WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
Dollars for abortion: The House considers a bill allowing local funding of abortions in D.C. 
Oooooh, Huckabee’s scary!
Mike Huckabee frightens Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, and he wants you to be scared, too. Not so scary are Rudy Giuliani, who he calls “cosmopolitan” and “enlightened” for his views on abortion, immigration, and gun control, and Mitt Romney, who Robinson refers to as “a pretty reasonable guy.” But as for Huckabee, who he labels as the “anti-reason” candidate, Robinson writes:
Much is made, and rightly so, of Huckabee’s vocation as a Baptist minister and his promise that his actions as president would be in accord with his fundamentalist beliefs. “My faith is my life — it defines me. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives,” he says on his campaign Web site.
Somebody go check Jefferson’s grave; he’s spinning again.
Why do you think the Left is so frightened of a man who believes what he says and says what he believes? Are Huckabee’s moral standards a bit too high for comfort?
When I hear these Libs talking about how “scary” Mike Huckabee is, it makes me want to reply like Joe Flaherty’s Count Floyd character did on “SCTV”: “Oooooh, now that’s scary!”
back to top100 Comments to “Oooooh, Huckabee’s scary!”
Let’s not vote our fears–especially not in the primaries.
Also, don’t let Democrats figure out who the Republicans should want. I’m for letting each party figure out for themselves who they want.
Report comment to moderator
He is scary. Any candidate in this day and age who can’t be conversant about something like the Iran NIE is worrisome. We need a President who knows something about the world before he starts the job or has at least taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the issues.
Report comment to moderator
Lefties scare easily and surrender quickly. Their fear of Huckabee is just more proof. Just think how they feel about Islamic Terrorists who really want them dead. They would rather cut, run and hide from the own shadoes no doubt
Report comment to moderator
CB — You’re more thoughtful than that. “Scary”?
This tendency to call all Republicans “scary” goes at least to Reagan. It’s designed to rouse the uninformed middle, who say, “Well, I haven’t really been paying close attention, but these people think he’s scary. If he gets elected, something in my life would certainly change for the worse. I’d better vote for that other guy. Ummm. What was his name?”
Hillary’s husband sold security secrets to the Chinese. The same Chinese who give her campaign money by the boatload. The same Chinese who are using our technology to destroy satellites. There are real national security (as in “national sovereignty”) issues here. Yet, when was the last time you heard anyone refer to HRC as “scary”?
Report comment to moderator
Llama at #3: Just think how they ["lefties"]feel about Islamic Terrorists who really want them dead. They would rather cut, run and hide from the own shadoes no doubt
It was one of yours, Dinesh D’Souza, who wrote a book called “The Enemy At Home.”
Its thesis is: Islamic terrorists hate us becase liberals do things the Islamists don’t approve of morally. We better do what they say or they’ll hurt us again, and if they do, it’s the liberals’ fault.
No one on the left has written anything even coming close to that level of appeasement of terorrists and hatred of your own countrymen.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Not all of us agree with everything “one of ours” says.
I think there are a number of reasons they hate us. I also think the only reason they seem to need (according to their scripture) is that we are not Islamic.
What I haven’t been able to figure out is why liberals are not alarmed by how they treat women and gays.
Now, back to the topic. Huckabee. He doesn’t scare me, but I do wonder if he has the knowledge and experience with global relations to do the job.
Report comment to moderator
How would some of the Christians here feel if Huckabee were a self-described conservative Muslim who stated that he doesn’t separate his faith from his professional life? Or even, unlike JFK, a Catholic who made the same claim?
Frankly, I think it was despicable of Huckabee to go after Romney by playing the Christ card. But I guess it was the Christian thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
Scary?..I don’t know if that’s the word I’d use.
When you publically insult a true conservative Christian in your home state, then lie in a televised debate about your position on the issue, which caused you to lash out at the guy, a better man than you, who was doing nothing more than looking out for the interests of his constituents…I’d say that’s more slimy, than scary.
Now the willingness of some GOP voters to compromise conservative principles to choose the guy who talks about Jesus the most…that’s scary.
Makes me wonder if conservatism means anything any more.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I guess I will have to start paying attention to what Huckabee actually says. Like most people I haven’t seen or heard what Huckabee says, just what others say he said.
Report comment to moderator
MSM is missing the point on why Huck is scary. He is scary because he is a tax and spender at his core but is willing to lie about it on national TV.
Report comment to moderator
“Lefties scare easily and surrender quickly. Their fear of Huckabee is just more proof.”
OMG! I relish the vague HOPE that Huckabee will win the R nomination. NOt only can he is he not conversant about Iran, has anyone (anyone?) heard him give a foreign policy response that sounds remotely reasonable?
The NAS is proposing a debate to focus only on science issues. Can you imagine the “earned media” when Huck opts out of that debate? The only thing better would be if he got stupid enough to do it.
Hillary would be running as an incumbent against Huckabee, and she’d still let him set the debate table–given their mutual performance records can Hillary lose points by debating him as many times as he agrees to put himself on that chopping block? Would any of the top Democrats be worried about a debate with Huckabee?
Report comment to moderator
Janie at #6: What I haven’t been able to figure out is why liberals are not alarmed by how they treat women and gays.
Er … yeah.
Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: “How would some of the Christians here feel if Huckabee were a self-described conservative Muslim who stated that he doesn’t separate his faith from his professional life?”
