-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
Special Report
Christmas with Clarence
Progressives love Clarence Darrow this time of year, as did communists for reasons of their own.
No, that’s not “Clarence the Angel” of It’s a Wonderful Life fame. The Clarence in this title is much less inspiring, not exactly angelic — a humbug, really. I’m thinking of Clarence Darrow, dogmatic defender of atheists.
As Christians this time of year absorb another spate of snipes at their revered holy day, they might pause to remember Darrow. Darrow’s actions and triumphs stand at the crux of the secular-progressive long march against Christian interests, whether prayer in public schools or the latest ACLU lawsuit against Christmas carols.
Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) was the wise-cracking, aggressive lawyer who tore into William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trials,” an epic battle over evolution vs. creationism. Bryan, for the record, was a three-time Democratic Party presidential nominee. He was old-school, when Democrats were more conservative and far less secular, more in the mold of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Darrow’s courtroom denunciation of Bryan is immortalized in the awful movie, Inherit the Wind, which portrays Bryan as an idiot and Darrow as brilliant defender of civil liberties, “tolerance,” and “reason.”
These are reasons why modern secular liberals uphold Clarence Darrow as conquering hero. These liberals are a sharp departure from religious progressive forebears like Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Dorothy Day, and Jane Addams, among others. Today’s progressive professors love Darrow.
That’s all well-established. What surprised me, however, was the discovery that the farthest extreme of the political left — namely, American communists — likewise loved Darrow. This was a shock, absolutely unexpected, as I encountered Darrow’s name repeatedly in the Soviet Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
Why did communists adore Darrow? For one, they greatly appreciated his work against religion in the Scopes Trials. There were no angrier foes of faith than communists, from Moscow to New York. Darrow was the toast of the movement for his yeoman’s work countering God and exposing the silly “superstitions” of Bryan and his slack-jawed fundamentalists.
But there’s more to it. Another reason for the communist reverence of Darrow is a fact not taught in schools: Darrow defended them, and particularly communist leader Ben Gitlow, beginning with a series of dramatic incidents and cases that ran from 1919 into the 1920s, when they were being (properly) pursued for advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the American system, which they wanted to replace with a “Soviet American republic.” (To view some of these documents from the Comintern Archives, click here.) They were being challenged by President Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, for their blatantly subversive, anti-American, pro-Bolshevik activities.
One might figure liberals/progressives more ambivalent on this one. Here were Darrow and American communists pitted against the progressive’s progressive, Woodrow Wilson. However, any liberal sympathies were cleverly reversed when Darrow shrewdly attacked not communists but anti-communists. For liberals, anti-communism has always been a worse sin than pro-communism. Their eternal demon is Joe McCarthy, not Joe Stalin.
Significantly, Darrow was an early member of the ACLU, founded in 1920 by fellow atheist, Roger Baldwin, who also, at that point, was a pro-Soviet communist. The ACLU was founded mere months after the American Communist Party and the Soviet Comintern. As I wrote here last week, a huge component of the group’s initial work was defending American communists. ACLU members and American Communist Party members flocked to one another.
As for Darrow, he unflinchingly adopted the party line of the ACLU and American Communist Party, arguing that America was being consumed by hysterical anti-communism. This, of course, was decades before Joe McCarthy. No surprise. The American left, from the start of the founding of the American Communist Party, has portrayed innumerable anti-communists, Democrat or Republican, as incarnations of McCarthy.
But Clarence Darrow’s courtroom defense of Gitlow and American communists was cruder than that. In fact, his antics were outright deceptive. Not only were American communists not loyal to the USSR, insisted Darrow, in the face of fliers dropped on doorsteps and posted on buildings by the Communist Party (click here), but they were the embodiment of the American Revolution and Founding Fathers. “For a man to be afraid of revolution in America,” argued Darrow to the court, “would be to be ashamed of his own mother!”
“Revolution?” scoffed Darrow. What was more quintessentially American? These American Bolsheviks, who wanted to replace the American Constitution with the Soviet “Constitution,” were modern incarnations of Jefferson and Madison.
As if that were not offensive enough, Darrow, atheist champion, invoked the Almighty on behalf of this exalted revolution: “There is not a drop of honest blood in a single man that does not look back to some revolution for which he would thank his God that those who revolted won.”
The bad guys weren’t the communists, according to this narrative; no, Woodrow Wilson and his vile anti-communist crusaders were the bad guys. Darrow argued that if Abraham Lincoln were alive, Wilson’s Justice Department would send in “night riders to invade his office and the privacy of his home and send him to jail.”
Tellingly, these words from Darrow are cited in the 1940 autobiography of Ben Gitlow. By then, a reformed Gitlow recalled the words with embarrassment, as he had since fled the communist movement. It was quite a conversion. Gitlow twice ran as the Communist Party’s candidate for vice president of the United States, and had even served on the Comintern’s Executive Committee. After a long silence, Gitlow emerged to testify before Congress (1939) and to write two major books, I Confess (1940), and The Whole of Their Lives (1948), where he laid out a litany of disturbing facts on CPUSA’s relationship with Moscow, from its “fanatical zeal” to the Soviet Union, to its continuing pledge of “ultimate victory over the capitalist world,” to its espionage and acceptance of funding from the Stalin regime, including subsidies for the Daily Worker. For blowing the whistle, Gitlow’s erstwhile comrades labeled him a “fascist.”
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (229) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/21/christmas-with-clarence
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 12.21.10 @ 6:11AM
From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama,
Dear Komrade Citizens,
Once again, it's that time of year, when we get together with friends and family to celebrate that great holiday which brings us all together, Kwanzaa! Sure you white folks out there have got that whole christmas thing, and you jews have whatever that business is where you light all those candles, but what Amerikkka really needs is a holiday that brings out the best in all of us. And of course the best of all of us is Me, and Kwanzaa is my holiday, so time for you folks to get on the bus or go under the bus, your choice.
Kwanzaa is about a lot of things. One thing Kwanzaa is about is "Umoja", which means "unity". Well if there's one thing we need these days, it's unity. Look, here I am trying to save you people from the sins of your racist forefathers, and what do I get for My troubles? Griping, complaining, moaning and a republican congress. For crying out loud people, what about unity? How am I supposed to implement My Great Agenda for this country when I've got a half-wit federal judge (from a racist, southern state, of course) mumbling some mumbo-jumbo about the "constitutionality" of My health care bill. How can we have unity when I have to put up with John "Crying Game" Boehner as speaker of the house? We need to get back to unity! As a result, I call upon all the newly elected congressmen to switch their party affiliation to Democrat and swear their allegiance to Me, which is their reasonable duty as true patriots.
Another big part of Kwanzaa is "Ujima", which means "collective responsibility". This means that all you white folks out there need to go ahead and admit what a bunch of racists you are. After all, no black man ever owned a slave! No African ever practiced slavery! Your white european ancestors introduced slavery into this world, and it's high time you admitted it and took responsibility for their actions. I call upon all you white people to admit your true racist nature and to repent. How can you repent? Vote for Me! Only I can save you from your terrible sins of racism. When you vote for Me then I can expunge your guilt, at least until the next election cycle.
Next up I want to talk about "Ujamaa", which means "cooperative economics", which is a huge part of Kwanzaa. I am doing My best to spread the wealth around, and I need your help. It's time for those rich folks out there to pony up some more dough. I need to stimulate this economy, and I need to do it now! Why just the other day I almost had $48 billion for day care in Kansas City, until a bunch of you greedy republicans out there shot down the omnibus spending bill! Obviously you don't care about the children at all! Also, you can help out by sending in as much money as you can to My campaign fund. If you find you're going a little over the federally regulated limit, just go down to the corner quick mart and get a couple of money orders in Grandma's name. She won't mind, and neither will I!
Finally, I want to talk to you people about "Imani", which means "faith". I hear an awful lot about faith these days, but faith in whom? Look, let's get real people, nobody's going to come down from heaven and pay your mortgage for you. If you want a faith that's really going to save you, you have to have it in the right place. That's right, you need faith in President B. Hussein Obama! You need to believe that I AM the WAY to be SAVED from your sins of racism, that I CAN bring PEACE ON EARTH by emptying Gitmo and surrendering Afghanistan and Iraq, that I WILL lead you to heaven on earth through wealth-redistribution and that I HAVE turned your swords into condoms with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Yes, your faith in Me and my Divine Wisdom is what is needed if we are to defeat these evil republicans and faithless federal judges. Remember, the constitution is nothing but a bunch of words on paper, but I AM the Living Embodiment of All you Must Adore! Choose Me and My Way, and all will be well for you.
So remember, keep your Kwanzaa Spirit going by reading the African Pledge, and remember, I AM the reason for the season.
Joyous Kwanzaa!
President for Life B. Hussein Obama
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 12:58PM
It's not so much what you think: and the objection is not so much to the Commercialization of Santa; it is to your Jesus-as-male-prostitute. Why do you have to commercialize Jesus even in His cradle?
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 3:39PM
...do you sometimes confuse Santa Claus with Jesus Christ?
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 8:27PM
Name me one religion that hasn't been commercialized. Then let's talk.
GavInTucson| 12.22.10 @ 3:27AM
In all honesty I can't, Alan. Even Islam promises the payoff of 72 virgins in exchange for the extermination of people of a different religious persuasion.
I think the main difference between Islam and other religions is that the other religions are only commercialized during a small part of the year. Radical Islam seems to be a full-time job, operating during the full length of the Gregorian calendar.
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:39PM
Booger,
you are a brilliantly twisted human being, and I say that in the nicest possible way.
Truth Tella| 12.21.10 @ 9:37PM
Kwanzaa was invented by social workers in Compton CA in the late 1960's.
Ed Darrell | 12.23.10 @ 4:15PM
This is extremely offensive, and racist. I suppose it's a nice tribute to American Spectator's love for the First Amendment that they let the comment stand. We can hope it's not out of agreement with the obnoxious tone and disrespect for Americans shown in the post. We can hope.
