>
Good grief. That's all we need. Cats with water balloons. Of course
they would have to be careful with their claws. :-)
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
29 Aug 2007 08:00:47 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4DDFE8.16085428082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5jirglF3to5p2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-
4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many
believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and
nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house
<sigh>
Good grief. That's all we need. Cats with water balloons. Of course
they would have to be careful with their claws. :-)
No problems here, unless they plan on carrying them in their hind feet.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
30 Aug 2007 12:07:14 AM |
|
|
In article <5jl8tlF57svU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4DDFE8.16085428082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5jirglF3to5p2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
---
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-82
6b-
4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many
believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and
nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house
<sigh>
Good grief. That's all we need. Cats with water balloons. Of course
they would have to be careful with their claws. :-)
No problems here, unless they plan on carrying them in their hind feet.
Now that would be silly. Cats carryings water balloons with their hind
feet walking on their front paws. :-)
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 09:11:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:08:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <5jirglF3to5p2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-826b-
4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house <sigh>
Good grief. That's all we need. Cats with water balloons. Of course
they would have to be careful with their claws. :-)
That's the escape clause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
30 Aug 2007 12:09:46 AM |
|
|
In article <cel9d3pa1kus4ujf7dicgaqm17ss6fo7vt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:08:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <5jirglF3to5p2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
---
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6-82
6b-
4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and
nephews
;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house <sigh>
Good grief. That's all we need. Cats with water balloons. Of course
they would have to be careful with their claws. :-)
That's the escape clause.
What about the Santa clause? (Or was that the Satan clause?)
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 12:07:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:59:42 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4C002F.16163527082007@news.giganews.com...
In article <ijb2d3pj0nbrmrd2kbj1einaiqqr38h69j@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?
id=18c9c4f6-826b-4f9
1-b3c0-04c47b8f61ec
or http://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many
believers.
Hey, my two cats DEFINITELY behave better than some of my nieces and
nephews ;)
At least they know better than to bring water balloons in the house
<sigh>
Seriously. I mean, have _you_ ever tried carrying a full water balloon
with a paw full of claws? One little slip and *bloosh*, water everywhere!
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 10:08:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 05:59:02 PM |
|
|
In article <ige8d3h1uo6rfkbh1opr0qr6p59rt09qa0@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
Many strange things hide behind religion. If you point out their
irrationality, you're a prejudiced bigot.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 09:13:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:59:02 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ige8d3h1uo6rfkbh1opr0qr6p59rt09qa0@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
Many strange things hide behind religion. If you point out their
irrationality, you're a prejudiced bigot.
That is how the meme survives.
Those that do not force the host into this behaviour, soon die out, or
at least become insignificant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 11:40:48 PM |
|
|
In article <3hl9d396h76685jqicfa9pdd8fl6d7tup4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:59:02 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ige8d3h1uo6rfkbh1opr0qr6p59rt09qa0@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
Many strange things hide behind religion. If you point out their
irrationality, you're a prejudiced bigot.
That is how the meme survives.
Those that do not force the host into this behaviour, soon die out, or
at least become insignificant.
Yep. And this meme can be very forceful.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
29 Aug 2007 04:22:16 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:40:48 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <3hl9d396h76685jqicfa9pdd8fl6d7tup4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:59:02 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ige8d3h1uo6rfkbh1opr0qr6p59rt09qa0@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
Many strange things hide behind religion. If you point out their
irrationality, you're a prejudiced bigot.
That is how the meme survives.
Those that do not force the host into this behaviour, soon die out, or
at least become insignificant.
Yep. And this meme can be very forceful.
9/11 springs to mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
30 Aug 2007 12:05:32 AM |
|
|
In article <glead3p2vor94r0786fbu0d65bins9l95k@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:40:48 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <3hl9d396h76685jqicfa9pdd8fl6d7tup4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:59:02 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <ige8d3h1uo6rfkbh1opr0qr6p59rt09qa0@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The
same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many
believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
Many strange things hide behind religion. If you point out their
irrationality, you're a prejudiced bigot.
That is how the meme survives.
Those that do not force the host into this behaviour, soon die out, or
at least become insignificant.
Yep. And this meme can be very forceful.
9/11 springs to mind.
Exactly. You can add that one to the long sorry list of religious
atrocities.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
28 Aug 2007 09:12:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:08:37 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:16:35 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The person who wrote that doesn't have a clue about evolution. The same
old theist canard. "If you came from animals, you will act like an
animal". Never mind that most animals behave better than many believers.
