Another one falls under Huckabee’s spell
One by one, prominent media figures, who’ve apparently grown weary of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates, are lining up to sing Mike Huckabee’s praises. David Broder boasts on national television of being “a Huckabee fan.” David Brooks wrote a gushing love letter to the former governor last week. And now Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, whom I usually like, is feeling the Huck-mentum.
After explaining why the rest of the GOP field either doesn’t deserve, or can’t win, the presidency, Alter praises Huckabee because he “speaks American.” The Arkansan, Alter argues, “comes across more hopeful than Giuliani, more believable than Romney, more intelligent than Thompson and fresher than McCain.”
On one of the more contentious parts of Huckabee’s background, Alter gives the candidate a pass.
Even on faith and politics, Mike is easy to like. From afar he seemed extreme because he raised his hand in a debate when the candidates were asked en masse if they believed in intelligent design. But when Bill Maher pressed him to justify that view on his HBO show, Huckabee responded with a nuanced and presentable discussion of the origins of the universe that seemed to pacify even the atheist host. (I found this as well when we discussed the subject some months ago.) He has surely said some wacky right-wing things that could be used against him, but no more than any of the others in the Republican field.
I think Alter’s off-base on Huckabee in general, but this seems particularly mistaken.
First, Huckabee’s history of “wacky right-wing things” shouldn’t be dismissed quite so easily.
As recently as 1998, while governor, Huckabee told a Southern Baptist pastors’ conference, “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” More recently — just in the last few weeks — Huckabee compared safe-sex programs to drunk driving, and said he’s “reluctant” to support programs that promote condom use in combating AIDS in Africa.
“Wacky” just doesn’t seem to cut it as an adjective.
As for modern biology, Alter’s description gets the facts wrong. Huckabee didn’t raise his hand in support of “intelligent-design” creationism — the question in the debate was over who rejected evolution. That’s when Huckabee raised his hand. After the debate, he added that doesn’t believe people “came from apes.”
He later “clarified” the issue while talking to Bill Maher, but it’s not clear why Alter found this persuasive.
[B]y the time Huckabee appeared on Bill Maher’s show in August, he had that more “nuanced” view on evolution. “It’s not a proper yes-or-no question,” he said. “Do I believe that it is all about just random selection, that it just happened without any design, designer, anybody behind it? No I don’t believe that, I think there was a God behind that.”
When Maher asked Huckabee if he believed that man came from monkeys, he said: “I don’t know.”
I’m not quite sure why the media has all of a sudden decided to swoon; it probably has something to do with the fact that the most competitive Republican candidates are pretty awful. But let’s not forget that Huckabee isn’t quite the moderate every-man his fans are making him out to be.
He’s just another No Peace, More War Movement Huckster, in the “compassionate conservative” mold of one George W. Bush.
Seems to me Dems should sit back and enjoy the show. Let the nut take the primary so Dems can take the election.
Anyone who can rewrite history to the point where the constitution was signed by a bunch of ministers, that’s a guy Bobo and the Dean of the beltway bobbleheads can learn to like. By the time Huckleberry is done, Iraq and Iran will have teamed up and attacked Pearl Harbor with nuclear weapons on 9/11, and the bobbleheads will be asking why all the DFHs can’t find some way to build a concensus with him.
The Arkansan, Alter argues, “comes across more hopeful than Giuliani, more believable than Romney, more intelligent than Thompson and fresher than McCain.”
Henceforth, this shall be the textbook definition of the term “damning with faint praise.” See also “backhanded compliment.”
A soft-spoken and articulate and warm person with wacko beliefs is still a wacko - the delivery doesn’t make it all okay.
Honestly, these media types may be slightly more gullible than the people who buy what they’re selling; their increasing willingness to suspend rational skepticism, and abandon all attempts at actual research and investigation is appalling and inexcusable.
They are utterly useless, and not only am I not even marginally entertained by them, I am increasingly offended.
I second Eadie’s thought–Clinton, Edwards, or Obama would eat this loser for lunch.
as i said the other day, the truly scary thing about huckabee is that for long periods of time — to msm types who aren’t paying close attention — he can seem quite lucid and rational. it’s only when he let’s fly with an “abortion=the holocaust” or “i don’t believe in evolution” that the beltway insiders say “wha???” if they do it at all, that is.
We did NOT come from apes.
I wish the Darwinists would not say things that are absolutely NOT TRUE
It certainly looks as if a few of you have come from monkeys!
Edwards or Obama? LMFAO
BILLARY…. she’s already toast. I hope she relishes the victory over Obama, because it will be her last. 50% of the nation says they wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances (and the number is just going up). And to think… no one’s even taken the fight to her yet. Watch your 6 Hillary… the GOP is about to fire one where even Bill won’t go.
I think it’s all about the horse race. The pundits, the media, the press all stand to do well if it’s an exciting race, and I think they’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary is not only a shoo-in for the nomination, but for the presidency, because of this sorry field of Republican candidates. They’re all looking for a hero to come in and make the race close, and Huckabee is now the horse they’re looking at, and hoping will give that filly Hillary a real good run. They’ll prop up this sorry nag with steroids if they can get away with it just to make an exciting race.
They made a winner out of Bush, didn’t they?
What? Darwin’s theory is that we did not come from apes.
Steve Benen: You are obviousily the ‘truth’ authority. My you must have studied science and theology with rigorous energy….being everybodies ‘only I know the ”truth’ man.
Now, let me tell you something….open your mind…you don’t have all the answers, nobody does. What are you going to say about two documentaries schelduled for release, “No Intelligence Allowed” and ‘Hillary Exposed”.
She doesn’t stand a chance against Huckabee….and I’ll really be surprised if she even gets the Democratic nomination. By the way….isn’t Hillary a Methodist….so am I and as far as I know we still believe in God…..unless you want to correct me about that?
hark, i would only add to your horse race theory that they also look for “clever” story lines. what better than the former First Lady of Arkansas versus the former Governor of Arkansas? think of all the fun the press can have with that! what a novel twist! we can interview a bunch of folks from Hope and ask them who they prefer - wow, this reporting stuff is easy!
***what Anne and Mellowjohn said***
The media wannabes don’t ask the right questions because they are afraid of the answers.
Do you believe we should have prayer in school? Do you believe creationism should be taught in schools? Do you believe in the separation of church and state? Do you believe homosexuality should be illegal? These are just a few of the questions that the answers would dismay. He is even more insane on foreign policy and surrendering our personal freedoms.