American Spectator? Own or disown?
Ron Karenga| 12.21.10 @ 6:29AM
Right on bro' .
Appleby| 12.21.10 @ 6:52AM
Kwanzaa is a made-up *celebration* from the 1960s, as far as I can recall, and nobody celebrates it or even mentions it except the kind of people who obsessively blurt out Happy every holiday but Christmas.
I suppose its something like celebrating Martin Luther King Day (which was forced upon us with threats, but which, at least in Atlanta, White Folk are forbidden to celebrate) by wearing your Malcolm X shirt with the machine gun and *By Any Means Necessary*. Yep, that was what Dr. King was all about!
I look forward to Boogers letter on that coercive and divisive holiday whenever it is actually *celebrated.^
dexter| 12.21.10 @ 11:37AM
You know all holidays are made up, right?
gypsy| 12.21.10 @ 11:42AM
you realize that you too are made up, yes?
dexter| 12.21.10 @ 11:48AM
Yes.
GavInTucson| 12.22.10 @ 3:39AM
They're made up in the sense that we've designated them on a certain date. However, most of them have been "made up" to celebrate an event that's believed to have happen earlier in human history (Thanksgiving, Easter, Christmas, etc.).
What event is Kwanzaa based upon? The formation of the Black Panther movement?
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 1:42PM
Made up by Maulana Karenga (nee' Ron Everett), who but this melange together and gave it an African motif to draw black Americans to it.
Not often mentioned is that Everett was founder of the United Slaves, a opposition group to the Black Panthers and was imprisoned for torturing a pair of his followers. An all around stand-up kind of guy.
Ann Coulter wrote a piece in her own inimitable style a couple of years ago and there is, otherwise, plenty of documentation to be found.
And dexter, yes we know all things have origins. It's just that some have, what are considered, more considerable origins.
Bob K.| 12.21.10 @ 7:09AM
Booger,
What in hell does this maundering have to do with Clarence Darrow?
Do you have grudge against Paul Kengor?
Why don't you contact RET Jr. or Wlady and see if they will give you a weekly column. Meanwhile, stay on point. OK!
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 9:08AM
Booger,
Nice letter.
I disagree with Bob K. You are welcome on my screen when the muse moves you.
Bob.K
There is a little cheerio on the middle of your mouse called a scroll button. Use it when necessary.
Bob K.| 12.21.10 @ 4:28PM
Ken,
I'd rather read your maunderings. They are shorter and generally have something to do with the subject article.
Why don't you get up earlier than him, write a response to the article and usurp the 20 inches of useless electronic print pages his take up with all the attached applause. Maybe A.S. will pay you?
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:41PM
Bob---I believe Booger's comments rel;ated to artificial Holidays, as fake displays of patriotism and virtue drove Darrow.
Melvin| 12.21.10 @ 8:03AM
By all accounts Clarence Darrow was an pompous, vain, and arrogant blow-hard, who like many gifted oratorical litigators are able to influence large numbers of weak minded people.
These type of personalities are extremely dangerous to society, hence this is why Obama was able to suck in millions of Americans and put them into a Zombie like trance.
John Edwards, Bill Clinton both fit this mold perfectly. Edwards being handsome, (lotsa hair) charm the stripes of a Zebra, and a sugar and venom tipped tongue that could protray the Pope as a mass murderer.
Bill Clinton could charm the Blue Dress off a pizza delivery boy, and was such a chronic liar that he actually believed his own chutzpa.
But what both men were done in my their own vanity, and arrogance. Darrow on the other hand had conviction on his side, and wouldn't budge one inch from it or waffle around it, unlike Edwards, and Clinton who hadn't an ounce of conviction between the two of them.
Anthony| 12.21.10 @ 9:34AM
Yes, the Rev. Wright's, Father Devine's, Bill Clinton's, and Barack Obozo's of this world come in many shapes, sizes, colors. Be it the pulpit or politics, these charlartans have the "gift" of fraud and decit. They and their ilk have done incalculable harm throughout the ages.
"Take eloquence and wring its neck." Paul Verlaine
sasob| 12.24.10 @ 12:58AM
"By all accounts Clarence Darrow was an pompous, vain, and arrogant blow-hard, who like many gifted oratorical litigators are able to influence large numbers of weak minded people"
That would have been Williams Jenning Bryan - read his famous "cross of gold" speech sometime.
Stormzeye| 12.21.10 @ 8:04AM
Remember Booger, "brevity is the soul of wit." Spare us what is becoming tedious and a bit ego-driven.
WRTolkas| 12.21.10 @ 8:38AM
Dear Stormzeye,
I must humbly protest. Master Booger's essays are a hilarious joy to read. Wit, wisdom, and command of the written word are the hallmarks of Master Booger's chronicles. Hmm, The Chronicles of Master Booger - sounds like a title of a good book in the making.
A Merry Christmas to All,
WRTolkas
Mimi| 12.21.10 @ 9:20AM
WRTolkas....I'm with you..." The BOOGS" in the morning with the wit, joy, Howls and numerous..OMG'S...starts the DAY! It's always our thoughts never spoken..a true GIFT. I got a name for the BOOK..." Wit in the Morning"...Love to you all and Merry and Blessed Christmas....MIMI
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:09PM
Master Booger. Love it.
Reagan Loyalist| 12.21.10 @ 6:04PM
If he's Master Booger, is he a transformer too? Please be so!
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 10:20AM
Stormzeye, Agree. I scroll right through it.
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 1:45PM
It's why there are more than one flavour of ice cream.
Chacun à son goût!
Bob Miller| 12.21.10 @ 4:41PM
How could any proper parody of our Maximum Leader be free of tedium and ego?
Patzer| 12.21.10 @ 8:54AM
Read Howard Blum's American Lightning for more information about what a scumbag Darrow was.
Vern Crisler| 12.21.10 @ 8:57AM
I agree with the writer that "Inherit the Wind" was an awful movie as regards truth or originality. In fact the Scopes Trial was not really about creationism vs. evolution. It was about whether taxpayers could control the content of public school education, a point even Mencken agreed with. Also, Darrow didn't "tear into" WJB during the Scopes Trial. He asked a lot of fool questions that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and Bryan, as a lawyer, provided evasive answers. If it proves anything, it proves that lawyers ought not to be allowed to settle important metaphysical issues.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 9:29AM
Memo to Paul Kengor: The "Communist Threat" exists only in your diseased mind.
Appleby| 12.21.10 @ 11:04AM
Come up here to Kanukistan and live for five years and see if you can still say that with such bold assurance.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:28AM
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you live in Canada.
So they have collectivist farms there? All industry is owned by the government? The press is tightly controlled and censored? You live in fear of a knock on the door at 2am?
Come back to reality, man.
SonOfSam| 12.21.10 @ 11:50AM
Communism doesn't BEGIN with collective farms or that 2am "knock on the door". It begins with a small group of tightly organized radicals who live on hate, profit from fear and do everything they can to tear down your country and render it helpless against its enemies. If you cannot see that this very accurately describes the traitors and tax cheats who have hijacked the White House, then I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look again.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:57AM
As I already said to Appleby, come back to reality, man. Your paranoia is way, way out of control.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 12:04PM
Social Darwinist,
I'm sorry. Your disgusting and despicable screen name colors everything you write.
For the other folks here, why don't you just go ahead and define "Social Darwinist" for them.
Allow everyone here to get a bad taste in their mouth.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:17PM
For your information, you fat old slug, Social Darwinism is the the theory that underlies your belief in the divine powers of free-market capitalism, as well as your belief that everyone gets exactly what he deserve, especially those lazy good-for-nothing poor who just try to suck at the government teat, instead of going out and getting a job like good, red-blooded, American Texins.
I find your screen name, Ken (Old Texican), with its deliberate misspelling, to be hideous and demented.
Do me and everyone else a favor, and stick to the content, and never mind the names people hide behind.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 12:46PM
Maybe the reason that you don't think there are commies in our government is because you ARE one?
Just say'n...
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:25PM
Maybe the reason that you do think there are commies in our government is because you are one?
Just say'n...
JP| 12.21.10 @ 2:27PM
Originally, Social Darwinism had nothing to do with Capitalism or Markets. Try learning some German and read up on the subject.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:50PM
Yes, of course it originally had nothing to do with capitalism. But Ken uses S. D. to justify his belief system. He probably isn't aware of that, though.
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 6:20PM
Webster's defines " Social Darwinist" as a useful idiot or dupe.
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:43PM
SD: Spank your kid in NZ as a Pakeha in 2007 and you damn well did wait for the 2 AM knock.
Sophist| 12.21.10 @ 9:57AM
Many Trial Lawyers are egotistical S.O.B.s It comes with the terrritory. Darrow put his client first (which is what he's supposed to do) When Darrow"s clients were so guilty he couldn't get them off he took a plea deal (Disapointing those who wanted maryters.)
The Scopes case is special. Scopes was not guilty but he was convicted (he didn't have to pay the fine.) Recently someone looked at the Text in question. Oh my God it could have been written by a Nazi (which is why Bryan opposed it). Darrows "questions " were so old that Bryan had ready answers to them He Did not Look like a fool.
If there's a Villain it's Menken. His wicked (but funny) account distorted the whole event.
BeamMeUp| 12.21.10 @ 10:19AM
Talk about kicking a dead horse. I'm guessing Paul Kengor is frustrated with how folks like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, just to name a few, have brought new energy to the atheist movement in recent years. So, what does he do? He stretches back decades to demonize one of the early champions in the fight against religious fundamentalism, Clarence Darrow, stopping short of using that old worn-out label of "godless communist."
No doubt the Christian fundamentalists never forgave Darrow for making a mockery of Bryan and the creationism movement at the Scopes trial. Before the trial, legislation to ban the teaching of evolution had been introduced in 40 states. After the trial, this legislation was enacted in only a handful of states.