I would feel VERY alarmed. Of course, you knew that. Again, I am interested to know why non-Christians and/or liberals don’t seem to get too excited about how Islam treats women and gays? (They torture and kill a lot of them.)
Report comment to moderator
I rarely hear anyone talking about it, SteveG. Conservatives often get criticised for being un-PC when we do.
Report comment to moderator
I would be equally alarmed if a presidential candidate announced he was a committed atheist who also didn’t want to separate what he believed (his “faith”) from his professional life. If the candidate were Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin, for instance.
Of course, this is what everyone ultimately does, whether they hang their commitments on a religious hook or not. Most folks (I hope) aren’t naive enough to believe that what someone actually believes about the world is not going to affect they interact in that same world. I suppose the candidate could lie about it and make everyone feel a lot better, but that’s not dealing with reality.
Report comment to moderator
Robinson’s brain was on vacation when he wrote that column. Huckabee is a figure of fun Democrats should say as little about as possible (now), given the fact that “Huckabee vexes, confounds and unnerves the Republican establishment.” Robinson should be confronting something that’s truly scary, the Democratic lawmakers’ addiction to the anti-anxiety drugs that have shrunk their balls to the vanishing point.
BOB BUCKLES: Tell us why you ain’t been watching the debates.
ARCADIA: Romney is fair game for theological inquisition because you can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
The real reason that Huckabee is scary is because Evangelical conservatives are more likely to give him a free pass on fiscal issues. It is pretty clear that Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia #7: I
I would be concerned of such a declaration but not for the same reasons a non-Christian would be concered about Huckabee’s convictions.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Christianity’s morals, ethics and values differ greatly from Islam. The most radical Islamists are the scary ones, the rest are every day “Mujibars” like the normal “Joes” that make up those who profess being Christians without being devout.
Huckabee, Romney, Obama, Edwards and the rest of the presidential wannabees are not going to declare war on the rest of the non-believing world. Neither are they going to kill gays, Jews, and non-subservient women.
In my book your scare tactic is more alarming than Eugene Robinson’s in that it shows a lack of understanding of the differences between the two faiths.
Report comment to moderator
Biojosh: You sound like a one issue conservative (fiscal). It’s obvious you don’t like Huckabee, but you’re starting to sound like a broken record. All of the Republicans have issues they must contend with.
Romney’s a Mormon: I really don’t care
Thompsom lacks energy: Presidential staff does most of the work any way.
Guiliani is a pro-life Republocrat: He won’t get much of the Christian conservative vote.
Hillary: Well, she’s Hillary. Nuff said
Barack Obama: Inexperienced, funny name. And did I mention he’s black. A problem for a lot of Americans, but certainly not for me.
Edwards: Would you buy a used car from that guy?
Huckabee: Another funny name and some disgruntled Arkansans. Last I heard, there were appx 40% of those. Typical results in a two party field.
Eugene Robinson sounds as silly as Eskeleto in Nacho Libre. “I don’t beleeb in Got, I beleeb in science.”
Pure science and Christianity are not in conflict. The evidence (which is what science worships) is not all in about issues like global warming, and evolution. Most Americans are not going to vote on those issues anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Only a few times does he even mention something specific about Huckabee. This is quite simply just another uninformed irrational diatribe against a false strawman of religious conservatives who supposedly want to set up an anti-reason theocracy to suppress women.
According to Eugene, what makes Huckabee scary (supposedly) is that he is:
- A Republican. “True, none of his opponents for the Republican nomination inspires much confidence.”
- Is against abortion. “At least Giuliani, when pressed, admits to harboring fairly cosmopolitan and enlightened views on domestic issues such as abortion, immigration and gun control.”
- Believes the Bible. “Huckabee, who has defined himself, basically, as anti-reason.”
- Wants to establish a Theocracy. “The truth is, though, that as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee didn’t behave like the theocrat he makes himself out to be.”
- Wants to dismantle women’s rights. “if he became president he would do everything in his power to deny women the right to reproductive choice, and that alone is reason enough to fear his emergence as a legitimate contender.”
- Rejects evolution. “It would be ridiculous, in this day and age, to have a president who completely rejects evolution”
- Is religious. “Huckabee’s religious certainty would be problematic — possibly even disastrous”
Report comment to moderator
“At least Giuliani, when pressed, admits to harboring fairly cosmopolitan and enlightened views. . . .”
“Cosmopolitan and enlightened”? That really is scary.
Report comment to moderator
So much of the perceived “scariness” of Mike Huckabee presupposes that most Americans are committed secularists. The truth is that most Americans are moderate to devout theists. They not only don’t mind having a leader who believes–really believes–in God, they like him.
———————————————–
After stories like the one about the teenage Muslim girl whose family killed her, I don’t think most of us want a Muslim as President. Note, I’m mentioning only one example for brevity’s sake.
Report comment to moderator
Any candidate who trusts more in their own abilities than in Jesus Christ is truly scary.
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” — John 16:33
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, post 4
Romney, McCain, Guiliani, Tancredo, Hunter — all know something about foreign policy, not scary. Huck does not, scary. Paul is an isolationist, scary.
Didn’t know we were talking about the dems. I’ve heard the charges on the Chinese and frankly am very far from convinced as it has the sound and feel of hyper-partisan paranoia. Regardless, I’m not an HRC fan, but at least she does know something about foreign policy.
Oh and the scary sweepstakes in modern parlance really kinda starts with Tailgunner Joe and Nixon and their mini-red scare.