Republicans certainly are grasping at straws trying to prop up candidates who are all terrible. What passes as acceptable to republicans is borne of desperation. They don’t have an honest non hypocritical candidate in the whole party who wants to publicly associate with their base and what it has become.
bjobotts: Everybody is not an atheist….get it?
paul thompson and neil wilson came from monkeys!
paul thompson and neil wilson came from monkeys!
nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah
hee hee….
***paul thompson***???????? What the hell are you talking about????
“…Steve Benen: You are obviousily the ‘truth’ authority. My you must have studied science and theology with rigorous energy….being everybodies ‘only I know the ”truth’ man.
Now, let me tell you something….open your mind…you don’t have all the answers, nobody does. What are you going to say about two documentaries schelduled for release, “No Intelligence Allowed” and ‘Hillary Exposed”.”
Makes no sense at all. I’m assuming from all the misspelled words and lack of coherent thought that you must have run out of whiskey. Try drinking it slower. Have a beer and a nap before you go off to the liquor store.
Nothing you’ve said in what I guess was supposed to be an attack on Benen makes any sense or even relates to the article. “Now let me tell you something…” WTF? Mad about something but only god knows what that is. Time for a break don’t ya’ think?
bjobotts: Your comments don’t even merit a response….next?
nal
That is correct. Darwin’s theory states we did not come from apes.
When you look at your ancestry and compare it with an ape’s ancestry you eventually reach the same species.
Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Apes are our distant cousins, not our great-great-…….. great grandparents.
Do you really think apes haven’t evolved in the last 10 million years?
So, how come you missed the most important quote of all on Huckabee?
At a press conference Monday, Huckabee suggested that reporters read Alter’s “very thoughtful” piece, saying that he thought the columnist had gotten it right.
A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views — including his view on evolution — might play in the general election.
“Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do,” he said. “In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don’t think there’s a conflict between the two. But if there’s going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.”
And this guy is considered “reasonable”???????????????????
[Hits head on desk…]
It REALLY does not help when we get basic biology wrong on our side.
The correct question is “do humans and apes share a common ancestor?”
It is NOT “are humans descended from apes.”
Now, without question, our ancestors were more “ape-like,” but modern apes are themselves as evolved as modern humans, for their own ecological niche. It does a disservice to the science to constantly describe this in a manner totally wrong.
I am just a layperson, and for that matter a Christian, but let’s state this correctly.
And yes, Paul Thompson is also descended from common ancestry with apes.
Good old Paul Thompson: proof that there are indeed two species of biped on the planet: homo sapiens (us) and homo sap (Paul and his buddies). Actually, we shouldn’t give him trouble about his challenge to use the English language - it’s hard to type without opposable thumbs, or frontal lobes to direct what you’re doing, though the fact he can do anything is more proof of the user-friendliness of computers than anything he did.
Great googly moogly…
Neil Wilson @ 19: Sorry about that. I did not mean to repeat your post. I had a bit of an error posting, so I would bet I was posting around the time you were. I did not mean to step on your point.
Neil: Coelacanths first appear in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian, about 410 million years ago….we still have them….what happened? Maybe apes haven’t evolved either….maybe they were ‘created”…..we don’t know….but evolution is about to get trounced. So, keep believing….cause your days of leaving Creation out of the question is very numbered.
Alex (#9) is also a visitor from Republican Dreamworld, I see. In fact, the number of people who say they wouldn’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances is going DOWN, not up, and in fact her numbers over any of the Republican mini-dicks are what is going UP.
But what the hell, Republicans obviously slept through “what is a fact?” class in school, and are now so desperate as they realize they are being discovered by everyone else as the losers they were born to be, they’ll screech anything.
I really must thank Alex and Paul for their yeoman efforts in proving that while humans are indeed not descended from apes - as the scientifically-literate have said here - Republicans are definitely lower on the evolutionary scale than lemurs.
But they’ll have fun after their ride in the Black Helicopters to the de-Nazification, er, de-Republicanization Centers in 2009.
Paul @ 24: How does the persistence of coelacanths support your point? By that logic, we should be encountering dinosaurs.
Coelacanths likely occupied a niche that enabled them to survive extinctions that destroyed most other species.
Tom Cleaver: It amazes me that because I know what I don’t know….you want to call me ignorant and narrowminded. Where does your expertise in discussions on philosophy and science come from? The playground or from the atheist bible?
Andrew: Really….a niche that lasted for 450 million years…huh…is that logical with all the ‘evolution’ going on?
Tom Cleaver: Again….your creditials?
Paul:
I don’t mean to be nasty but I have a serious question for you.
Why do you believe in creationism?
Is it because it is in the Bible?
Are there parts of the Bible that you believe to be true when they conflict with modern science?
Are there parts of the Bible that you don’t believe because they conflict with modern science?
Neil: I believe because I know what I don’t know. It is through default. Look at the question surrounding the origin of life…or the origins of the universe. There are theories….but more questions than answers.
Paul: “It amazes me that because I know what I don’t know”
Isn’t that plagiarism? Didn’t rumsfeld say something like that too? I didn’t follow his logic either…
BTW, since you’re calling out Tom’s credentials, what exactly are yours?
Neil: Plus my experience in having a personal relationship with the Creator. I know I’ll get bashed for that statement….but I really tried to find some other ‘answer’, and well I’m really glad with what I found, although, I was sure there was something else to hang my ‘false pride’ on.. But what if found is this, God Loves me. And it is my experience, my witness and my right to believe that.
kanopsis: BA in Biology, extended grad hours in environmental microbiology, M.Div with a strong emphasis on ecotheology.
Paul: This is a pointless argument, but I feel compelled to try.
Evolution does not DEMAND drastic change. If a species has a strong fit to its environment, it can remain relatively unchanged. Now, you will of course see variation, but a species may not significantly change for millions of years.
Coelacanths are only one example. Sharks are another. Now, better biologists than I could be more specific, but numerous insect and microscopic species have seen little change over incredibly long periods of time.
My larger concern is the one I have whenever I encounter fundamentalists. What is it about a literal reading of Genesis that appeals to you? I believe in God, and seek to follow Jesus as my lord and savior, but I don’t feel compelled to believe the scriptures are all literally true. The Bible is not a book of answers. It is a book that helps us ask good questions. I once heard that an atheist is a person who cannot understand metaphor. I think that a fundamentalist is someone who is terrified of metaphor.