The legislation is another example of how religion has never been able to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and has resorted to censorship to ban the competition. Today, having given up on trying to impose the laughable mythology of creationism, the fundamentalists have tried to get its watered-down cousin "intelligent design" mandated in the classrooms.
I know you religious folks would prefer that us atheists and any other non-Christians would just be quiet as you try to rub Christianity in everyone's face. But we're not.
And, for the record, we'll speak just as loudly against any Moslems who try to force their beliefs on everyone. Got that, you clerics in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Not an atheist| 12.21.10 @ 10:31AM
Just for the record, there are plenty of religious people who also recognize creationism and "intelligent design" for the nonsense that it is.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:13AM
Hey Not, Please expand & clarify. Curious. thanks
Not an atheist| 12.21.10 @ 11:23AM
Nothing to clarify. Just stating a fact.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 12:08PM
Steve A
Not an Atheist can't even define "Creationism" and intelligent design.
He is just empty.
Not an atheist| 12.21.10 @ 12:21PM
You've got nothing, so you attack me on the grounds that I have not explained what the participants in this discussion take for granted as known.
Learn the basic rules, dearie. Before you join a discussion, you have to understand what is being discussed.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 12:49PM
Maybe YOU oughtta learn some "basic rules, dearie."
You stated, "Just for the record, there are plenty of religious people who also recognize creationism and "intelligent design" for the nonsense that it is."
So someone asked you to back up your assertion. You didn't. Which leads us to believe you want us to take your word for it. It doesn't work that way. so put up or shut up. How's that for some debate rules?
Not an atheist| 12.21.10 @ 1:00PM
Nobody asked me to back up my assertion. Besides, it's just a plain fact. There are plenty of religious people who recognize creationism and "intelligent design" for the nonsense that it is. Maybe just not where you live.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:28PM
Religious people. Hmm. Paraphrasing Billy Boy Clintoon, (you know who he is, right?):
"It all depends on your definition of Religious".
It could be the Religion of Allah.
The Religion of Buddah.
Or how about the Religion of VooDoo.
Or Zoroastraism.
Or perhaps the Druids?
I don't know about them, but I am sure that all God fearing Christians believe that He created the Universe.
You have to ask yourself ~ is it possible to believe in God and deny Him at the same time? Because that is what you are claiming.
If ever there was a pure lie, it is your claim.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:36PM
Not an atheist:
You said, "Nobody asked me to back up my assertion."
What the HELL do you call this:
"Please expand & clarify. Curious. thanks."
Looks like someone is asking you to explain yourself to me. I guess maybe you missed that part of reading comprehension. And you people claim to be SOOOOO much "smarter" than all of us. You people are a joke.
Not an atheist| 12.21.10 @ 2:26PM
You truly are a brat. Now go home to momma and have some cookies and milk.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 2:39PM
Aww, poor little guy! What's wrong? Don't like being called out as a fraud? Cry for us, little baby.
PATHETIC
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:45PM
You're just jealous of our awesome NavyBrat.
Petty, petty jealousy!
You GO, NavyBrat!
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 4:17PM
Thanks, Ms. Margie!!! Hope all's been well with you & yours. Big Christmas plans?
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 4:30PM
Anytime, sir.
Thanks for asking, all is well enough, by the Grace of God. No big plans though.
Here's wishing you and yours the Happiest New Year ever! :^)
Vic & Margie
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 6:26PM
Right back at ya, Ms. Margie! G*d bless you & yours this Christmas & New Years.
Windy the Wicked Witch| 12.21.10 @ 2:30PM
I'm religious and I believe Obama the Anointed One created the Universe and all that's in it. That is why people like me voted for him. And he told me if I am good and worship him that when I die I get free food stamps for the rest of my life!.
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:51PM
OK, not an atheist: 1) Is there a Divine Being (mono or tripartite) or are you a polytheist?
2) Do the gods or G-d take an active interest in the human race or are they uninterested?
3) If the answer to (2) is "active," then were they or were they not involved in the creation and history of the human race?
4) If the answer to (3) is not involved, what is your description of "active." If it is "involved," then why is intelligent design ridiculous?
My view, which I've had ever since Hebrew school translating "Bresheet," is that the Bible gives the "why" and the "who" of creation, and modern science gives the "how." Given the huge likelihood of entropy override in any creative biological event, to argue that the deck was NOT FIXED in some way seems to me to be more irrational. Prigogine's theory of anti-entropic systems maintained by vast expenditures of energy seems to me to be in keeping with life creation.
Tim*| 12.21.10 @ 10:30PM
Anti-entropy
In evolution thermodynamics, anti-entropy is a loose term associated with effects or processes opposite that of entropy, namely order, organization, and improbability as opposed to that of disorder, disorganization and probability. It expresses the ascending primacy of life over entropy, where life is defined as a kind of anti-entropic or negative entropy process. This particular terminology is often considered a post-Teilhardian expression, in that it was used significantly by French scientific-religious philosopher Pierre Teilhard, becoming a common term in 1967.
In an unpublished manuscript dated November 19, 1951 (dedicated to Julian Huxley), in a section titled "The Transformation, starting with Man, of the Process of Evolution", Teilhard defines anti-entropy as "an effect of changes that are seized, draws a portion of matter in the direction of continually higher forms of structurization and centration."
BeamMeUp| 12.21.10 @ 10:22AM
P.S. Happy Winter Solstice everyone !
(A little history research will show anyone with half a brain that late December was a time of celebration long before the rise of Christianity.)
Robert Pinkerton| 12.21.10 @ 12:43PM
And Good Yule to you in your turn, Sir; and to all of you in this Forum.
True it is that Christian hegemony over American culture is eroding. This seems greatly to exercise some here.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 10:26AM
BeamMeUp, So, evolution is lock solid science huh? Let me ask you a question then. If evolution is the answer then it is still taking place today, correct?? I mean, apes are currently evolving into humans, correct? So if I take a zoo full of apes, dump in a few volumes of Shakespeare & pipe in some Mozart over the PA & cheat a bit, I can fast forward a few million years & come back & find the MIT blackjack team. Is that how it works?
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 10:33AM
In your case, Steve, no.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:30PM
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
BeamMeUp| 12.21.10 @ 2:31PM
Creationists didn't evolve from apes. They haven't evolved at all.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:28PM
That's right. God created them. Uh, and you too.
Whether you like it or not.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 10:34AM
Social, You have no balls, answer the question.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 10:39AM
OK. The answer is, after those millions of years something will be different. Whether it will be the MIT blackjack team is not so easy to say.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 10:54AM
Social, Got another one for ya. If you are an atheist & believe in evolution etc. you are of the opinion that this is all some cosmic accident that life exists & we are here to debate its origins. In your book, billions of years ago, somehow a planet formed from nothing & life began & evolved. So my question is this: Scientifically, for your theory to hold, something (matter) would have to spring forth from nothing or a void as there is no God. How is it scientifically possible for something to evolve from nothing?
Appleby| 12.21.10 @ 11:06AM
Hey Social Dim: head on down to Lowe's and assure yourself that everything necessary to build a three-bedroom, two-bath duplex with attached garage and circular driveway is available there.
Now stay there and phone me the instant such a building and its accoutrements spontaneously appear.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:24AM
What makes you think I am an atheist?
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:32AM
Social, Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We may actually agree on some things. Are you an atheist??
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 11:36AM
Social,
1. are you an atheist?
2. if we humans descended from some ape/chimp/whatever, what caused the split when some evolved to humans and the rest remained as apes/chimps/whatever? why did the split occur?
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:44AM
To answer both of you, no, I am not an atheist. As for your 2d question, Chris, a little basic knowledge of Evolution would suffice for you to answer your own question.
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 11:52AM
Social, I take it then you cannot answer question 2. You take the time to post numerous statements, mostly insults, but cannot answer a question on the issue. If you do not know, then say i do not know.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:02PM
Oh, for crying out loud, do I have to do all the intellectual work around here? OK, here's your answer.
The precursor apelike animal evolved into two lines; one led to the apes we know today, and the other led to humans. In both cases the operative mechanism was random mutations filtered by environmental pressures.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 12:41PM
Social: So you believe in God as creator but he created man first as a slug that crawled from an ocean billions of years ago & one day stood up & eventually built a rocket to the moon.....The truth is that this theory requires just as much faith as creation theory. Nobody really knows. That is the answer.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:46PM
I suggest you read the first chapter of Genesis if you want a succinct outline of the scientific understanding of (a) the creation of the universe and (b) the evolution of life. The Biblical account and the scientific account are virtually the same.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 12:59PM
Have read it several times. Having a hard time recalling the part about the monkey ancestors of Adam & the random mutations & environmental pressures causing a split in the gene pool.
As for creation, of course it's accurate & scientifically sound, look at the author.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:14PM
Apparently the Creator, for His own inscrutable reasons, decided to limit your intelligence.
Still, I give you points for trying.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 1:30PM
Social, I must admit I am dissapointed but not surprised. I really was starting to think I had a chance at a civil conversation with someone with intelligence & an opposing viewpoint. As is often the case, I run up against someone who resorts to petty insults & no backbone to justify or expand on their position. You, like many others, refuse to leave your little comfort zone & retreat into yourself when forced to examine that the foundation of your argument is rotten to the core. You just are unable to take a step back & look at it objectively as this would expose you to admitting you have been on the wrong side of it.
As for me, I am perfectly willing to have my position challenged & relish the opportunity to defend it. If your argument is sound, I will admit it & be influenced. If you paint yourself as some sort of uber genius & unable to stoop to the level of those who would debate you, you are nothing but an elitist snob with no shot at furthering the debate.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:36PM
Fair enough, Steve, and I am even willing to apologize for that last little insulting remark.
But I would like to know in what respect my arguments are rotten to the core?
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 1:48PM
Yes, I knew it. I knew there was lurking a decent guy in there! What a relief.