Report comment to moderator
I relish the vague HOPE that Huckabee will win the R nomination.
Hearing that coming from a leftist only causes me to think that Joel Mark’s post #1 is right on target.
Report comment to moderator
Christophobe, n (Postmodern English) 1. A person who thinks Christians are scary. 2. Most Democrats. 3. Eugene Robinson
Islamophobe, n (Mullah English) 1. A person who thinks Islam is not all that peaceful.
Homophobe, n (Gay English) 1. Any one who doesn’t think homosexuality is absolutely fab.
Phobophobe, n (WWII British English) 1. People whose fear is fear itself.
Report comment to moderator
Why do you think the Left is so frightened of a man who believes what he says and says what he believes?
Because what he says and believes (e.g., anti-evolutionary creationism and biblical fundamentalism) is complete and utter nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
I think there are a number of reasons they [ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS] hate us. I also think the only reason they seem to need (according to their scripture) is that we are not Islamic.
What I haven’t been able to figure out is why liberals are not alarmed by how they treat women and gays.
Many liberals feel similar alarm about Islamic and Christian fundamentalists – but Islamic fundamentalists are not in position to take over our government.
Report comment to moderator
. . . and Christian fundamentalists are not beheading their opponents.
NOTE: Our government in the U.S. is a democratic, elective, representative form of government. No one group is able to “take over our government” — they are voluntarily elected by the people to serve.
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee says he wants to isolate anyone with HIV. I guess he means to round them up and put them somewhere. He also wants to cut funding for HIV research. Well, if they are rounded up and put somewhere, they can just die and that will be the end of it, right? He said he wants to criminalize gays. That’s what we need, more criminals. Then we can use the money from HIV research and build more prisons to house violent criminals who have the audacity to fall in love, what a crime. Those people who have fallen in love are always the most dangerous. They recruit. Oooooh, dangerous.
If Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, what else is it he doesn’t believe in? Besides paleontology, biology, botany, physiology, astronomy and geology. You can’t just pick on evolution. They are all interconnected.
After Bush, Huckabee is just what we need. A breath of failed air.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia You are comparing apples to oranges. Christianity’s morals, ethics and values differ greatly from Islam.
How so???
Serious question.
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee says he wants to isolate anyone with HIV.
Huckabee stated that back when HIV was first discovered, and we didn’t know much about it. When it comes to infectious diseases, caution is always the best policy.
Besides paleontology, biology, botany, physiology, astronomy and geology. You can’t just pick on evolution. They are all interconnected.
Those studies are interconnected to the theory of Evolution in the exact same ways they’re interconnected to the theory of Creation.
At least Creation offers a theory of how everything came about in the first place, while all the Evolutionists do when asked that question is stand around and change the subject.
NOT very scientific!
And now, back to the thread on Huckabee and the reasons he scares the libs: I’m not a Huckabee fan at all, at least during the caucus/primary stage, but it’s obvious he’s hated because of his faith plus the fact he’s rising so quickly in the polls.
The Democrats are scared because polls show him being someone who might be able to get the conservatives and evangelicals to unite on Election Day.
Report comment to moderator
Mad props to Metanioa for his “Nacho Libre” reference. Excellent – I liked that movie!
In regards to Mr. Robinson, he did seem like he was straining. I thought him too generous to Rudy! and Romney, and a bit too over-board on Huck.
One can always find “scary” things about a candidate, especially by lifting snippets of words and sentences. Sometimes it’s justified, sometimes it isn’t. I prefer to look at the whole of a man/woman who’s running for office, including their speeches, their actions, their votes, and their attitudes.
Mind you, I have no dog in the Republican hunt. I think each of them, in their own way, would be bad for this country.
This is Rudy!’s and McCain’s last hurrah. Romney will live to fight another day (in 4 or 8 years hence). Huck and Paul will be interesting footnotes in the ‘08 campaign. Thompson will go on to more movie roles. Tancredo will become head of the “Minute Men”. If there’s anyone I forgot, well the voters will forget them too.
At least that’s how I see it shaking out at this point in time.
Report comment to moderator
At least Creation offers a theory of how everything came about in the first place,
No it doesn’t – it offers a falsified fiat. That’s not a theory.
Report comment to moderator
The Democrats are scared because polls show him being someone who might be able to get the conservatives and evangelicals to unite on Election Day.
Wrong – Democrats like him because he will turn off moderates big time! He’s scary to them too!
Report comment to moderator
OUTKAST – . . . and Christian fundamentalists are not beheading their opponents.
Apparently, however, when push comes to shove, they will stab evolutionists:
Evolution, creation row ends in stabbing
Report comment to moderator
Or least this one particular individual would. That’s bizarre.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, where in that article did it say the offender was a Christian? Not to mention the fact that he claimed self defense and it was not refuted, leaving at least the possibility that the evolutionist was the aggressor.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia #31:
I’ll give three brief examples and perhaps others can chime in.
1. The value of life. Whereas Christians champion life at every level, Islam will put to death people for some very minor offenses.
2. Although a small minority of Christians can be legalistic, the vast majority of them prefer the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Therefore “an eye for an eye” is usually interpreted that the punishment must suit the crime. Islam takes their law very literally.
3. Deception is rejected by Christians at all times in all places whereas in Islam deception can be be construed as a virtue. Especially when dealing with infidels.