I could keep going, but I am not going to. It would be wasted effort. I just cannot understand your mindset.
Almost could also claim an undergrad minor is philosophy.
paul: thanks, at least now we know where you’re coming from.
Andrew: We’ve never observed, recorded in the fossil record, reproduced in a lab, a beneficial mutation…..and to go from particle to humans it would have taken….countless of those. The problems with the theory of evolution go on and on….
Andrew: And I hope I am not a fundamentalist….but I do know that it is ‘fun’ to have the Biblical story and to ask those ‘better’ questions.
A beneficial mutation: light skin for northern latitudes. Beneficial: absords more vitamin D. Mutation: ancestors originated in Africa with dark skin.
Andrew: I believe that the Bible is true….however, it is misunderstood, misused, misquoted, misinterpreted. What isn’t true is our limited and false doctrines concerning it.
It’s like going into a gold mine and the more you dig the more gold you find. We can’t carry it all….is the simple truth.
nal: Those aren’t mutations…..that’s called ‘genetic drift’.
Evolution is done at the GENETIC level. Not micro or macro, but genetic which is why we short life humans don’t see it.
The advances in DNA research are showing that the DNA mechanism is more complex than originally thought. Our genetic code changes by interaction via the environment. It can activate or deactivate genes when required.
Ever heard of jumping genes? Or micro RNA which is proving to be how cells communicate to each other and the mechanism as to how anti biotic resistance is spread among disparate groups of microbes?
The experiments on mutation were ALL wrong. One can not physically distort or mangle DNA and expect it to work. Similar to sending a random series of 0s and 1s to a computer and expect it to respond. DNA is nature’s language.
nal’s example is not genetic drift, but rather genetic modification. If it were genetic drift then why no tribes of non albino white people in Africa?
Doctor Biobrain @ 44, you are sooooo sexy. How do you do it? Keep up the good work, you sexy, sexy man.
Former Dan: I was refering to the skin colors between the southern and northern climates.
You know Darwin predicted that we would find ‘countless’ transistional fossils to prove exactly what you’re stating about the evidence for mutations…that was 140 years ago…to date…a few dubious examples. Also, he thought cells were little blocks…..like they were observing in dry cork at that time. It was a fine theory 140 years ago….but you keep trying to prove it answers how life got here….I’m moving on….it’s 2007 Dan!
Paul Thompson wrote (in various places): “Where does your expertise in discussions on philosophy and science come from? The playground or from the atheist bible?”
“Again….your creditials?”
“BA in Biology, extended grad hours in environmental microbiology, M.Div with a strong emphasis on ecotheology.”
You know, it is a common symptom of crackpots to hype their own (usually lackluster) credentials while denigrating others as being uneducated fools. It’s a nice slight of hand trick- put people on the defensive so they don’t poke too many holes in your crazy ideas.
The reality is, good science and arguments don’t depend on credentials at all . At scientific meetings, you don’t find people yelling, “Well, he doesn’t have a good enough degree and clearly went to a safety school, so we shouldn’t listen to him.”
But as long as we’ve brought up the subject, people who use their bachelor’s in biology as proof of expertise on evolutionary theory are on pretty shaky ground.
Paul:
I also am a church going Christian.
I don’t doubt that God’s exists and that God loves us. God even loves republicans even if the republicans go against virtually everything Jesus ever taught.
But it is impossible to take the words in the Bible ‘as gospel’. The words of the Bible contradict other words in the Bible. That is why everyone picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe.
I know I have just seriously tick offed the Christians but the same is true for Islam and Judaism.
Science just wimps out and says that there are things that are unknown. However, science tries to explain the physical world. When certain theories don’t explain the physical world then they are discarded.
Newton’s LAWS have been proven to be wrong.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven wrong and explains things better than any other competing theory.
God may have put a soul into you and me but our physical bodies evolved over the last few billion years.
Do you agree?
Paul,
Strange, jumping genes and micro RNA is 2004-7.
Why no reply?
gg: I was being called a ‘drunk’ or something, by someone that I just wanted to know what they knew and how they came to know it. And at scientific meeting it’s all about creditials, apparently you’ve never worked for anything. Like most people today, knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
BTW, Darwin didn’t have all the answers either. He just pointed the way, like Newton and Einstein, Galileo etc.
Former Dan: I’m a little out of touch with ‘jumping genes’ and micro RNA. I’ll be sure to look into it, though for your sake. Like I said….I moving on. To many problems with the whole theory….you keep working on it though.
Dan: Because Darwin didn’t ‘have all the answers’, is not the problem I have with evolution theory.
I agree with Paul Thompson @ 45: Evolution is already debunked by the fact its creator didn’t know everything. For instance, he knew nothing about the Internet. That’s right. One of the greatest inventions since sliced bread, and that phony Darwin hadn’t even heard of it. He also didn’t know that Pluto existed. It’s true. Or that Alaska and Hawaii were part of America. They teach that stuff in elementary school, for christ’s sake!
I could go on and on. So rather than listen to any of this Darwin claptrap, I’m going to stick to studying a book written by desert dwellers who didn’t even understand what rainbows are. I mean, why bother learning stuff from people who actually encourage others to find their mistakes? They’re just going to make you learn it again. But with the bible, you just have to learn it once and you’re done. No more learning!
Paul Thompson wrote: “I was being called a ‘drunk’ or something, by someone that I just wanted to know what they knew and how they came to know it.”
Wow, you were offended by intemperate and condescending language? Maybe then you shouldn’t have filled every one of your posts with it: “My you must have studied science and theology with rigorous energy….being everybodies ‘only I know the ”truth’ man.”…”Everybody is not an atheist….get it?”…”The playground or from the atheist bible?”…”I’m moving on….it’s 2007 Dan!”
I seem to recall some guy saying something about, “Do unto others…”, but I guess you’ve never heard of that?
Paul Thompson wrote: “And at scientific meeting it’s all about creditials, apparently you’ve never worked for anything. Like most people today, knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.”
Oooo! I think I’ve been insulted! First of all, it’s spelled “credentials”, as most people who have them would know. And where does your expertise in scientific meetings come from? People with bachelor’s degrees attend maybe one or two meetings in the course of their education, if they’re lucky. Instead, you sound again like a crackpot - ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem is all you’ve got (’ad hominem’ means ‘argument against the man’ in Latin, by the way). If you had anything sound to say, you’d have said it by now. Instead, you’ve got the ‘absolute truth’: God is Real, he created us all 6000 years ago, and man definitely came from no monkey! If you’re so sure of yourself, why are you spending all your time desperately trying to convince anonymous bloggers of your views? If you’re so right, we’ll all eventually have to agree when the evidence is strong enough, or we’ll burn in Hell. Spare us the Purgatory of your rants.
