Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 22, 2005

Commentaries

David Limbaugh
Dogmatic Darwinists

...many of them are guilty of the primary sin they ascribe to ID proponents. For they begin with an irrebuttable presumption not just that evolution is a valid theory but that the very origins of life are the result of material, not supernatural causes, and any inquiry that proceeds apart from this presumption, by definition, is not scientific. After all, God's existence cannot be proved in a laboratory. By the clever use of circular logic, they ensure that ID can never be accepted as scientific.

Anyone who does not initiate his inquiry with the obligatory presumption is, by definition, a heretic, a crackpot and not part of the scientific community no matter how many science-related degrees he may have on his CV. So again, through grossly circular logic, they perpetuate the myth that no scientists believe in ID.


Mark Steyn
‘Peace Mom’s’ marriage a metaphor for Dems

They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing....

Yet in the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, they have family in the military, and they don't believe in dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., to desert.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 22, 2005 09:16 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1914

Comments

its funny to me that people call themselves christian but only follow what they want out of the bible. I will not judge but god will, do you truly believe that he will not find you lacking?
in your zeal to accomodate everyhting republican do you truly believe they are on your side or just using you to achive their political goals? Its always asked what would jesus do? do you truly think he would subscribe to everyhting you believe?

I guess all in all to some people being a christian only matters if it furthers your goals and ideals. May god be with you, someday he will judge.

Posted by: Joshua at August 22, 2005 01:08 PM

its funny to me that people call themselves christian but only follow what they want out of the bible. I will not judge but god will, do you truly believe that he will not find you lacking?

In your first sentence, you judged me. In the second, you claimed that you don't judge. So which is it?

in your zeal to accomodate everyhting republican do you truly believe they are on your side or just using you to achive their political goals?

Again you judge me, and accuse me of  “accomodating everything Republican” so apparently you feel it's okay for you to accuse someone of something with no foundation for substantiating such an accusation (otherwise known as bigotry)

 Its always asked what would jesus do? do you truly think he would subscribe to everyhting you believe?

“Everything I believe” is a pretty wide brush to paint by. I hope my beliefs are in line with Jesus, and I strive for that. Therefore the answer is yes, I do thinks so, but I know that I could easily be wrong on something here or there. The point is, I at least try to learn what He teaches, and go by that.

I guess all in all to some people being a christian only matters if it furthers your goals and ideals. May god be with you, someday he will judge.

In the mean time you seem to be doing more than your share of judging for everyone else.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 22, 2005 01:28 PM

The value of a scientific theory is not determined by who "believes" it or not. It is determined by the predictive power of the theory. Like it or not, evolutionary theory does a better job of predicting the behavior of biological phenomena than ID theory or its close cousin creation science. This is seen on a daily basis in such diverse fields as medicine, animal husbandry, agriculture, etc.

Unfortunatley, those who are not really familiar with evolutionary theory confuse discussions about the origin of life (which, in fact, is not addressed by evolutionary theory) with discussions about how life evolved.

Posted by: Dr. Mark H. Shapiro at August 22, 2005 03:27 PM

Evolutionary theory does a "good" job of predicting those things specifically interpreted with Evolution as a presumption. Using that standard the Easter Bunny could be as legitimate a scientific theory for "predicting" the behavior of biological phenomena. It's still circular logic.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 22, 2005 03:45 PM

Well Danny consider the following question. Why do human beings have an appendix? It performs no known useful function in the digestive system. And, indeed, because of our upright posture it can become infected and threaten one's life. Why would an "intelligent designer" add an appendix to the digestive systems of humans if its only purpose is to threaten their lives? Clearly, a well-designed human digestive system doesn't need this appendage.

On the other hand there are several other species of mammals that also have an appendix. Except in these mammals the appendix functions to help digest the food that is common in their diet.

The most reasonable conclusion is that the human appendix is an evolutionary vestige from the common ancestor that we share with other mammals.

Posted by: Dr. Mark H. Shapiro at August 26, 2005 10:24 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.