I don’t have enough time to get into all of the ramifications of my examples. Suffice it to say that these are general rules with exceptions.
I’m not sure if I’ll be online this evening and I’m going away for a few days so others will probably have to pick up the debate and conversation on the point that I made.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I don’t know if I’m smart enough for this discussion. I just caught on. Some liberals think Christians are no different from Muslims. I’m stunned.
Report comment to moderator
#38 Spinoza, where in that article did it say the offender was a Christian?
Implied by commitment to “Bible” – he clearly wasn’t a Muslim creationist!
From Backpacker jailed for stabbing man to death in row over God and evolution
“The Scottish couple, who were staying in Tumut in the Snowy Mountains of New South Wales, picking fruit as part of a year-long round-the-world trip, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York, also fruit picking, had asserted that humans had been created as described in the Bible.”
Not to mention the fact that he claimed self defense and it was not refuted, leaving at least the possibility that the evolutionist was the aggressor.
Well he was sentenced to 5 years for manslaughter – doesn’t sound like “self defense” to me:
“For some reason, however … the offender’s [i.e., the CREATIONIST] mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Mr Boa and Ms Brown.
According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated.”
Report comment to moderator
p.s. I am not at all claiming this unfortunate and sad event proves equivalent homicidal tendencies between Christianity and/or Islam (for that, see the crusades or the Inquisition), but it does illustrate the potential for fundamentalism of all stripes to breed hatred.
Report comment to moderator
#30 (RDEAN): Huckabee says he wants to isolate anyone with HIV. I guess he means to round them up and put them somewhere.
I believe the word is “quarantine” which is a method of preventing the spread of a contagious disease. It is routinely done in nursing homes and hospitals when there is an outbreak of a dangerous, highly contagious disease. In nursing homes, it is usually the flu (high probability of fatality to the elderly) which causes the quarantine. When it happens, no one is allowed in the nursing home until the quarantine is lifted. In my case, it was a staph infection in my blood and I was quarantined in the hospital until it was determined that the infection was not MRSA.
It is my understanding that Huckabee made the statement in 1991. Here is some data from that time frame:
Since the mid-80s, proposals to quarantine AIDS victims were hardly outside the mainstream. In 1991, Illinois and Florida had high-profile court disputes where HIV-infected prostitutes were seriously considered for quarantine. In 1992, Michigan and Oregon courts ordered the quarantine of HIV-infected individuals; a manhunt was underway in Oklahoma to quarantine a mental hospital patient who fled after learning about his HIV-positive status. Panic gripped the town of Nokomis, Ill. in 1991 after dentist Gary Darr died of AIDS; some residents called for a quarantine. A 1991 poll in Australia revealed 49% of citizens favored quarantine, at a time when fewer than 3000 had contracted AIDS and fewer than 1500 had died.
In the mid-80s, when it appeared on a California referendum, it was certainly plausible for a ‘92 candidate to advocate for at least limited instances of quarantine, given the high-profile instances occurring that election cycle.
For someone whose god is “science,” you are incredibly ignorant of scientific and medical procedures.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
Never mind Donato/RDean. He just figured out that baseball is a sport. Through scientific means, I’m sure.
Report comment to moderator
Janie
Some do because of the strands of legalism in both. This seems to have special merit when looking at the most zealous, but Metanioa above makes valid points. I think liberals who are called immoral killers for their stances are prone to make surface comparisons, but the West with its traditions of pluralism is different than the Arab world. See the democracy needs a common language post Harrison did a few days — more eloquent on the topic than I can be.
Outkast,
Two thoughts for you. Yes ours is an elective gov’t but to the victor goes the spoils. I have heard appointees from this administration hold forth in their official capacities on the fossil record being a test from God to stay firm in the faith on Creation and that AIDS is God’s punishment for sinners (funny you don’t hear that about cancer or heart disease). That sets an attitude. Ashcroft’s prayer groups in DOJ also set an attitude — be part of this if you want to get ahead. Now I actually am certain that was not Ashcroft’s intent, but exclusive groups get read that way in any bureaucracy be it corporate or government. Another thing to note is the impact on diplomacy. Pro-life group insistence that the words “reproductive health care” are some kind of code on abortion has pushed the US toward Arab “allies” on women’s issues. One of these pro-life activists defended the Ambassador of Sudan, noting how friendly he is and helpful. The next day in session he was denying that anything was going in Darfur. What a peach of a guy. How strange is that? When the US a few years ago rejected the inclusion of sexual orientation in the mandate of the special rapporteur on health, Pakistan associated itself with US comments and added that the rapporteur should be looking for a cure. Saudi Arabia also associated with our comments viewing them as approval for their government’s policies, which include death for gays. It’s not so simple as you make out.
Second thought that Huck can unite the conservatives, well, NRO came out for Romney. Hewitt for Romney. Did you see Krauthammer’s column today? Fiscal conservatives will revolt. You can barely call Huck’s policies conservative except in social areas and even there he seems to support government intervention to support them. That, my friend, is what liberals do.
Report comment to moderator
What’s weird is that Time and Newsweek are making Huckabee out to be the next Savior of the world. They want him to win. Why? So they can make fun of him for the next year. I guess liberalism and capitalism go together after all.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
LOL. I like that.
Report comment to moderator
# 30 (RDEAN): If Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, what else is it he doesn’t believe in? Besides paleontology, biology, botany, physiology, astronomy and geology. You can’t just pick on evolution. They are all interconnected.