Ok, here is where I think the foundation of Darwinism is rotten. There is no recognition of a Supreme Being (God) as the creator. Atheists, in particular, have taken this omission & pumped it into a justification for an assault on religion in general (particularly Christian belief).
I am willing to admit that I do not really know if God grabbed a handful of clay & made a man & jerked a rib out & made Eve. It's possible that he created life to develop & evolve into man but to me, that does not seem to be his style. I honestly do not know. But I am sure, that this is all no cosmic accident & it is God who breathes the spirit into a man.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:53PM
Why don't you know? He said that is what he did.
As it is written:
"..and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." Gen. 2:22.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 2:05PM
Margie, Why don't I know. #1: I was not there. #2: the Bible is packed with allegory. Try reading Revelation & get back to me.
PS: I am not disputing it as quite possible. If God wanted to do it that way then it was so.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:11PM
So, because you weren't there, you allow yourself to say to God that "maybe" how He said He did it is true?
It isn't me you're finding fault with, it's Him, and what He says.
"The Bible is filled with allegory."
That has nothing to do with you trying to say God may or may not have done it the way HE says He did.
Your argument is with Him, then.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 2:22PM
Margie, I do not have any argument with anybody. If & when I meet Him I will ask for clarification. I'll say, "oh hey, by the way, did you really do the rib trick or was that shorthand for another method as you did not feel like writing a few more chapters to explain it??" He will laugh, as He has a sense of humor, unlike you, & surely not toss a lightning bolt at me because he made himself a man at one point & understands the confusion.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:59PM
Sorry, Steve A. but you're the one questioning what He said, not me. I'm simply sticking up for Him.
Ol Will| 12.21.10 @ 2:37PM
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 2:05PM
When the Bible is using allegory, metaphor, simile, etc. it is obviously doing so.
There is no textual authority to take Genesis 1-3 as anything other than literal historical narrative. If the previous sentence is not true, then God is a liar and His Word is a lie - all of it.
You can believe what you want. You can deny God if you want, but what you cannot do is to create textual uncertainty by an unsupported and unsupportable claim of allegory in the foundational passage of the history of the world and the theology of the Bible.
Ps 53:1
Ro 3:4
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:08PM
Of course there is no recognition of a Supreme Being within Darwinism. That's because it is a scientific theory. The purpose of science is to explain the phenomena of the physical world along strictly rational lines.
It may be that some people try to use the fact that science has explained, in a strictly rational way, so many mysterious things that people used to ascribe to, and use as proof of the existence of, God, to deny His existence. But why should that affect your faith? There are lots of misguided people in this world.
You say "it is God who breathes the spirit into a man". Yes indeed. For all that science has pretty much taken most of the mystery out of the physical world, that is one thing that it has not touched at all, even now.
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 1:22PM
I agree with you wholeheartedly, SD. As a Christian non-Bible-literalist, what has always astonished me about Genesis is not its inconsistency with science, but how it got at the basic truths at a time when man's understanding of the universe was so limited. It described the Big Bang with poetic beauty, a truth that Hubble was not to articluate for thousands of years. And it described God's gradual creation of life, culminating with the appearance of man, again thousands of years before Darwin and others illuminated the science behind it. Clearly, these were inspired writings, imperfectly transmitted and transcribed by primitive humans. I never cease to be amazed at the divine insights contained in Genesis.
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 1:35PM
RCV, same questions to you as to Social. Is it consistent to believe in a Ceator and random mutation? Doesn't the term random exclude a plan set in motion by a Creator?
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 2:03PM
If it was set in motion by the Creator, it's not random unless you choose to define "random" in a different way. Natural selection acts to promote survival of precisely those genes that serve the organism in the environment it finds itself in. It's why life has diversified to adapt to the various climatic and geophysical areas it has spread to. When looked at, it is a design of sheer beauty and genius, and not in the least "random", i.e. arbitrary without purpose.
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 9:58PM
You are defining random to mean part of a plan.
Christopher | 12.21.10 @ 1:31PM
Thanks Social, can you please continue to help us understand this, seriously. If you believe the "split" was a random mutation filtered by environmental pressures, and you also believe in a Creator, then how can the "split" be random? And what do you mean by "filteread by environmental pressures?" What environmental pressures? If you believe in a Creator, then it seems you must believe the Creator created the slug or whatever that eventually evolved into you. But if the operative split was random, and not planned by the Creator, how can you believe in a Creator?
You started this conversation, so I am curious about your beliefs and reasons. You should feel complimented that we are asking you to do the intellectual heavy lifting.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:42PM
The scientific evidence for evolution is indisputable, assuming one accepts science as a valid method for understanding reality. On the other hand, the existence of a Creator is equally indisputable, at least for one who has the requisite faith. So how to reconcile these two apparently conflicting facts?
My answer is, there is not, and cannot be any conflict. The miracle of Creation is that God set things up with such delicate subtlety that the random processes involved in evolution would, eventually, lead to the existence of the human race.
To my mind, that is much more of an awe-inspiring miracle than the story that God just said, boom, and the world as we have it now was created.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:50PM
"To my mind, that is much more of an awe-inspiring miracle than the story that God just said, boom, and the world as we have it now was created."
Then you are calling God a liar.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:54PM
What? Who would do that? No, Margie, I am not calling God a liar. But I will say right now that you have to learn that your way of reading the Bible is not the only possible way, even within the context of orthodox belief.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:00PM
You are calling Him a liar.
And I read the Bible as clearly as it was written, and as plainly as He speaks, for I quoted His words directly.
Each person has to Judge God. You are either calling Him a liar.. with your life.. or you are testifying that you believe Him. And if you claim to believe in Him, you must believe what He says.
MD Giles| 12.21.10 @ 2:47PM
The Bible was not written directly by GOD. It was written by human beings, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Moslems, OTOH, believe The Koran is the direct, literal, Word of GOD, as given by the Arch Angel Gabriel, to The Prophet, Mohammed
I'm with RCV and SD. Evolution is a simple, elegant way for an omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly immortal being to reach HIS aims, without need of constant supervision. The problem with fundamentalists is arrogance. They believe that the Almighty has to work on their schedule. A day as vaguely understood by those first ones who learned the Word, does not necessarily mean the same thing to the Father of Creation.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:56PM
MD Giles:
Very contradictory.
You say that men moved by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.
Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit is infallible?
If you do, then you must agree that what they wrote is God's truth.
Evolution was not written by a man moved by the Holy Spirit, but by a man in rebellion towards God.
Take your pick.
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 4:37PM
The Holy Spirit is infallible, but humans aren't. The Bible wasn't written until it had been passed down, from imperfect person to imperfect person, one after another, for generations. Human beings were God's creation, but they are human, and make mistake after mistake, misunderstand things, etc. To believe otherwise is blasphemous and idolotrous. Worship God, not manmade things like books.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 5:30PM
So now I am a blasphemer because I believe that the words written by men who were moved by God's Spirit are from God, therefore they are His words?
Wow.
To each his own.
But what a great excuse for allowing yourself to not have to listen to them. (Him).
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 1:53PM
Social, do you believe we must have faith to believe that God exists, or do you believe that science, as you state the scientific evidence for evoulution, proves or establishes there is a God who is the Creator? I believe the use of the word "random" negates the idea of a Creator that planned the evolution. Maybe there should be another word to replace random.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:58PM
Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God. That is strictly a matter of faith. Confusing the two, science and faith, always leads to endless, and fruitless difficulties (see Galileo).
As for "random", well, that is a much more subtle concept than it appears at first glance. I'd rather not get into some lengthy philosophical dispute as to the meaning of "random", but perhaps it would suffice to say that even in a random context, there is order.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:17PM
God created science. And he created you, the haughty intellectual so that you could go around spouting off your nonsense to God fearing Christians.
He will also destroy your haughty little arguments in a nano-second.. the same amount of time it took Him to form you out of the dust of the earth.
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 2:27PM
Margie, which Bible do you read and quote, which version?
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:52PM
Christopher,
All of the different versions that are out there today say virtually the same thing, although they have really gotten worse and worse over the years. There is an interlinear Bible that is available that contains the king James, and next to that the original Greek, and next to that a literal translation to English. All on one page. The Old Testament is also available with the Hebrew in the same manner.
It is wonderful.
It really makes a huge difference when you read what God says from the original languages. This version is the closest to it and best I've discovered so far.
It's put out by Sovereign Grace publications:
http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/index.php
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:07PM
p.s. Christopher, as to your question as to which version I quote when posting, it's the RSV version. That's because that's the version I mostly learned from most of my Christian life, and it's available online. It used to be the version closest to the King James. I'm not a strictly King James person either, as some are, just that it was without all of the thees and thou's.
When posting, it is a lot faster than trying to find a verse by actually looking through my interlinear Bible physically. Besides, going to BlueLetterBible.com is great because it serves as my memory for verses that I can't remember where they are. The word search feature is great.
Bible Scholar| 12.21.10 @ 4:09PM
Margie, if you are reading the King James version, or the RSV, or any translation at all, you are not reading the word of God. You are reading the interpretation of the translators.
If I am not mistaken, the Bible was written in Hebrew. Not only that, it was written without vowels. Which means that many words could mean different things, depending on how you put the missing vowels back in.
And that means that neither you, nor anyone else, can be absolutely sure just what it means.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 4:21PM
Well Mr. scholar:
We do the best we can with what we've got, don't we?
Christopher| 12.21.10 @ 2:36PM
"The miracle of Creation is that God set things up with such delicate subtlety that the random processes involved in evolution would, eventually, lead to the existence of the human race"
This means to me that 1) evolution is science, 2)God planned evolution, 3) the science of evolution requires a Creator/God to explain the begining, otherwise the science is incomplete , regardless of whether we use some other term, such as Big Bang.
I would agree with this
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 5:34PM
See below. Science is knowledge.
God says that faith comes through the hearing of His word.