First Amend, so you can believe what you want. I’m just weary of the secular humanist and those that argue from error, ignorance and arrogance with their limitations of reality and them determining for me of what I can believe. And thanks…..gg…I’m not the greatest speller.
iobrain doctor: interesting you know so much about rainbows. Philosophically, do they have color if nobody is there to see them? So what are these rainbows anyways…water vapor and sunlight….and what is light…particle, wave? I’m just guessing but there isn’t much you don’t know….is there? I am taking leave of the discussion. Thank you all.
Keith C. Cheng, M.D., Ph.D.
Genetic drift would account for the spread of this (and other) mutation throughout the population.
Paul - Don’t go! I was just joking. We all know that rainbows are just God’s way of showing us that he loves us. And before Noah’s Flood, light didn’t slow down when it passed through water. He changed that law of physics just for us.
iobrain doctor: There are other ancient text besides the Bible, that record the earth being different at one time. It is an assumtion that there were always rainbows in the atmosphere.
Paul - I’m starting to get the impression you don’t really know what a rainbow is. When rain falls, the light passing through it slows down, and we see the various colors based upon how thick the raindrop is in relation to our viewpoint; with the thicker parts slowing the light down more. Could you please explain how this could be any different? Besides, of course, before God changed that law of physics for us. Before that, light didn’t slow down when it passed through water, and the bottom of the ocean was just as bright as the top.
But you’re the supposed scientist, right. Perhaps you could explain the atmosphere differences that would make it so that light doesn’t slow down when it goes through water. Or did it just not rain back then?
iobrain doctor: Maybe there wasn’t rain? Maybe the atmosphere was totally different, as we know it today. As I said, there are other ancient text, specifically Gilgamesh that spoke of the earth being ’soft and moist’. It is an assumption to believe that the earth has always existed with it’s present atmosphere. To add, this is probably why the Bible records longer life spans at one time.
Paul - I don’t need a definitive answer, but could you explain any atmosphere differences that could possibly account for light not slowing down when it passed through water? Do you honestly suggest that it never rained before Noah’s Flood? You’d think that would be miracle enough, that he made it rain in the first place. Somehow, the bible seems to have not mentioned that this was the first time it had ever rained.
In truth, none of this makes any sense and you’re just stretching to account for this glaring error which could only be made by someone who didn’t know what a rainbow was. Just like how the person you stole that explanation from also didn’t know what a rainbow was; thinking it to be some sort of effect in the atmosphere, rather than light slowed down by water, which occurs in non-atmospheric places too. That makes much more sense than imagining that it never rained before the “Flood” or that the earth was different in some unexplained way. Similarly, the longer life spans are much better explained by thinking them to be mistakes, or mistranlations. For all the nit-picking you guys do on evolution, it’s quite obscene how little you can explain of your own beliefs.
Oh Paul, you said you wanted to leave yet you keep coming back.
For the speed of light to remain constant while passing thru water means that you have to change the capacitive and inductive properties of water the moment light passes thru it. It has been shown that NO ONE can not instantaneously do that.
In regards to 61. So you’re saying that the Earth evolved somehow, but yet man cannot?
Paul Thompson,
It is important for you to realize that this debate over evolution has no Biblical basis. It’s a non-issue because there is nothing immoral or ungodly about believing in evolution and nothing stupid or ignorant about believing in creation. What seem to stand in diametric opposition to you, are in fact 2 very compatible explanations for origins.
On the other hand, there are quite a few points that come to mind after reading your posts that do carry a moral component. First and foremost, we must be honest. Neither God nor Christ would have it any other way. If we really believe we have all the answers (whether those answers were formed strictly within the confines of our own minds, or simply because we read them in a book or heard a compelling speaker say them), then we are not being honest.
Another virtue that I believe to be necessary to live a life congruent to the examples set by Christ, is humility. What strikes me about your posts is that your knowledge, your credentials and your argumentative skills belie what appears to be your rather arrogant sense of self-importance and righteousness. Just be humble and know that most of us are simply trying to understand the world around us, that none of us has all the answers, we are not all atheists, and that you are welcome to post here… if only you’d tone down your rhetoric a bit.
iobrain: Gen: 2:6 ‘and there went up a mist from the earth’. Again, this is the only text that refers to this. You know, it seems pretty inconcievable to me, also. However, again the Bible refers to the waters that fell from the heavens. Gen 7:11 So, maybe there was something different than what we have experienced. Noah did get drunk….so there’s a different fermentation process. I don’t have the answers, just a more questions and again my believes.
my beliefs…I meant.
Former Dan: I’m saying that it is an assumption that there has always been ‘rain’ or that the earth has remained the same size or rotated at the same speed or that sunlight wasn’t effected by an unknown barrier, like the ozone of our times.
As far as the earth evolving, but humans can’t? If….if….there is a Creator, and again I believe there was, again…belief…not proof, then the build in variance is part of a plan for life and humans to develop the survival skills that are needed for the changes that were ‘prophesied’.
JTK: Genesis’s Creation and evolution are not compatable, my opinion.
But, I hear you about the rhetoric, so will you please ask Mr. Benen to quit calling
Gov. Huckabee, me or anyone else, seeing we all have the same right to believe what we want to believe by the first amendment, to stop referring to my beliefs as ‘wacky’ or I will continue to point out the ‘wackyness’ of the secular humanist.
“Don’t thread on me”
Jesus ask us to love others, but I will not be Mr. Benen’s, yours, or anybody’s doormat.
“Don’t Tread on me”, I meant.
And Don’t Tread on my beliefs…Live and let live.
I’m simply not qualified to provide arguments on DNA or the refractive qualities of water, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of the Bible to quote chapter and verse, and I cannot educate anyone on comparative theology - but I do know one thing: whether one does or does not believe in God, and however one does or does not reconcile faith with science, it should all be irrelevant to the functioning of government.