The major connections between Paleontology, Biology, Botany, [Zoology], Physiology, Astronomy, and Geology [plus Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, Neurology, Archeology, etc.] on the one hand and “evolution” on the other is the latter have significant sets of data that raise serious questions about the assumptions underlying the Theory of Evolution. Hence, not believing in evolution is a very reasonable position. For an interesting scientific view from Neuroscience, see “The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul,” by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’leary. Here is a brief description of the contents:
Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain? Drawing on his own research with Carmelite nuns, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard shows that genuine, life-changing spiritual events can be documented. He offers compelling evidence that religious experiences have a nonmaterial origin, making a convincing case for what many in scientific fields are loath to consider—that it is God who creates our spiritual experiences, not the brain.
Beauregard and O’Leary explore recent attempts to locate a “God gene” in some of us and claims that our brains are “hardwired” for religion—even the strange case of one neuroscientist who allegedly invented an electromagnetic “God helmet” that could produce a mystical experience in anyone who wore it. The authors argue that these attempts are misguided and narrow-minded, because they reduce spiritual experiences to material phenomena.
Many scientists ignore hard evidence that challenges their materialistic prejudice, clinging to the limited view that our experiences are explainable only by material causes, in the obstinate conviction that the physical world is the only reality. But scientific materialism is at a loss to explain irrefutable accounts of mind over matter, of intuition, willpower, and leaps of faith, of the “placebo effect” in medicine, of near-death experiences on the operating table, and of psychic premonitions of a loved one in crisis, to say nothing of the occasional sense of oneness with nature and mystical experiences in meditation or prayer. Traditional science explains away these and other occurrences as delusions or misunderstandings, but by exploring the latest neurological research on phenomena such as these, The Spiritual Brain gets to their real source.
Just so you don’t spout nonsense about Beauregard being a nutcase, here are his credentials:
Mario Beauregard’s groundbreaking work on the neurobiology of mystical experience at the University of Montreal has received international media coverage. Before becoming a faculty member there, he conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Texas and the Montreal Neurological Institute (McGill University). Because of his research into the neuro-science of consciousness, he was selected by the World Media Net to be among the “One Hundred Pioneers of the 21st Century.” He lives in Montreal, Canada.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a link to an approachable article that includes Beauregard’s study in the discussion.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&page=1
Scientific American Mind – October, 2007
Searching for God in the Brain
Researchers are unearthing the roots of religious feeling in the neural commotion that accompanies the spiritual epiphanies of nuns, Buddhists and other people of faith
Report comment to moderator
Outkast at #32:
Those studies are interconnected to the theory of Evolution in the exact same ways they’re interconnected to the theory of Creation.
At least Creation offers a theory of how everything came about in the first place, while all the Evolutionists do when asked that question is stand around and change the subject.
The scientific illiteracy expressed in these few words is sad and, yes, scary. The fact that Mike Huckabee might agree with it is why he is scary.
If he were to win, we can expect America to sink farther and farther down the list of countries leading in scientific innovation and progress.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave, et al
The truth about the creation vs. evolution debate is that no one knows for certain what the first cause is. Christians believe God moved on the face of the earth, they have no idea how. Agnostics, atheists some scientists believe chemicals interacted to create life, they have no idea how. Scientists seek to explain how that mystery works, but they don’t know and being scientists they are both intrigued and appalled by that so they substitute theory. Christians simply say God did it, but again they have no idea how.
To me this debate expends alot of energy and money that might be best used elsewhere. Yes, understanding the how could unlock cures and such and so it is important to see if we can find the formulas, but the metaphysics? I think we may never know and arguing about it as if we did is arrogance.
Report comment to moderator
How did life begin?
I don’t know, and neither do you.
Report comment to moderator
Islam seems to be having a hard time getting past the passage that says, “Give infidels a chance to become Muslim, if they won’t – cut their throat, don dancing shoes and pass out candy to the kiddies – then rest to cut more infidel heads off tomorrow and then next day.”
For the life of me, I find it odd why some lefty atheists wouldn’t become Muslims since their views are so similar toward Christians and they hate America equally
Report comment to moderator
#51:
The debate hinges on the comfort level with unknowns.
Nobody knows how life began or how the universe came into existence. The scientifically minded are comfortable saying we don’t know, and if we continue investigating, we may or may not ever find out.
The religious minded are not at all comfortable with this, so they say God created, and take comfort in insisting on that — even though the only evidence they have that it’s true is ancient stories written by primitive people.
Religion, or at least conservative Bible-literal religion, is all about assuaging the insecurity that comes with having to admit there is much we don’t know.
A more liberal religious view (such as my own) is that we may believe God is the ultimate creator, but we do not claim to know this for a fact, nor do we see scientific efforts to investigate the question as any kind of threat.
We would say that phsyical science uncovers facts about how creation happened. The Big Bang is well evidenced, and so is evolution. Those are the mechanisms by which the universe came into being and life on Earth diversified. (Evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, only how it changed and developed once organisms existed.)
I don’t invoke God as an explanation and say case closed. I believe there is the hand of a Creator evident in the Creation, but I believe science is about the business of understanding how the Creator acted.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, I just have to say smiley and all the idea that leftists hate America is just silly.
Report comment to moderator
Christians believe God moved on the face of the earth, they have no idea how.