That means when I preach the gospel to someone, they can believe it, simply because they hear it!
Sounds pretty scientific to me.
"So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." Rom. 10:17.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 1:57PM
This above is without question, a distinct possibility.
To me, it really does not matter either way now does it.
There is a God, we are here, after it is over you get to check in & maybe get a few things cleared up.
Ol Will| 12.21.10 @ 3:26PM
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:42PM
"The scientific evidence for evolution is indisputable..."
C'me on, man! Evolutionists are at each others' throats all the time. The only time they appear to have a united front is when they are dealing with the public.
The evidence for evolution is so weak that an evolutionist created the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium". He was trying to account for the fact that in over 100 years of searching not indisputable "missing link" had been found. Evolutionists suddenly went from saying that evolution happens too slowly to see to saying that it happens too fast to see! They claimed that lack of evidence is proof of the theory. Only they use high-sounding sophistry to hide what they are really saying.
So many "proofs" of evolution's missing links have been proven fraudulent, usually by other evolutionists, that the claim of having found one can pretty much be ignored out of hand.
As an example of the evolutionists' dishonesty consider this definition of 'fossil' from my 1960 Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary: "1. Originally, any rock or mineral dug out of the earth; hence, 2. Any hardened remains or traces of plant or animal life of some previous geological period, preserved in rock formations in the earth's crust." Now they call anything that is covered with dirt that they think should be geologically old a fossil whether it has been "fossilized" or not. Witness the dinosaur soft tissue that was discovered a few years ago.
When I was in Jr High School, they called it the "simple cell". They had to maintain that it is simple in order for random processes to account for its existence and function. Now we know that a living cell is made up of over 9,000 different parts, each exquisitely designed with its own very precise function that fits into a precise chain of functions that result in maintaining life for that cell. Some of those parts even have rotating motors buried deep inside their workings. Trying to maintain their denial of God, evolutionists still maintain that this single cell is simple enough to have developed spontaneously by random processes.
You need to spend some time at icr.org studying their scientifically proven evidences of a young earth. The evidence that they use in drawing their conclusions are facts from natural history and astrophysics that are generally accepted by all scientists. They make an overwhelming case for a young earth.
As a joke: If evolution is a fact, why do they bother teaching anatomy to medical students?
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 6:22PM
You are incapable of indepent thought, repeating your controllers dogma is not intellectual work.
Keith I| 12.21.10 @ 6:54PM
Social Disease,
Late to the discussion. A little matter of work having a priority ( before it COMPLETELY dries up). The split of which you are speaking would presumably be the split in the chromosome lines between apes and humanoids. Accepting for a moment that this "random mutation" ocurred, the next step in the falacy, oops, the Theory of Evolution is that the split was beneficial to the recipient, namely through the process of "natural selection". When this chromosome split occurred, presumably many millions of years ago, what benefit would the recipient have over the "parent" species? How could humanoids survive better in that world than a 1,000 pound Silverback Gorilla (or predecessor) that has crushing jaws, the strength of 20 humanoids and the ability to survive brutal natural conditions, without having to kill its own coat. Natural selection would dictate that the recipient (weaker) species wouldn't survive and reproduce, much less thrive.
You ridicule I.D. and Creationism but your beloved THEORY of Evolution fails under even this extremely limited scrutiny.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 1:17PM
Social, One last thing. So youcall yourself a "Social Darwinist," but yet you are not an atheist. Darwin was clearly an atheist & it is the foundation of his theory. So, you believe he was wrong on the issue of God, but correct on Evolution? Seriously, is this where you are at?
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:22PM
Actually, Darwin was not an atheist. although he was not an orthodox Christian either.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 1:33PM
Please furnish me with some quotes from Darwin on his belief in a God & I will post you 20 indicating otherwise.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:51PM
Oh, let's not get distracted by what Darwin did or didn't believe. Besides, it's irrelevant.
For instance, (and not to introduce a new line of discussion, but purely as an example) most of the guys who invented and engineered the atomic bomb were leftists. So are you prepared to advocate the elimination of nuclear weapons from the American arsenal just because you don't agree with the politics of their creators?
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 2:13PM
Good point, however. If the scientists who engineered the A-Bomb set the foundation for their science on a faulty theory, their project would have failed.
My point is that if Darwin could be mistaken on such a huge issue as the existence of God, it is more than likely the resulting theory of evolution has a few holes in it at best.
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 1:55PM
Social Darwinint,
Just for the record, I don't have any difficulty understand communication theory, encoding errors, random mutation and can see plenty of evidence for micro evolution. Where I have trouble is this...
We know from observation that the population of a species can drop below the level needed to sustain the population. How does a random mutation generate, spontaneously and with sufficient contemporaneousness to be self-sustaining.
Answer that for me, and I am forever in your debt.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:21PM
John, it is a perfectly legitimate question which I, unfortunately, not being a professional biologist, am not fully qualified to answer. However, it seems to me to be quite reasonable that the process goes something like this.
Within a self-sustaining population, many random mutations occur. Ignoring the ones that are lethal, and confining our attention to those which are sufficiently minor that the mutants would still be considered part of that population, it is clear, just from the fact that the mutants are different, that some will have acquired a greater likelihood of reproductive success, and some less. Those who have that greater likelihood will therefore reproduce at a greater rate than the rest of the population. Even if the difference is tiny, over many generations it will be magnified until the favorable mutation is dominant. Those without the mutation will be driven to the wall, and eventually disappear. At all times the population remains sufficiently large to be viable.
With this kind of process going on for a long enough time (and we are talking hundreds of millions of years, which means tens of millions of generations), the proliferation of species of all kinds ceases to be surprising.
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 3:54PM
Social Darwinist,
I respect that you are not a professional biologist. Neither am I. However, I anticipated your response as it is not an uncommon one to me.
Within a self-sustaining population, many recombinations of our DNA occur. This is where you get "Grandma's eyes" or "Uncle John'
s nose". Some mutations occur (Down's syndrome, e.g.) which alter, rather than recombine, the genetic structure. I have been told, but cannot defend, the proposition that mutation (transription errors) more frequently results in a non-viable fetus and spontaneously aborts. This is your point about lethal mutations.
Back to the "minor mutations". We don't see minor mutations, we see variation. Suppose we which to explain the evolution of species 'A' to 'B'. This could be ape to man, but I don't wish to freight the argument unnecessarily. The requirement is that 'A' and 'B' are different species and subject to the same rule that interbreeding cannot occur or, as in the case of a mule, is sterile.
This is where the micro/macro evolution breaks down for me. We postulate a set of proto-'B' which are random variants of 'A' such that when two of these proto-'B' mate, they produce a true 'B'. The breakdown in your argument is that proto-'B' are 'A's. Suddenly two proto-'B's produce a true 'B'. I'm fine with you argument that this can occur with a semi-infinite population, or randomly with a smaller population over longer time. But now we are constrained by time and population. "Lucy" is 3 million years old. That's a lot of generations, but the population in infinitesimally small and it is not the hundreds of million of years you refer to; also from Australopithecine we move through, H. habilis, H. erectus (1 to 2 million years ago) on to H. Sapiens (Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, modern man).
The flaw in my argument is the supposition that an 'A' and a 'B' cannot interbreed. If they can, then this continuous evolution can continue without the need for a critical self-sustaining mass. That begs the next question...
If 'A' and 'B' can interbreed, where is the continuous evolution fossil record? It is debated if H. Erectus and Neanderthal could interbreed and suggested that Neanderthals and H. Sapiens sapiens (at least Cro-Magnon) did, in fact, interbreed. Now we are at, almost, yesterday (50,000 years ago) in a population numbering substantially less than one million. With all that evolution going on and with the observation that 6% of all people who have ever lived are alive today, where is all that evolution now?
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 4:09PM
PS: Just an added thought. One might suppose that this genetic mutation is going on under our noses and waiting for the moment when a sufficient number of recessive genetic (red-heads, anyone? :) mutation emerge in the next great step. One might see that in the human genome mapping projects. Anyone looking?
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 10:44AM
P.S.: I do have balls, and they are bigger than yours.
Maryland Lady| 12.21.10 @ 11:04AM
As usual, Social, you can't answer the question as logically as the person who asked it in the first place. I'm waiting for your response to his question. But all I hear are crickets chirping.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:32PM
It's not crickets. It's the feedback in your hearing aid.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:40PM
No, it's the crickets chirping in your head that are blocking your ability to hear God's own words.
For as it is written:
"So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them." Gen. 1:27.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Man, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." Gen. 5:1 & 2.
"For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created Man upon the earth, and ask from one end of Heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of." Deut. 4:32.
"I made the earth, and created Man upon it; it was My Hands that stretched out the Heavens, and I commanded all their host." Is. 45:12.
Always a good idea to quote the Source.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:47PM
Forgot one:
"..then the LORD God formed Man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living being." Gen. 2:7.
What?! No amoebas?
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 2:17PM
Margie: Do you believe man was in existence when dinosaurs were? How do you explain their coming and going before the appearance of humans?
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 2:35PM
In Genesis He says He created every beast of the earth, every bird of the air, and everything that creeps on the earth, and that He created them out of the earth, as He did Man.
Also in Genesis He blotted out all of them at the time of the flood, except the ones Noah brought with him in the ark.
If scientists looked to the Bible for their facts, they'd be telling the truth instead of making things up. The whole dating of fossils and figuring of time as they do it is extremely faulty and bogus.
The Bible was given to Man as a gift, and everything we need to know, that He deemed necessary is in it.
For example, that the earth is round.
That there are mountains therefore volcanos under the sea.
That there are innumerable species of sea creatures in the waters.
That there are worlds without number besides our own planet.
That the sands of the sea are also innumerable, as are the stars of the heavens.
The Bible is a wealth of information.
Mankind finds these things out as he goes along.. and each time he does, I usually say.. well duh! :^)
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 4:32PM
...but Noah wasn't around when dinosaurs were. Aren't you interested in what we've learned through science? Don't you have a natural human curiosity to study these things, and wonder about how they all fit together? Or are you content to just ignore facts and say, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it"?