Mike Huckabee is welcome to believe that in the argument between God and science, God should win, just as he is welcome to oppose abortion for any reason and to oppose birth control. What he is not welcome to do as a private citizen is impose those beliefs on others, and as a public servant, he needs to understand that the term “public servant” means he serves the people, not God. If he wants to do God’s work, let him go back to the ministry - but public office, in this country, at this time - and I hope forever - is not the platform for doing God’s work.
So, it isn’t so much his ideas by themselves that make him unfit for public service, but his intention to use government as a tool to advance his religious beliefs, and to work to impose them through the legislative and judicial branches.
I may not be a fanatic or a fundamentalist, but that doesn’t mean I am not a moral person. That I respect the rights of others to make personal decisions in the privacy of their homes and with their families, does not make me less moral, either. Whatever role faith plays in my life is not for anyone else to judge, and it certainly is not anyone else’s responsibility to force upon me.
Anne: Show me one candidate in the current election process for President that does not profess ‘belief’ in God. You choose to leave your faith at home when you go to the secular world. That’s your right…it is not your right to tell others that they must follow your belief that this is the proper place for someone to exercise their beliefs.
Paul:
You never did answer my question about what parts of the Bible you believe and don’t believe.
Specifically on evolution
There is virtually ZERO evidence that contradicts evolution. There is more evidence against Newton’s laws and the law of gravity than there is against evolution.
I really wonder why so many people draw the line between faith and science on the topic of evolution.
I know you can’t speak for everyone but why do you argue so much on this particular topic and not on the other teachings of the Bible.
Didn’t this twit say just last night that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were “mostly clergymen”?
Paul, you have no idea what I “choose” to do about whatever my faith is - just because someone doesn’t talk about faith all the time doesn’t mean they don’t live it wherever they are. And I’m not telling anyone they have to believe as I do - belief is personal, Paul, and I respect people’s right to believe - or not- as they wish.
I don’t require any candidate to reveal what he or she believes, and I think it is unfortunate that faith has become some kind of litmus test for public office - if a person’s life is not indicative of what kind of person they are, what is a profession of faith supposed to do - make all the ick go away? Rudy Giuliani professes to pray all the time and to seek spiritual guidance - do you wonder how the person who professes to be a Roman Catholic managed to cheat on two wives, divorce both and become estranged from his children? How about John McCain - he who cheated on his first wife, divorced her and married into big money - he of the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal - his belief in God does not inoculate him from some fairly questionable behavior.
We have a separation of church and state, and we have separation of powers, for a reason, and the reason is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. My right to make decisions about my life - on matters of reproduction and birth control and end-of-life - is not for the government to get in the middle of, not for religious reasons and not just because the majority-of-the-day can interfere with. Where my health and the health of my family is concerned, I want the best science and medicine have to offer - not just the best they can do with their hands tied behind their backs because someone’s religious beliefs have legislated them into paralysis.
Don’t believe in abortion - don’t have one.
Don’t believe in birth control - either abstain or take your chances.
Don’t believe in gay “marriage” - if you’re straight, it won’t be an issue for you.
Don’t believe in pulling the plug - get an advance directive to make sure your wishes are known and people you trust will see that they are carried out.
Don’t believe in stem-cell research - don’t avail yourself of the results of that research.
It;s really pretty simple. You worry about your eternal soul and I’ll worry about mine.
Neil: Where to you get your zero evidence? There’s all kinds of ‘holes’…lack of observations concerning evolution.
As far as the difference, evolution’s tenet is ‘death rules’, Creation’s ‘life rules’, that’s contradictory.
And I believe the Bible….I don’t believe I totally understand it, though. And I don’t believe some of the church’s doctrine concerning it.
Paul
THere is a difference between holes in a theory which just means that we would all like more evidence in support of a theory and …
evidence that contradicts the theory.
I stated there is virtually ZERO evidence against evolution. As time goes on and more evidence is found, we find that ALL of the new evidence supports evolution.
I really don’t know what you mean by ‘death rules’ and ‘life rules’.
You say you believe the Bible. Do you believe that the Moon creates its own light as the Bible states or do you believe that the Moon reflects the sun’s light?
I understand that you don’t believe some of ‘THE CHURCH”S’ doctrine. Is there only ONE church and everyone who doesn’t believe in ‘THE CHRUCH’ is wrong?
#######
As opposed to a lot of the crazy people on this board, I don’t claim to have all of the answers.
I hope you don’t feel that I am attacking you
Anne: tyranny of the majority? we live in a republic, it’s all about the majority.
Also, I don’t see ’separation of church and state’ in our founding documents.
Where is that written? In fact, it’s the biggest lie of world that that was the
intention of our framers. Endowed by our Creator…with life, liberty and then
the Constitution to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”. If liberty comes from
Our Creator…how then does it not in the Constitution?
And again, “Don’t tread on me”….you believe what you want….I respect that.
Respect my right to believe what I want. Now, if you want to believe that the majority doesn’t rule in a republic gov’t….and all this stuff about ‘the tyranny of the majority’ maybe you could go find someplace where people are supposed to do that.
Neil: Where does the Bible refer to the moon making it’s own light? I’ve never heard that.
And that ‘death rules’ being a tenet…survival of the fittest…organisms that avoid death, reproduce. “life rules’, in Genesis….In the beginning the “Word” was with God…..and is live. (Gospel of John)
yeah..and some church’s have less acceptable doctrines…in my opinion.
Neil: Also, zero evidence against…I get your point…but disagree. It’s the missing links…not one link between micro species, plants or animal has has ever been observed, produced or with the exception of a few highly disputable fossils….ever recorded.
You keep looking though…my mind is open.
And there’s more ‘evidence’ against this theory.
Paul,
It’s good that you realize your belief in the incompatibility between Genesis and the theory of evolution is only an opinion. I appreciate your honesty.
And to hold the belief that stories written thousands of years ago by men who had very little clues as to how God’s creation functioned or originated, should take precedence over things written thousands of years later by far more educated and civilized men, you must be willing to accept that you will be considered “wacky” by everyone except for those who make the same identical assumptions as yourself (i.e.: that the Bible is perfect and, thus, the men who wrote it must have been perfect too).
Every read about the beliefs of other religions, Paul? Pretty wacky stuff, huh?
As for Huckabee, I actually think he seems like a really nice guy. And, since I grew up around Charismatic Christians, I guess I have a bit of a soft spot for people like him, wacky or not.
You shouldn’t be insulted that he’s referred to as “wacky”… nor should you be surprised; any more so than you should be surprised when you see just how wacky the beliefs of Muslims, Mormons or Scientologists really are to you.