CB: Actually, if you paid a little more attention during your “fundamentalist” upbringing, you would know that biblical Creationists believe in the concept of “ex nihilo” (”out of nothing”) when it comes to Genesis 1. Christians don’t need to know “how” — we simply have faith in our belief that God created something out of nothing.
And the Evolutionists? As I said earlier, they just stand there and change the subject . . .
Report comment to moderator
Again, CB, what does this have to do with Huckabee’s candidacy (the point of this thread)?
Report comment to moderator
Which part Outkast?
Part one speaks to executive appointments, the drones, if you will, that drive policy decisions.
Part two speaks to his ability to hold together the republican coalition.
Which part is confusing you hon?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, the prior OutK,
Captive audience, had no choice but to pay attention as I was a child. Indeed as I said God moved on the face of the earth, you have no idea how because ex nihilo is nearly incomprehensible for mankind. So Christians simply say God did it. Evolutionists if you argue down to the place of what started it will tell you they don’t know. But because they are rationalists will change the subject, because I don’t know is not comfortable for them. So what I said about creation vs. evolution still stands, no one knows. Scientist use theory to fill that. Christians use faith. The difference is really none. The argument is philosophical and expends far too many resources, Imo.
Report comment to moderator
#51 (COYOTEBLUE): The truth about the creation vs. evolution debate is that no one knows for certain what the first cause is. Christians believe God moved on the face of the earth, they have no idea how. Agnostics, atheists some scientists believe chemicals interacted to create life, they have no idea how. Scientists seek to explain how that mystery works, but they don’t know and being scientists they are both intrigued and appalled by that so they substitute theory.
I appreciate your insight! Recognizing that it is the Metaphysical presuppositions that we disagree upon and not the is the first step in understanding each other. The next step is recognizing that Christian scientists from the days of Augustine and Aquinus are as interested in how the mystery works as non-Christian scientists and that they seek to find the answers just as diligently is the next step. Probably the biggest difference in the two views is that the Christian scientist is led by his presupposition that God exists to develop hypotheses for “how it works” from assumtions of teleological cause rather than “blind chance” and is much less likely to settle for that explanation. The Christian also probably has one other motivation driving him/her: He/she knows why and he/she knows the ending.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry! The second sentence should be:
Recognizing that it is the Metaphysical presuppositions that we disagree upon and not the [data] is the first step in understanding each other.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
Thank you. Being the practical sort I think the argument about causation is intellectually intriguing but futile. Both Christian and agnostic/atheist scientist still work with the same basic facts of what they can prove about how life works. Where I might fall off the boat with you a little is if a Christian scientist knows the ending, does that not predispose their work to conclusions which may not be scientifically provable? I don’t mean to poke, it just seems that if you know you know the ending you may warp the story to get there. As a totally not science sort of person, but a totally political liberal (small l) arts sort I can see how a person might work to the conclusion they wish to reach one way or the other. That’s just human nature.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast at #56:
Christians don’t need to know “how” — we simply have faith in our belief that God created something out of nothing.
And the Evolutionists? As I said earlier, they just stand there and change the subject . . .
Taking a stand for willful ignorance, eh?
The scientist (”Evolutionist”) doesn’t change the subject out of discomfort, but because scientists are not afraid to say that they simply don’t know.
You, on the other hand, cling to a magical fantasy story and insist it is true, and actually feel smugly superior to those who insist on having some facts in hand before drawing conclusions.
Report comment to moderator
#32: Huckabee stated that back when HIV was first discovered, and we didn’t know much about it.
You are wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time and certainly won’t be the last:
#32: At least Creation offers a theory of how everything came about in the first place
Yea, God did it. And you’re right; it’s not very scientific.
#32: And now, back to the thread on Huckabee and the reasons he scares the libs:
These are very good examples of why he scares the liberals.
#43: Here is some data from that time frame:
And then you point out drug-crazed prostitutes and mental patients as examples? These may not even be gay people. You – the worst person in the world!!!!
#44: He just figured out that baseball is a sport.
No, it’s obviously some form of drug therapy.
#48: have significant sets of data that raise serious questions about the assumptions underlying the Theory of Evolution
Just stop. This determined ignorance is simply too much. You people can’t be serious about this. All this crap about assumptions and such is just too much. It’s just not true. You don’t even know what science is. How can you be so smug and say such ignorant things at the same time? How is it possible? Are you so blinded by religious dogma and these ridiculous mystical stories that you look at all this evidence supporting evolution and just turn away?? There are no words. It’s insane.
#48: Many scientists ignore hard evidence that challenges their materialistic prejudice
Ridiculous lies. Why do you call yourself a doctor? You mock education and live in the Marvel Universe.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 1985 that AIDS was not transmitted by casual contact. Huckabee knew that in 1992. Stop the lies. Some of you people will say anything. You are just awful. If you guys are going to be the supporters of Huckabee, then may the magical, mystical, invisible spirits that appear as a dove or a burning bush, please protect us from your followers.
FROM DEC 10, 2007: WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee refused to retract a statement he made in 1992 calling for the isolation of AIDS patients
Responding to an Associated Press questionnaire, Huckabee said steps should be taken to “isolate the carriers of this plague” during his failed run for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas 15 years ago.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/91287.php
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/210482/
Report comment to moderator
#51 CB The truth about the creation vs. evolution debate is that no one knows for certain what the first cause is.
#52 H2 How did life begin? I don’t know, and neither do you.