Anyway, have a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for the coming new year.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 5:22PM
Nah, that's God's story, and I'm sticking to it.
That's what I prefer to marvel at!
"This God--His way is perfect; the promise of the LORD proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him." Ps. 18:30.
p.s. Didn't say what you said about Noah.. just recounting what God did.. the flood, the animals, the creation. I'm sure a Biblical scholar can put it all together, and I know they have.
Anytime the scientific world happens to get something right, it will match up with what the Bible already says.
God's truth always trumps the wisdom of man.
RCV| 12.25.10 @ 12:32AM
I guess the Neanderthals missed Noah's boat, too.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 2:36PM
RCV, I believe that issue was cleared up in the movie 1 Million BC with Raquel Welch running around in a fur bikini.They did coexist.
Further, it is likely that cro magnon man cave fires contributed huge CO2 that eventually led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. If only Democrats had evolved earlier, they could have levied a tax on these fires & saved the dinosaurs.
RCV| 12.21.10 @ 4:29PM
:-D
Happy New Year, Steve!
Steve A| 12.22.10 @ 10:20AM
Rcv, Same here. Take care & be safe. We have much to be thankful for.
MD Giles| 12.21.10 @ 2:57PM
"So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them." Gen. 1:27.
And what was that image. Was he tall? Short? Fat? Thin? Black? White? Yellow? Red?
Or was he simply able to reason and make moral decisions? You do know that man and Chimps have 98% of the same DNA? We are pretty much the same as our ape cousins. However one of us goes to the Moon and the other is still sitting in the jungle, pulling bananas off of trees. I think intelligence is the part of us that's the image of the Almighty.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:15PM
MD Giles,
In His image.. well I will answer that also from the Bible~
For as it is written:
"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth." Jn. 4:24.
Since God is Spirit, you must draw your own conclusion to that. I just take Him at His word that I was created in His image.. it is a perfect refutation to Darwin's false theory. If He created us in His own image, it was not that of a beast.
And as to the DNA issue: Since He said He created Man and beast from the dust of the earth, it makes sense. But note that He also made the distinction between Man in His image, and beasts.
Separate and distinct.
Only Man has the ability to reason. Though we certainly messed that up, didn't we? :^)
But all the more reason to see our need for Him.
Maryland Lady| 12.21.10 @ 2:42PM
Nice, yet sad attempt to be insulting, and it WOULD be funny IF I wore a hearing aid you puesdo intellectual a-hole.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:55PM
Margie, sweetie:
Nice demonstration of turning the other cheek.
If you want to pose as a Christian, you mustn't ever step out of character. You lose all credibility when you do that.
Maryland Lady| 12.21.10 @ 3:07PM
Ummm, I'm NOT Margie.
Maybe you need new reading/computer glasses Social? Because I call an a-hole an a-hole has nothing with not turning the other cheek, it's a fact you're an a-hole. Did you get all that? Or are you still looking under couch pillows for your glasses?
You really want to go there on being the credibility police? Seriously?
Again you're nothing but a pueso intellectual a-hole.
Oh and Margie, preach it sistah!
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 3:25PM
Oops, you have nailed me, Maryland. My apologies.
As a matter of fact, I did just get new glasses, and I'm still getting used to them.
Be that as it may, you have made one little mistake. I am neither a "pueso intellectual" nor an a-hole. Oh well, we are all human, and "to err is human."
Maryland Lady| 12.21.10 @ 3:28PM
I think there is a huge misconception that non-believers think that all Christians are these little perfect people who wouldn't say crap if they had a mouthful. However, they forget St. Peter made a sailor blush! Are you kidding me? Anyway, we are all imperfect sinners, which is why we were saved in the first place. We continue to be sinners and try to do our best. We aren't perfect, nor will we ever BE perfect. Only one person on the face of the earth was perfect and he died for all of us, whether you believe it or not.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:21PM
Darwinist:
Nice try, but I never saw the need to post using various screen names.
I do know of a certain troll, however who tries to peg me with that. All the while doing it himself, of course.
I have never called anyone by these names.
I have used the term, liar, scum, and snake though.
And my only regret was the word scum.. it was not in a good moment.
davelnaf| 12.21.10 @ 10:45AM
Since the fall of the Soviet Union we’ve learned a lot about what our homegrown lefties were up to all those years from the time of the glorious October Revolution to 1991. Doubtless, we will learn more in the years ahead.
Despite the recent election results their soul mate descendants are every bit as determined to see this country liberated from the evils of capitalism. The reach of these people will always far exceed their grasp.
G. Marx| 12.21.10 @ 10:47AM
"we’ve learned a lot about what our homegrown lefties were up"
Tell us, please, what exactly they were up to?
davelnaf| 12.21.10 @ 11:11AM
1. Aiding and abetting the Soviet Union before the Nazi-Soviet Pact
2. Aiding and abetting the Soviet Union during the existence of the Nazi-Soviet Pact
3. Aiding and abetting the Soviet Union during and long after the end of the WWII
4. Feeding decades worth of misinformation into the brain cavity of their embedded time bomb Barack Hussein Obama
G. Marx| 12.21.10 @ 11:25AM
Well! That certainly clears things up.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 12:55PM
Let's see. They were also busy infiltrating every level of our gov't. They were HIGHLY successful at funding & supporting the anti Vietnam movement (read the Mitrokhin Archive). They supported Bill Ayers & his buddies. They supported the Black Panthers. Want any more?
G. Marx| 12.21.10 @ 1:03PM
Yes I do.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:38PM
Too bad. I've given you a few. Do your own homework. Its called using Bing or Google.
G. Marx| 12.21.10 @ 1:46PM
Gee whiz, man, you offered to provide some more examples and now you refuse to do so. I guess Navy Brats don't learn the concept of sticking to their word the way real Navy people do.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:57PM
And what you know of "real Navy people" could fill a thimble, no doubt.
G. Marx| 12.21.10 @ 3:06PM
You have explained what things the "homegrown lefties" have done. Yes, those terrible "homegrown lefties". Homegrown means the same, I suppose, as American-born. Which means they are American citizens. So you have a problem with American citizen lefties.
You have forgotten something. All American citizens have equal rights, and all have an equal right to say how this country should be run. If you say otherwise, then you are denying what is clearly stated in the Constitution, and you are a traitor.
Which leads me wonder if you really have anything to do with the Navy at all.;
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 4:27PM
Spare me the "everyone has the right to speak" diatribe. You KNOW that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is how these "homegrown" lefties have supported some of the most violent groups in our history. Those groups who perpetrated acts of violence to further their warped messages. And those lefties WERE, in many cases, SPIES for the Soviets. Its all there in the "Mitrokhin Archive" & in a brief overview of the Venona affair. And while those people are afforded the same rights as you & I, in the case of espionage or domestic terror, they're STILL CRIMINALS. And last I checked, espionage by an American citizen AGAINST America is treason.
Nowhere did I say that those chumps couldn't have their voices heard. What they CANNOT do, what they SHOULDN'T have been allowed to get away with, is committing violent acts. But I guess those details don't mean that much to you. You'd rather concentrate your efforts on putting words in other people's mouths & engaging in your prepubescent hyperbole fits.
Citizen Jerry| 12.21.10 @ 10:45AM
Good article. Just one quibble about the research. If you're looking on Wikipedia for unbiased, factual information, you're wasting your time.
It also helps to ignore the idiot trolls that keep crawling our of the woodwork to insult people of faith during one of their most holy seasons.
gypsy| 12.21.10 @ 11:57AM
Wikipedia belongs to whoever sets up an account there and posts an entry. The only time an entry will ever be deleted right away is if it casts a stone against one of their heroes. For example, there is not a chance in hell that they will let you keep in any entries about Rev Wright in connection with Barrack Obama for more than about 30 seconds. On the other hand, if you say that your state's legislature is called to order when the governor gets on top of the capitol building and blows on the "horn of cheese", they will let that one go for at least three weeks.
No, I am absolutely not kidding. Go get an account there and see for yourself :-)
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 10:46AM
"Something will be different." Wow, what a profound endorsment for your position of faith.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 10:49AM
Steve, ordinarily I don't like to be cruel, but in your case I'll make an exception. Please go away. If you take the trouble to learn something about (a) religion and (b) Darwin, then you can come back and post again.
Auggo Effyourself| 12.21.10 @ 12:58PM
Who're you? The arbiter on all things concerning debate? Here's a tip, Junior. You came to a conservative/libertarian website. So if you can't produce better support for your theories other than "something will be different," then perhaps YOU shouldn't be the one posting. Maybe post your tripe over at the Daily Krap or the Flushington Post where no one will call you out on your bullshat.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 1:11PM
Getting a little tetchy, are we? Steve asked me to predict what would evolve from a bunch of apes millions of years from now. I think my answer is about as much as anybody could say.
I suppose your answer would be "nothing will happen". Good for you. In the year 2,000,000 AD we will know who is right.
Here's a tip for you, little one. Don't go making unwarranted assumptions. You have no idea whether I am conservative, libertarian, liberal, Marxist or Royalist.
Here's another tip. If you want to complain about me being the "arbiter" then don't you go trying to be the arbiter yourself.
And please tell us what "bullshat" is.
Auggo Effyourself| 12.21.10 @ 1:39PM
"Bullshat" is just a nice way of saying "BULLSH*T." But, of course, you WOULD need that to be explained to you, wouldn't you, little child?