And we're supposed not to treat them as brain dead idiots because it
is their religion, according to Shermer.
He was a rabid woo-woo fundy not that long ago.
Perhaps he has remaining pockets of infection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bramble" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
26 Aug 2007 09:40:53 AM |
|
|
On 26 ago, 08:40, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science,
it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have
the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
The answer to this has been implicit in what I have written.
Nevertheless, it is worth spelling out. It is because Darwinism has
embedded itself so deeply into the assumptions of our age, that it
must be attacked frontally. For Darwinian assumptions cloud our view
of reality. They subvert our grasp of moral issues. They make it
possible for people to be dismissive, not only of art, philosophy and
religion, but of the requirements and limitations of true scientific
research. They eviscerate the human spirit, by insisting that, in the
last analysis, everything is random and meaningless. Conversely, they
justify true fascism ("survival of the fittest"), and all the horrors
of eugenics, abortions and euthanasia.
Moral relativism could not stand, except on a Darwinist base, and
reason itself is rendered defenceless, by the notion that all nature
was randomly contrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it athttp://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=18c9c4f6...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ykobs
J. Spaceman
Moral relativism you can find it aplenty on your Bible. This god,
specially the Jewish god is one of the most murderous of the gods in
human history. A god that kill all humanity with a flood is a
criminal god. A god that kills all people un Somodoma and Gomorra y a
criminal god. And a god that chooses a piece of land where other
people is living to give it to a buch of his followers is a criminal
god.
So, if want to talk about relativism we can talk about the Bible.
On the other hand, even the Jesus of love you like so much portrait,
has a few phrases about being someone that "I have not come here to
bring peace, but war" It follows some phrases in what he utters that
"because of me, the father will hatre his son, and the son his
father. The mother will hate his daughter in law, and the daugter in
law will hate mother of his husband." More or less these were his
words. Jesus came not to breing peace, but war. This a nice piece a
moral relativism and is in contradiction with all the other sayings
about loving the neighbour, and to present the other cheek to an
aggressor.
So do not come here with this horseshit about the moral relativism of
Darwinism. If you want to fight moral relativism just throw your
fucking Bible in the fire.
Bramble
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
27 Aug 2007 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , bramble
<leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> in
<1188139253.545496.118030@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Moral relativism you can find it aplenty on your Bible. This god,
specially the Jewish god is one of the most murderous of the gods in
human history. A god that kill all humanity with a flood is a
criminal god.
I'm going to guess that you have very little knowledge of other
religions. Killing every one with a flood or a fire or some such is
pretty common.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "bramble" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
27 Aug 2007 02:15:08 PM |
|
|
On 27 ago, 16:50, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , bramble
<leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> in
<1188139253.545496.118...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Moral relativism you can find it aplenty on your Bible. This god,
specially the Jewish god is one of the most murderous of the gods in
human history. A god that kill all humanity with a flood is a
criminal god.
I'm going to guess that you have very little knowledge of other
religions. Killing every one with a flood or a fire or some such is
pretty common.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
I'm not an expert about "other" religions. I have some knowledge
about Islam, and a little about Budhism. I supose that stories about
the gods of India, would be as murderous as that of the Xians. The
religion of Aztecas, and Mayas, were pretty bloody also. I have not
an special regard for religions in general.
Bramble
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
27 Aug 2007 03:48:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:15:08 -0700, in alt.atheism , bramble
<leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> in
<1188242108.219562.231800@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 27 ago, 16:50, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , bramble
<leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> in
<1188139253.545496.118...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Moral relativism you can find it aplenty on your Bible. This god,
specially the Jewish god is one of the most murderous of the gods in
human history. A god that kill all humanity with a flood is a
criminal god.
I'm going to guess that you have very little knowledge of other
religions. Killing every one with a flood or a fire or some such is
pretty common.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
I'm not an expert about "other" religions.
Then were do you come up with a comparison like "most murderous of the
gods in human history"?
I have some knowledge
about Islam, and a little about Budhism. I supose that stories about
the gods of India, would be as murderous as that of the Xians. The
religion of Aztecas, and Mayas, were pretty bloody also. I have not
an special regard for religions in general.
So your statement was meaningless.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: David Warren: The danger of Darwin |
26 Aug 2007 08:37:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:40:47 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly
blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth
answering: "Wake up, man. Whether or not 'Darwinism' is good science, it
is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you
persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are
prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don't you have the
tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?"
He's lying that he's getting those kinds of responses.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