#54 SteveG Nobody knows how life began or how the universe came into existence.
Your statements could be more precise. Your presupposition is that God does not exist and therefore the origin of life cannot be known.
However, given a different presupposition — that God does exist, then the origin of life can be known because he was there when it happened and still exists to tell us about it.
It would be more proper to say that science cannot explain how life began. But God certainly can!
Report comment to moderator
RDean at #64: Are you [Outkast] so blinded by religious dogma and these ridiculous mystical stories that you look at all this evidence supporting evolution and just turn away??
Yes he is.
This has been another edition of “Short answers to easy questions.”
Report comment to moderator
Xion at #65: Your statements could be more precise. Your presupposition is that God does not exist and therefore the origin of life cannot be known.
Wrong, at least as far as it concerns me. Read my post at #54.
However, given a different presupposition — that God does exist, then the origin of life can be known because he was there when it happened and still exists to tell us about it.
It would be more proper to say that science cannot explain how life began. But God certainly can!
Siiigh.
As you say, that is a presupposition, not a fact. You believe it. And as evidence of your belief, you point to a book that says it. And then you consider it proved.
Do they just not teach logic and critical thinking anymore?
Report comment to moderator
Proof is a different matter. There is no way to prove the origin of life. But that does not mean it cannot be known. An eye witness can tell you things whether they are provable or not.
We cannot prove that Osama bin Laden was behind the World Trade center massacre, but we suspect it was him, we have some evidence of this, and when he tells us we believe him.
Report comment to moderator
RDean #64: It depends on what Huckabee meant when he used the word “isolate.” Have we found any other instances where he may have used the word to mean anything that would be outright objectionable.
When the AIDs epidemic first became news, my first thought was that those who had it should be “quarantined.” Their civil rights were to be protected, but public safety was to be a high priority.
It took me quite some time to change my mind about the whole thing as there were conflicting studies from many different organizations. The conventional wisdom was not accepted overnight. There was a slow transformation of the public consciousness as the facts began to be clarified.
If asked about something I said in 1992 about AIDS, I wouldn’t retract what I said either. I said what I said based on how I understood the issue at the time.
Perhaps the better questions should be, “How would Huckabee deal with AIDS patients today?” Has anyone asked him that question?” If so, how has he responded?
Report comment to moderator
#68: But your magical “God did it” isn’t known … it’s not knowing anything. It’s choosing to believe a story (and rejecting objective evidence that contradicts the story just because it does.)
It is a conscious choice to believe, not knowledge.
As I said, re-read my post at #54 more carefully than you did the first time. Pay particular attention to the final three paragraphs.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia at #69:
The idea that AIDS patients should be quarantined would have been reasonable in 1982, but by 1992 we pretty well knew how the virus could and could not be transmitted to others.
I do agree with not holding things people said decades ago against them, if they’ve changed their views (genuinely) since then. But anyone arguing for a need for quarantine in 1992 didn’t know what he was talking about.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Let’s say he was “ignorant” in 1992, but again shouldn’t the question be what evidence is there that in 2007 he feels the same way?
Based on the devasting outcome of having AIDS, believe it or not it wouldn’t surprise me if there is still a segment of the population that still believes that AIDS And again, has anyone asked him where he stands today? Serious question, as I haven’t found anything on the subject. The focus is on where he stood in 1992. 15 years has turned up a lot more evidence as to what to do with those who are stricken with AIDS.
Report comment to moderator
Part of my second paragraph was deleted, it should read:
” . . . a segment of the population that still believes that AIDS patients should be quarantined. . ..
Speaking as one who had a close relative die from AIDS (sharing needles) and another friend who contracted it from an infected husband (bisexual leading a double life), I am particularly sensitive to those who are stricken with AIDS. But my understanding of how to deal with people who had AIDS came about slowly.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I agree that what matters is how he feels today.
And like you, I’ve had people close to me affected. My cousin died of AIDS in the mid ’90s, and a woman I know (not well .. friend of a friend) has been living with it for many years.
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee was given a chance to clarify, expand upon, revise his statement on AIDS, and he refused to do so. When he was asked if he still stood by his words from 1991, he could have said “Based on what we know about AIDS today, no I do not”. Then he could have used the opportunity to say something to the effect that he has since become more educated on the issue. He could have pointed out that at first Christians did react in fear to the disease, but have since gone on to reach out to people with AIDS. There are a number of things he could have said that would have been productive. Instead, he basically said “I stand by what I said in 1991. End of discussion”.
In that, he sounds like the current occupant of the White House. No matter how much information and facts he’s given that show his thinking/beliefs to be wrong, he refuses to budge one inch. He was right 20 years ago and no amount of evidence or facts is going to change his mind now. Don’t bother him with the facts or the evidence because his mind is already made up.
But then, that does seem to be the modus operandi of Republican’s generally. No matter what evidence emerges, they stubbornly cling to their beliefs. “Reality” could walk up and hit them upside the head with a 2×4 and they’d still say “Nothing’s gonna change my mind”.
Report comment to moderator
I admire Mike Huckabee for losing a tremendous amount of weight. That is about all.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing polite in “isolate”. It had been known for seven years that AIDS could only be transmitted through unprotected sex or a blood transfusion when Huckabee made his statements. To a people that are comfortable disowning their own children, isolation may not appear to be a bad thing.
i·so·late [ ssə làyt ]
transitive verb (past and past participle i·so·lat·ed, present participle i·so·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular i·so·lates)
Definition:
1. separate somebody or something from others: to separate somebody or something from others of the same type
2. cut place off: to make a place unreachable from the surrounding area
Heavy snowfalls have temporarily isolated the town.