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:00AM
Social, You guys are all the same. You get asked the tough questions & you go cryin to your Mama & curl up in the fetal position. Not only do I have plenty of knowledge on your pal Darwin & "religion" but I have a degree of common sense that yo apparently lack. I also have the guts to back up my argument while you head for the hills.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:21AM
No you don't. You have not yet said one thing that shows you have any knowledge of what is being discussed here.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:30AM
Social, This is getting too easy. Answer my question posed above at 10:54. If you answer it logically & back it up with anything valid, we can have a civil debate & maybe learn something. Otherwise, you are just not willing or equipped to back up your position.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:41AM
Sorry, Steve, but I'm not interested in debating the existence of God. That is a matter of faith and not resolvable by logical argument. Please rephrase your 10:54 question.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:43AM
Sure. Scientifically, how does something (matter) spontaneously appear from nothing (a void), assuming no God. Question assumes you are an atheist.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 11:46AM
Well, your question's assumption is wrong. I am no atheist.
Anthony| 12.21.10 @ 1:52PM
S.D. Why do you dodge Steve A's question? The answer should be simple for a superiorist such as yourself.
Steven Hawkins has apparently opined on this in his new book, or haven't you heard? Hawkins says the answer is simple....the laws of physics have caused all this to come into being from nothing.
Now that I've given you the answer, let's see how you disavow physics; remember, you just said you are no atheist.
Paul D| 12.21.10 @ 1:59PM
Social Darwinist,
I know it is useless to inject myself into this Creation/evolution debate, but I have a scientific question I would like you to enlighten me on:
If caterpillers evolved from a lower form of insect life, what might butterflies have evolved from?
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 2:42PM
Caterpillers, obviously.
Paul D| 12.21.10 @ 4:40PM
But they are the same creature. How did natural selection create two versions of the same creature?
sasob| 12.24.10 @ 1:43AM
Why do humans at one brief stage of their development in the womb have tails? Why does the early version of a human resemble a chicken embryo and the later version resemble an ape? Each living thing as it grows passes through different stages or "versions" of development. What is so terribly mystifying about that? The butterfly is simply the adult stage of a particular kind of insect whereas the catapillar is an intermediate stage. Living things grow from the simple to the complex.
MD Giles| 12.21.10 @ 3:06PM
"Sure. Scientifically, how does something (matter) spontaneously appear from nothing (a void), assuming no God. Question assumes you are an atheist."
Scientifically, the answer is we don't know yet - period. It is unscientific to assume facts not in evidence. No true scientist should ever debate anyone on the existence of GOD, because it can't be proven - scientifically - one way or the other. If a scientist tells you there is no GOD, then they have left the realm of science and entered into the realm of faith.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 4:47PM
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge").
Fact in evidence: The universe exists.
As it is written:
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, His eternal power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:19 & 20.
P.Smith| 12.21.10 @ 11:16AM
I wonder if Darrow is still an atheist?
Citizen Jerry| 12.21.10 @ 11:44AM
I doubt it. Know what a dead atheist and a dead saint have in common? They both know there is a God.
Brian Westley| 12.21.10 @ 11:27AM
"Darrow's actions and triumphs stand at the crux of the secular-progressive long march against Christian interests, whether prayer in public schools..."
Wow, it's incredibly stupid to suggest that it's within Christian interests to have public school bureaucrats compose prayers for the students to recite, as that's exactly what the courts ruled against.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 12:18PM
Pasted from above
Social Darwinist,
I'm sorry. Your disgusting and despicable screen name colors everything you write.
For the other folks here, why don't you just go ahead and define "Social Darwinist" for them.
Allow everyone here to get a bad taste in their mouth.
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:34PM
For those who care, see my reply at 12:17PM above.
Referee| 12.21.10 @ 12:37PM
Ken, perhaps you could tell us what you think Social Darwinism is? You seem to have a visceral problem with the term.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 1:50PM
Referee,
(Smile), I don't have to define it. You lazy drones don't have to have very much spine, (or even couriosity?) to type it in your own search engine.
I just wonder how THIS stupid defines it?
I'm still waiting.
Is he a NAZI?
Is he a wannabee plantation owner?
I asked him and he punted. Ultimately he is a moral coward.
(pasted from above)
Social Darwinist| 12.21.10 @ 12:17PM
""For your information, you fat old slug, Social Darwinism is the the theory that underlies your belief in the divine powers of free-market capitalism, as well as your belief that everyone gets exactly what he deserve, especially those lazy good-for-nothing poor who just try to suck at the government teat, instead of going out and getting a job like good, red-blooded, American Texins.
I find your screen name, Ken (Old Texican), with its deliberate misspelling, to be hideous and demented.""
Well, Social, that above simply illustrates your overall ignorance once again.
Heh,
first of all there is no such thing as a "Texin" as you spelled us above....stupid.
Second, just for your edification..."Texican" is the proud title for descendents of people who moved to Texas while it was a province of Mexico.
My great great grandaddy moved here just before Santa Anna took charge...uh before the Alamo.
He fought at the battle of San Jacinto. (uh that won Texas independence for you ignoramuses).
Grow up, get educated, and change your stupid screen name.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 2:00PM
Easy, Ken ole friend. You're gonna make their heads explode with all that history they never learned. Come to think of it, I'm sure that one of the libs here will tell you that it was YOUR ancestors who STOLE that land from the Mexicans & that you oughtta be ashamed.
Wait for it...
Referee| 12.21.10 @ 2:36PM
Thanks for the clarification, Ken. Obviously SD doesn't know that bit of linguistic history, and, as a matter of fact, neither did I.
But I would still like to know what you understand by the term "Social Darwinism". It's easy enough to look it up on the web or even the dictionary, but that doesn't quite explain why you have such a gut-level response.
sasob| 12.24.10 @ 1:19AM
Yes, originally Texicans or alternately: Texians. I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here just as soon as I could. :-)
Rod H| 12.21.10 @ 12:21PM
Clarence Darrow was a gifted athiest defense attorney. He never lost a case until I think it was the scopes trial, he took one look at the all native jury in Hawaii, and said this one he would lose.
Robert Pinkerton| 12.21.10 @ 1:00PM
Antipathy to upper-case-"C" Communism? Why not? Until 1991, it was the State Religion of the national enemy. Even though, when I was a new-mint BA forty-plus years ago, I never lost sight of that. And when I was the new-mint university graduate, hence a Liberal Democrat (though, back then, that meant something different than it does now), I resented Communists' domestic political activity on account of their attachment to causes I espoused, whereby they drew the secondary controversy of Communist involvement to the detriment of debate on the actual merit of such causes.
Decades have passed and the Soviet Union has fallen. Good riddance. In those intervening years, I have seen enough to turn me into someone more libertarian than not, but never ever forgetful of Soviet atrocities nor pedestrian denials of the liberties we Americans have heretofore taken for granted; therefore an intractable Conservative admixture to that lower-case-"L" libertarianism.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:42PM
Why does the GOP have to sell Jesus as a whore-object? in fact, as The Whore-Object?
If Jesus is the son of God, why do you insult Him so?
Jesus is not Santa, or a commodity to be sold on the market like a pork belly.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 1:56PM
Alan,
I cannot help but wonder where you live in your mind when you are not expressing absolute insanity here.
May God bless your shriveled heart, Sir.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 3:42PM
You don't think selling creches & a whole lot of other Christian-themed commodity is commercialization?
IS NOTHING SACRED?
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 5:28PM
Mr. Brooks,
I'm a person who would like a creche, or an angel to top my tree, or the tree or the ornaments but an unable to manufacture them for myself. For that matter, my wife likes fresh flowers but cannot grow mold.
So, if I ask, will go give me what I want so as to avoid commercialization?
Must the creche be hand-made by me?
Would it be evil for me to buy it from you?
What is sacrilegious about the purchase of religious icons?
I missed the reference to the GOP. How did they fit into the tirade.
Who Knows?| 12.21.10 @ 2:15PM
This whole debate concerning people who either believe in God or don’t is easily “resolved”.
If one only recognizes that BOTH types BELIEVE in their take about what they assume “God” to be.
Believers abound, and as Plato (I think it was) put it, “An uninspected life is not worth living”. What does that last quote imply?
Check it out! IT? Your life, from beginning, as enduring, to end.
The first assumption to be inspected is that practically everybody “believes” that God is ONLY the creator. What a childish limit!
If God is merely the creator, then didn’t He make the Devil, and therefore all evil? How can what God made be “bad”?
All this uncivil “debate” on this website is simply a blatant indication that the worldly lawyers have actually won---victory is complete!
It’s just a CW religion expression of the joke, “My lawyer can beat up your lawyer”.
Paradoxically, even this manifestation of and AS space-time is, as always, physically, emotionally, mentally, and Spiritually “made” of Real God, the ONE, than which there is NO other.
What a Cosmic Joke! The jokes ON you, and AS “you”!
Have, and BE, a good = GOD laugh!
What ever arises, including you, begins, endures, and ends.
But, you can’t worship the Creator, ONLY, because change happens.
You can’t worship the Savior, ONLY, because what continues ends.
You can’t worship the Devil, ONLY, because what ends begins, AGAIN.
What the heaven do you think “happened”, to start your presently enduring life? In and AS the Great Universe of It-All, “you” came to an end---and, later, based on “your” whole life’s work to that date, “you” chose to appear---to start---again:
And, here we all are. For a while.
SMILE.
And, don’t be sanguine, and BELIEVE in reincarnation, ONLY. Why?
Because, except for the more Enlightened few, such as reputedly, the Dali Lamas, every time you pop out again, you FORGET all your previous lives.
Reincarnation is no consolation, except to an asshole.
“Your true nature is something never lost to you even in moments of delusion, nor is it gained in moments of Enlightenment. It is the nature of Nature. In it is neither delusion nor right understanding. It fills the Void everywhere and is intrinsically of the substance of the One Mind.
How, then, can your mind-created objects exist outside the Void. The Void is fundamentally without special dimensions, passions, activities, delusions or right understandings. You must clearly understand that in it there are no things, no men, and no Buddhas; for this Void contains not the hairsbreadth of anything that can be viewed spacially; it depends on nothing and is attached to nothing. It is all-pervading, spotless beauty; it is the self-existent and uncreated Absolute.