Having said that, I think that even you should be able to see that stretching the fact that 1 (maybe 3 or 4) of the Founding Fathers were clergymen out of 56 into “most of whom, by the way, were clergymen” is, at best, a little “wacky” and, at worst, completely dishonest and very unChristian.
I realize that you have gotten some taunts here, and I am sorry for that. Some might say you have it coming. However, as I said earlier, I have a soft spot for deeply religious people. I was as “wacky” as you for about 20 years of my life… I’m still wacky. It’s hard to look at life any other way when you’ve been indoctrinated into a very rigid way of thinking since you were too young to know better, and had that teaching reinforced with the endless terror of eternal damnation. Scary stuff… and more than a little “wacky”. ;o)
JTK: Well, I wasn’t raised with the fear of eternal damnation pushed on me by anybody.
I’m sorry you did….to me that’s a false doctrine.
And I don’t want to be referred to as ‘wacky’…now should we refer to anyone’s beliefs as ‘wacky’. Behaviors….maybe…but beliefs…If I don’t respect yours…how can I ask for respect for mine?
And I believe in divine inspiration and I don’t believe in all the ‘translation’ arguments.
And I have read other religions….and no I don’t find them ‘wacky’
And I believe that if you get a degree in divinity….that you can refer to that person
as a clergyperson…..unless they would denounce their education. So, again no I don’t think Huckabee’s observation is ‘wacky’.
And I’m not a religious person. I’m a spiritual and religious person.
I do pray that what you experienced by ‘controlling’ religious people will be able to be forgiven.
Anne, neil: I don’t know why you guys are still arguing with this clown; I thought this thread was put to bed hours ago. A few observations:
PT: “And that ‘death rules’ being a tenet…survival of the fittest…organisms that avoid death, reproduce. “life rules’, in Genesis….In the beginning the “Word” was with God…..and is live. (Gospel of John)”
That’s one of the most ridiculous semantic arguments I’ve ever heard. ‘Avoiding death’, i.e. living = death rules? I might as well rewrite your sentence as: “And that ‘life rules’ being a tenet…survival of the fittest…organisms that live, reproduce. “death rules’, in Genesis….In the beginning the “Word” was with God…..and is ‘don’t be dead’.”
PT: “Also, I don’t see ’separation of church and state’ in our founding documents.
Where is that written? In fact, it’s the biggest lie of world that that was the intention of our framers. ”
Another meaningless semantic argument. I guess “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” isn’t a clear enough statement. A presidential candidate who says, “I’m against abortion, ’cause God said so,” is establishing religion, i.e. putting religion into law. This was ratified in 1791, by the framers of the Constitution.
PT: “It’s the missing links…not one link between micro species, plants or animal has has ever been observed, produced or with the exception of a few highly disputable fossils….ever recorded.”
‘The missing links?’ There are currently around 1.5 million species documented on the planet, with estimates of the total ranging from 2 million to 100 million . This is just a snapshot of history, and the total number of species that have lived on Earth could range into the billions. Of those billions, we have only a fraction of the total preserved as fossils, and expecting to coincidentally find many, many direct connections from that small sample is irrational. Many transitional fossils have been found, however, and more will certainly be found in the future. To quote the index of creationist claims , “The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine “transitional” as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. ”
Our troller’s arguments, in essence, are nothing new. They’ve been made and refuted and recycled so many times that the index of claims was made just to keep track of their shifting series of irrational denials.
Finally, you might want to reconsider using Gilgamesh as a historical reference of ancient history, considering it (a) has a flood story identical to the Bible’s, but with Utanapishtim as the hero, not Noah, and (b) is based on polytheism. Unless you want to accept the divinity of Ea, Enlil, Ishtar and Anu, I don’t see how it helps your monotheistic worldview.
So many other things I could comment on, but I’ve had enough.
Anne: I was expecting you to rebuke. You seem very controlling…I have a bit of that problem, too…working on it though.
Listen…we live in a republic….now…the majority believes that killing babies is bad for the neighborhood. So, they make a law to prevent that…in order to protect their family from growing up in a country the resembles ‘hell on earth’ I figure you won’t understand this…but this is the way a republic is supposed to work. Now if the majority believed that killing babies was good for the neighborhood…they’d make laws the made that legal.
As we have it, judges, not elected…are making the laws….and I’m not sure what that’s called?
And I’m not going to answer your semantics argument….where does liberty come from.
The framers say….’Our Creator’…is that semantics or a control issue?
Anne: Genesis states that God created the world without death, sin brought death.
Evolution produced life by death of the weakest. That’s not semantics.
Again, I have the right to believe as I choose. That doesn’t make me a ‘clown’ that
makes me an American.
And your irrational argument, that’s your opinion….evolution is irrational in my opinion.
So, I know you will never lose control, but there is no “separation of church and state” in that a citizen is not allowed to exercise there religion, but I know you don’t get that either.
Paul:
where in the constitution is the word ‘creator’ mentioned?
Remember the Declaration of Independence led to the Articles of Confederation.
then, we completely replaced the Articles with the Constitution
therefore, there is ZERO mention of the creator in the Constitution, period.
Neil: Our Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as ‘endowing with Liberty’
Both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution refer to ’securing our Liberty’…the Constitution even refers to the ‘Blessing of Liberty’, so one can infer/deduce that the Liberty that we are securing comes from Our Creator.
You can infer anything you want.
The problem with your argument is that the Constitution, the law of the land, specifically does not mention the creator. It specifically states
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office ”
Re: blesssing of liberty
I think we both agree that liberty is a good thing. therefore, a document that helps us attain liberty is a good thing. We would receive the blessing of liberty from that document just as much as we can receive blessing from God.
Paul, remember, I am not one of the atheists who are quite common on this site. I went to church last Sunday and will go again this Sunday
Neil: So, we can believe whatever we choose…however…we cannot do whatever we choose. Your rights end where my nose begins. However, I don’t believe that the framers went from Liberty being endowed, to liberty coming from a document.
Also, the ‘real’ church is in your heart.
God Bless….
Paul,
The only way to avoid being referred to as “wacky” or, for that matter, insane, loopy, irrational and on and on, is to rid the world of those who don’t believe as you do. Indeed, one of the things I learned about adhering to a religion is that you have to put your pride aside and realize that you’re going to look like a nut to anyone who doesn’t already believe what you profess… or at least to anyone who wasn’t raised on similar traditions.
Hidden in the above statement is my biggest fear of *any* religion. That, indeed, some day a major religion will get tired of being referred to as “wacky” and try to do something about it. No good can come of this.
And forgive me for not believing that you don’t consider a belief in a UFO hiding behind a comet, entry to which is granted only by committing suicide, to be wacky. Perhaps you just don’t use the word “wacky” and would describe this using some euphemism of your choice. If so, this discussion truly has deteriorated into mere semantics.
The religious beliefs of other cultures seem bizarre, no matter who you are. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that you’re so open minded, that even Hinduism doesn’t seem a little alien. And if you find it reasonable, then why aren’t you Hindu? Do you think that all religions are equally valid? Somehow, I doubt that.
JTK, of course they seem bizarre, because they’re IMAGINARY! They’re stories, books, oral tales, man-made inventions.
Shortly after our species evolved the ability to ask questions we couldn’t answer we started making up answers. Explanations are comforting. Knowledge, even made up knowledge, is power.
Because he isn’t a clown and I don’t believe he’s a troll. He is obviously deeply emotional about his religion, even schizophrenic (and I mean that in a clinical sense, not as an insult). Calling him names and taunting him will only drive him further to the extremes he seems to lean toward.
I know. I grew up in a small southern town where virtually everyone blindly obeys the dogma of organized Fundamentalist Christianity, and vote for whomever they’re programmed to vote for. It’s a dangerous climate and care must be taken to be sensitive to their beliefs. Remember, the core political belief of most Charismatic/Fundamentalist Christians, is that liberals in general, the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court are all in cahoots with the Devil to turn the United States into an atheistic, gay sex and abortion free-for-all.
They really believe this and it takes care and patience to convince them that a “liberal” Democracy is the best friend they ever had; that it not only provides the right for atheists to be “free from religion”, but that it is every bit as important to their own individual Christian denominations; that theirs might not exist at all if there wasn’t this wall between the Church and the State giving them the freedom to disagree with their parent church and forming new churches based on new interpretations.
JTK: You and Badass4peace apparently don’t believe in absolute Truth….except that absolute Truth that “absolute Truth” doesn’t exist.
Also, to say that there is ‘no god’….is a belief system. Then atheist try to ram their belief by using evolution.
And I do see some practicing of religions, by controlling ‘no-it-alls’ as dangerous.
However, Hindus or thoses that believe in “The Great Spirit” are free to do that, even atheist, just don’t cram your beliefs on me. And , you are right….I don’t believe that all religions are equal, but I believe and will defend your right to believe what you feel/think is best for you.
JTK: I am also a registered Democrat. I’m just weary of human secularist cramming their beliefs above all others.
Last night you ridiculed the notion of a tyranny of the majority, but I think perhaps you don’t understand what that really means. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
We live in a representative democracy, meaning that we, as individuals, do not vote on federal legislation – that takes place in the House and in the Senate, whose members represent the states from which they were elected. But why two houses, and why does one house award seats based on population and one give every state two seats? The answer is simple: it’s to provide a mechanism for the minority in any given Congress to have the ability to prevail over the majority, and thus make them as important to the process as the majority. That’s why it takes both houses to make the laws, both houses to override presidential vetoes. It’s why impeachment does not take place in only one house of Congress.
It’s the same reason we have three, equal branches of government – to keep any one branch or department from having power over the others, which serves as a safeguard against any popular majority, represented by the Congress, from being able to oppress other citizens. It’s why there is so much distress these days over Bush arrogating power to the executive and elevating it above the other two branches – it’s one step closer to tyranny.
This structure was not a quirk – it was designed this way on purpose. Popularity ebbs and flows, and the founders realized that establishing certain rights, and structuring the government to make it hard to take those rights away, was the only way to guarantee that the rights of the minority at any given time would not disappear in the fervor of the current majority. If that were possible, it would establish conditions where that majority might be able to make itself permanent – a goal Karl Rove apparently was working on before he “retired.”
This system is worth protecting and preserving, even if it means that I don’t always get what I want and you don’t always get what you want.
Of course I believe in absolute truth! I just don’t believe any human possesses it. That would make us God, would it not?
“Ramming down” of belief systems is almost exclusively the MO of religions. I, like you, believe in a higher intelligence. I have never once felt atheism was being crammed down my throat. Religion on the other hand…
Anne: No State Church, ie belief system….now tell that to the secular humanist.
And respect my right to believe in a Creator.
JTK: I agree….however, secular humanist are trying to ‘control’ our society and gov’t, in my opinion.
JTK @ 92: I certainly agree with your sentiment, and even felt at one point that we might have a reasonable discussion, somewhere around post #55. When PT started arguing against the existence of rain in early human history, I concluded that he’s essentially a lost cause as far as rational debate is concerned.
If you look back on his comments, all of them - political, scientific, social - are based on the worldview of the Bible as inerrant truth. Any statements which don’t match that paradigm are quickly shoehorned into it, regardless of how well they actually fit. Arguments made by others have been consistently misrepresented to aid in that view. Arguments which can’t be dismissed so easily are buried in the musty basement of saying the word “belief”.
Once someone has decided that their fixed beliefs are more important than observations of the real world, there isn’t much you can do about it, at least not in blog comments. My responses have been written more for those undecided people who may be passively reading and might still be ’saved’, or at least might otherwise think there’s some validity to the arguments he’s presented (there isn’t).
If someone wants to have a reasonable argument about the interplay of faith and science and politics, or wants to politely protest unfair treatment concerning those topics, we certainly can do that. Someone who arrogantly comes barging in, waving the Bible around like a crude cudgel and making demonstrably false claims deserves little consideration, and will get little from me.
gg: You don’t understand…you believe that all there is is this ‘physical’ world….the secular. I believe in the transcendent…also. Now if that makes my believe more ignorant than yours….please explain.
gg: Someone who arrogantly comes barging in, waving the Theory of Evolution around like a crude cudgel and making demonstrably false claims deserves little consideration, and will get little from me.
Paul - how many times do I have to say that I respect your right to believe? And that no one is trying to deny you that right? For crying out loud, I believe, I have faith - and as long as other people’s beliefs are not written into laws that I have to abide by, I’m fine.
Are we clear?
Anne: So, my beliefs aren’t ‘wacky’? Then if you know Steve Benen please advise him to offer his apology.
Also, again we are not free to do as we please…only free to believe as we please.