Then how can it even be a matter for discussion that the REAL Buddha has no mouth and preaches no Dharma, or that REAL hearing requires no ears, for who could hear it.
Ah, it is a jewel beyond all price!” The Zen Teaching of Huang Po
Who Knows?| 12.21.10 @ 2:20PM
"The Void is fundamentally without special dimensions, passions, activities, delusions or right understandings" should read "The Void is fundamentally without SPACIAL dimensions, passions, activities, delusions or right understandings"
Purple Lips| 12.21.10 @ 2:36PM
"If God is merely the creator, then didn’t He make the Devil, and therefore all evil? How can what God made be “bad”?"
Er.... you may wish to return to Sunday School. I think you got your facts a tiny bit wrong. Marge, where are you when I need you? Marge, Buehler? Anyone?
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 3:37PM
Purp,
It's called "free will". Having said that though.. He predestined the universe and all that is in it, according to His will.
Wow. We cannot fathom it!
"For He has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of His will, according to His purpose which He set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in Heaven and things on earth." Eph. 1:9 & 10.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 2:39PM
Who knows?
I know!
...spin your web of deceit and die, or reach out to the Holy Spirit of God.
Wishing you will...and well.
Who Knows?| 12.21.10 @ 2:31PM
My chiropractor, years ago, passed along the following religious joke---
Ever hear of a Buddhist vacuum cleaner?
It has no attachments.
Jim Wilson | 12.21.10 @ 3:58PM
Some of this article is news to me, but it doesn't surprise. It all fits together nicely. I detest Darrow for a different reason, though it's related. He (and his mentor) championed the idea of the mercenary lawyer, eschewing honor and integrity in favor of win-at-all-costs. Naturally there were noble reasons for this; the death penalty is evil so any actions taken to defeat it must therefore be good. A license for a lawyer to lie, cheat and steal if need be, to defend his client, who naturally paid handsomely. And of course take a few charity clients to maintain the pretense of the supposedly noble cause. So from honored and respected and admired in the late 19th century, lawyers have 'progressed' to the butt of gruesome jokes: 'What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.' Darrow did everything he could to destroy the profession, and largely succeeded. Today his disciples are doing what they can to ensure the failure of the American experiment. Law has been replaced by legalism, because no lawyer, whether counselor or judge or supreme court justice, can be trusted to keep his sworn word. Darrow is not to blame for the entirety of that slow descent into the slough of legalism, but he was one of the founding fathers and the most famous promoters.
Since 'the end justifies the means' is the central unifying principle of communism and Communism (and fascism, Nazism, socialism etc), his love affair with the most evil of all religions is not surprising.
KyMouse| 12.21.10 @ 4:53PM
The creation-vs.-evolution debate boils down to this, especially in classrooms:
1. Science can answer certain questions, and religion can answer other questions.
2. Only the questions that science can answer are worth asking.
Brian Westley| 12.21.10 @ 7:35PM
I would say 2 is more like:
2. Only science has answers that are repeatable and verifiable; religions have answers that are unverifiable and often contradict answers from other religions, science, or everyday experience.
Sure, religion can answer questions, but so can a magic 8-ball.
DodAederen| 12.21.10 @ 8:21PM
As a christian I find arguments for creationism disturbing and ignorant. Here is as good an argument for evolution as I have found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Evolution is God's way of making us.
Der Philosoph| 12.21.10 @ 8:03PM
KyMouse,
Did you come up with this sophomoric "fallacy of the false dichotomy" on your own? Or did you read it somewhere?
By what authority do you say that only the questions science can answer are worth asking?
There are a helluva lot of questions that science has not been able to answer and have yet to be answered. By your logic there is no point (or we should not be allowed) to ask the question, since science hasn't answered that question yet.
Your false dichotomy leaves out the possibility that harmony can exist between science and religion (meaning specifically - the Bible), for those who care to look.
Somehow I doubt you have ever looked for that harmony. So you dismiss it out of hand and out of ignorance.
ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 8:34PM
Folks,
I just love creating a "coda" on these conversations when everyone else has gone to watch TV.
Jesus Christ said "love your neighbor as yourself".
Well, I am often very tough on myself.
If this life is all there is...and then we are all dog-food......then live it up...until you are dogfood.
Burn the candle at both ends.
Personally, I prefer to live in eternity as Jesus Christ promised I would.
Heh,
turns out that I have more fun in THIS life than the idiots who will become dogfood. It is sorta' joyful to lift people up, rather than to smear feces in their faces.
Heck,
They will have enough of that in eternity.
The real fools are the ones that don't understand that their conciousness..."sentience"...will endure beyond the grave.
Think about that a moment, folks; eternity to live with the scumbags....dog eat dog....or just to be a part of ongoing creation and love.
And if I leave this world mislead...heh...I am still ahead.
I understand that God allows joy.
Denver Jay| 12.21.10 @ 10:36PM
I won't even attempt to answer the questions about the beginning of the Universe, there are some theories in modern physics, but they are way over my head. They also, to my feeble intellect, seem somewhat incomplete.
However, as to the questions concerning the when, how, and why of human evolution, I would recommend Jarrod Diamond's excellent book "The Third Chimpanzee".
Betina| 12.22.10 @ 7:36AM
"There were no angrier foes of faith than communists, from Moscow to New York. " Most if not all, Jews. Nothing has changed. Face it people. The biggest early commies and foes of Christianity were/are Jews. Look up those wonderful folks from the Frankfurt School. All the condemnation of the truth with the usual tactics isn't going to change it a bit. The cancer of communism was brought here by the Jews of Europe and continues to eat away our nation. It is the American Holocaust.
RCV| 12.25.10 @ 12:35AM
And Jesus, and his Apostles, and St Paul were all Jews, too, you antiSemitic moron.
Johncuckti| 12.22.10 @ 8:12AM
The McCarthy/Stalin comparison is of course absurd. Stalin was responsible for the death of thirty million people (although the US may well have lost WWII, or at least been delayed in victory without him). McCarthy was a bombastic, windbag alcoholic who made things up about good innocent people and destroyed many careers. The difference is we expect more from a member of that august body that is the U.S. Senate. Stalin was a sociopathic dictator. We'd like to believe that U.S. Senators have a conscience. Perhaps that's helplessly naive though, as we see Sen. Coburn personally holding up the 9/11 First Responders Health care bill for political gain.
scythe| 12.22.10 @ 9:36AM
Better brush off your ignorance about McCarthy. He was right. We are living with the reverberations today.
RCV| 12.25.10 @ 12:41AM
Joe McCarthy was a hapless drunk who literally gave anti-communism a bad name. As a fellow Republican Senator said when McCarthy was reprimanded by the Senate, he couldn't have done more to aid the communist cause if he had been a paid agent. By trying to tar everyone he disagreed with as a communist, he allowed the real agents and spies to continue to operate because they were lumped in with good and patriotic Americans.
Bill| 12.22.10 @ 2:02PM
I wouldn't worry too much about Clarence Darrow. First of all, he lost every important case he ever handled. Second, he's been dead for a very long time. Third, he's not only a hero to progressives for his embrace of the radical, but he also should be a hero to conservatives too, because he stood for freedom of belief and association, just as all of us should, regardless of our political views.
It's worthwhile to ask the questions Darrow asked, and worthwhile to the world conservatives hope for as well as to modern-day liberals, who, if they had minds that tended toward the analytical, would be repudiating Darrow by now if they possessed the logic of their beliefs.
Ed Darrell | 12.23.10 @ 3:51PM
You said: Darrow's courtroom denunciation of Bryan is immortalized in the awful movie, Inherit the Wind, which portrays Bryan as an idiot and Darrow as brilliant defender of civil liberties, "tolerance," and "reason."
You ought to actually watch the movie sometime, in the interest of getting the facts right.
Neither Clarence Darrow nor William Jennings Bryan is portrayed in the movie. It's not a movie about the Scopes trial. It's a movie about conservatives conducting witch hunts on the basis of what they imagine instead of what the facts are.
Rather like your fact-devoid witch hunt against progressivism here. You fail to mention that progressives started the successful work against child abuse. You are, I assume, in favor of child abuse.
You fail to mention progressives worked for clean food and drug laws. May I also assume you are opposed to clean food and safe drugs?
Get your facts right, your political views cannot help but improve.
St. Thor| 12.25.10 @ 2:58PM
Very few people know that early in his career Darrow, while representing some unionists in California, was charged with bribing a witness. Earl Rogers, the attorney upon whom Perry Mason was based, defended him. The trial ended with a hung jury. Rather than re-try him California authorities dropped the charges on the condition that he never set foot in California again, and he never did.
mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 7:13AM
"Inherit the Wind" was first of all a play. It was a thinly disguised hatchet job on Bryan, and it needed a disclaimer when published.
The actual trial was quite the opposite. Read something real about it, and about the two men. Bryan was the open-minded one; Darrow the fanatical atheist. The trial was simply to put the law on trial; it wasn't really about Scopes. But the fanatical Darrow betrayed both the purpose of the trial and his [personal friendship with Bryan by pleading guilty before Bryan could answer him.
Unfortuatly, this is the first documented case of left-wing press bias. (There is testimony from one of the reporters as to their bias.) Mencken and his ilk used the trial as a means toward their own ends. This and the play resulted in the distorted view people today have of what really happened.
mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 7:17AM
The Jews were persecuted by the communists more than just about any other group. They made a particular point of destroying the Jewish religion in the Soviet Union, although straight-out persecution and murder of Jews was also common. We here in Israel live with the result.
mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 7:33AM
I would rather have ten dishonest no-goodniks like the Clintons than one sincere, ruthless fanatic like Darrow.
Honza Prchal| 12.29.10 @ 6:35PM
Not only do I applaud mzk1's sentiments, but I humbly suggest the author e-mail his article to Wikipedia. It should generate at least a short blurb under a heading entitled "criticisms".