There will always be laws and restrictions to protect the common good.
Paul wrote in 100
gg: You don’t understand…you believe that all there is is this ‘physical’ world….the secular. I believe in the transcendent…also. Now if that makes my believe more ignorant than yours….please explain.
Paul it is you that don’t understand.
No one is debating what your views of metaphysics are.
We are debating what your views of the physical world is.
If you want to get the answers to questions that fit the observable data then you have to side with Darwin. If you want to rely on faith then you can claim the world is flat and the solar system was creatted last Tuesday.
No one can prove you are wrong but you can’t reach logical conclusions unless you accept the concept of evolution.
Paul - as long as your beliefs are not controlling my life, it doesn’t matter what I think about them. When your religious beliefs - or the religious beliefs of others - threaten to be imposed upon me, then I will consider it my duty to share my opinions about those beliefs, and fight like hell - or heck - to prevent that from happening.
And yes, I know we are not free to do anything we please - but for now, we are free to decide how and where and if to worship, and to make personal, individual decisions about our health. We are still able to speak freely - although that is a right that has been diminished somewhat. For now, public still means “all the people” not just the ones who think their ideas should prevail over what is constitutionally guaranteed to us.
gg: you believing that only logical conclusions can be obtained through observations of the physical world is a metaphysical statement. It is a ‘belief system’ that works for you…but not for me.
Anne: Please also acknowledge, that non-religion is in fact a ‘religion’ with just as much a chance to tyrannize as any other belief.
And I hope you will keep fighting….Don’t tread on me….it’s symbol is the rattlesnake.
PT wrote: “You don’t understand…you believe that all there is is this ‘physical’ world….the secular. I believe in the transcendent…also. Now if that makes my believe more ignorant than yours….please explain.”
Two responses come to mind. First, you’re assuming that I explicitly reject any idea of a ‘transcendent’ part of reality. That simply isn’t true. Though my current beliefs lie somewhere in the agnostic regime, I’m not so arrogant as to assume that there couldn’t be any aspect of reality yet unobserved or unobservable. But I have no evidence or understanding of the nature of this ‘transcendent’ part of reality, so it isn’t going to figure strongly in my daily life and decisions.
Second, you might ask then: what’s the difference between my views and yours? From everything you’ve posted here, your belief in the ‘transcendent’, by which I mean the Bible, ALWAYS trumps what you see in the physical world. In other words, things that you have no evidence for have more of an influence on your life than things that are staring you right in the face. Evolution conflicts with Genesis, so it must be wrong: even though there’s 140 years of scientific evidence supporting evolution, and Genesis even contradicts itself (with two different versions of the creation of Adam and Eve).
I’m willing to respect people’s right to acknowledge a non-physical world, and worship the deity of their choice, but that respect vanishes when someone completely abandons the physical world in favor of invisible and unknowable things.
I’m a bit baffled at your constant bashing of ’secular humanism’ as well. I know that’s another common bogeyman of the religious right, but have you even looked at what it means? In brief, secular humanism is an argument that moral and ethical decisions have to be based on real-world considerations, and cannot be based simply on the argument, “God says so, so there!” This seems eminently reasonable to me, and is exactly what I expect out of my elected officials. I don’t care what religion they follow, they have to justify their views of governing to me outside of pointing at scripture.
I can see why religious leaders hate this idea: it undermines their authority to be obeyed without question. I’ve never really understood why any rank and file religious person would agree with them.
PT wrote: “Someone who arrogantly comes barging in, waving the Theory of Evolution around like a crude cudgel and making demonstrably false claims deserves little consideration, and will get little from me.”
*Sigh* And here I thought we were getting close to having a civil, rational discussion. I guess it’s back to calling you a ‘clown’…
gg: It’s your way or the highway…you are not my moral authority…you are the one that keeps insisting that only your opinions carry any validity….sorry that you discount the Bible as being a ‘”picture” of God’. I don’t and for the last time, don’t tread on me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PT wrote: “It’s your way or the highway…you are not my moral authority…you are the one that keeps insisting that only your opinions carry any validity….sorry that you discount the Bible as being a ‘”picture” of God’. I don’t and for the last time, don’t tread on me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Yeah, I didn’t think you had any response.
gg: not for you.
gg: since you are back to name calling…You are a power and a control ‘freak’. Just a suggestion, I’d talk to my therapist about that if I were you.
Anne:
I think you are wrong.
My beliefs affect your life all the time.
I think the speed limit should be 65 not 55. I get a law passed. It affects your life.
I think abortion is murder and murder is wrong. So, again, my beliefs affect your life.
I think we should have the death penalty for jaywalking. Again, my beliefs affect your life.
OK, well you need more than just my beliefs to affect your life. If a majority holds a belief it will usually force the minority to go along.
If I think that evolution is wrong and i get a majority on my side then we will stop teaching it in school.
By the way, we are not free to exercise our freedom of religion in this country. The FLDS and Muslims can’t have more than one wife even though their established religion states that you can, and in some cases, you SHOULD have more than one wife.
Neil: gg and her lot are just grapping power and control…with their ‘non-religiousness’ as being the only legit worldview…and then they bash people over the head with the theory of evolution, I imagine 99.9% of them can’t even explain that theory.
I have a right to protect my family from living in a country that resembles ‘hell on earth’, these folks just don’t get it….it’s called representative gov’t, majority rules for the common good…they’re free to leave in a socialist state….but they choose to keep it up…you know,
we’re all equal…it’s just that gg and her lot are more intelligent than the rest of us ‘ignorant clowns….which makes them more equal than the rest of us.
free to leave and go live in socialism…..I meant.
I hope sometime they will form their own political party and give back the Democratic Party to the Democrats.
Paul
You are still missing my point.
We want people to accept evolution as the best way to describe facts as they seem to appear today.
You want people to allow you to reject evolution even though there is zero evidence against it.
Sure you have the right to protect your family and yourself.
But you can’t argue that 2 plus 2 equals 5 or that PI is not a number between 3.14 and 3.15.
BTW, the Bible describes the outside of a circle in such a way that the number, according to the Bible is NOT between 3.14 and 3.15.
You can believe what you want but science has to be based on what explains the way things appear to be.
I am not saying evolution is correct. Just as I am not saying the world wasn’t created last Tuesday.
I am saying that all reasonable people must accept that evolution explains things better than any other theory and that reasonable people must accept that the available evidence shows the world was NOT created last Tuesday.