Report comment to moderator
#64 (RDEAN) said, “Ridiculous lies. Why do you call yourself a doctor? You mock education and live in the Marvel Universe…” in response to my quoting the following from a book by Mario Beauregard, “Many scientists ignore hard evidence that challenges their materialistic prejudice, clinging to the limited view that our experiences are explainable only by material causes, in the obstinate conviction that the physical world is the only reality.”
In my mind’s eye, RDEAN, I see you with your hands over your eyes and your thumbs in your ears.
Report comment to moderator
#62 (COYOTEBLUE): Where I might fall off the boat with you a little is if a Christian scientist knows the ending, does that not predispose their work to conclusions which may not be scientifically provable? I don’t mean to poke, it just seems that if you know you know the ending you may warp the story to get there. As a totally not science sort of person, but a totally political liberal (small l) arts sort I can see how a person might work to the conclusion they wish to reach one way or the other. That’s just human nature.
I guess I was less than clear. “Knowing the ending” to a Christian means knowing that in the end, “…at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10-11).
Such knowledge has no constraint on seeking to know “HOW” it happened.
Moreover, science is completely silent on “WHY.” I know precisely how to determine the force of gravity from the masses of two objects and the distance between them. My only clue as to “Why” the force of gravity is what it is comes from my understanding that God set up the universe as it is.
Report comment to moderator
#78: You mock education and live in the Marvel Universe…” in response to my quoting the following from a book by Mario Beauregard
I suggest you go back and reread #48 before you suffer too much from your pretend outrage.
#48: on the other is the latter have significant sets of data that raise serious questions about the assumptions underlying the Theory of Evolution.
#48: Hence, not believing in evolution is a very reasonable position.
#48: mystical experiences
Evolution is a SCIENCE. It is NOT a religion. It is an absolutely undeniable part of earth’s history. Only those that are determined to be ignorant beyond all common sense can possibly make this statement, “Hence, not believing in evolution is a very reasonable position.”
MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES???? And you have the nerve to deny science???? You live in the Marvel Universe.
#79: Moreover, science is completely silent on “WHY.”
Just that one statement, that one small statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what science is. “Why” is a question for philosophy. Science is a tool. Much more complex than a hammer or a screwdriver, but still a “tool”, just like a hammer or a screwdriver. Do you ask a hammer or a screwdriver “why”???? It’s ironic that you call yourself a doctor. Unless, did you “Witch Doctor”?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave, science may be silent on “why,” for the reasons RDean notes in #80, but it is not at all silent on “how” and “when.”
You say this about the “why” question as though you think it is some kind of challenge to evolutionary theory. It is not. Philosophers and theologians properly ponder and discuss the why of creation, but the honest and educated ones have to explore the why within the how and the when that science has discovered.
To say that “science cannot say ‘why,’ so we are free to throw it out in favor of Genesis” is a logical fallacy. You might as well say that since science can’t tell us why the Earth orbits the sun, we may reasonably believe the sun is Apollo’s chariot crossing the sky each day. It is the same sort of logic.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
Actually, you were perfectly clear if you know what the “is” well then you know. The question remains knowing you know then do you then work toward proof of it? I think yes, as that it human nature,
Report comment to moderator
I am still musing on the evolution vs creationism killing.
Consider: These were Brits in Australia.
What does that have to do with us here in America?
We are a different species, after all.
Also, one isolated killing does not show much of a trend. Until we have riots with scores of deaths, I don’t think we have identified a trend.
Also, in the last few months we have had several prominent random killings here in America at malls, schools, work places and what not?
Does this mean Americans are homicidal maniacs?
Of course not. It wouldn’t be fair to say that unless we invaded some other countries under dubious pretexts.
Get serious.
Report comment to moderator
As far as isolating AIDS patients, we should update our procedures for modern times.
Just have each person with an HIV infection wear a Haz-Mat suit all day, with prominent labels:
HAVING SEX WITH THE PERSON IN THIS SUIT MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH
Seriously, HIV is probably the first global epidemic of a disease that is about 95% preventable. Just get people to stop having sex.
Is that so difficult?
[Reference: previous comments about sex being the nuclear energy equivalent of psychology].
Report comment to moderator
#84: Is that so difficult?
No, all you have to do is “educate” them. Of course, how do you educate people determined to stay ignorant? HIV “evolved” to infect humans and we can’t even get people past “mystical creation” much less understanding “evolution”.
You know that a rumor spread in Africa that if you have sex with a virgin girl, it will cure your HIV. How do you fight such ignorance?
Huckabee bringing more mysticism to the White House is the very last thing we need.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25806
Report comment to moderator
#85
Education about having sex safely doesn’t particularly work any more than abstinence education.
Evolutionary research into early humans indicates that our ancestor who spread out from Africa to populate the world were fairly few in number.
The first modern humans—and therefore, unlike the earlier wave of Homo erectus into Asia a million years ago, the ancestors of everyone today—departed Africa about 66,000 years ago. These pilgrims were strikingly few. From the amount of variation in Y chromosomes today, population geneticists infer how many individuals were in this “founder” population. The best estimate: 2,000 men. Assuming an equal number of women, only 4,000 brave souls ventured forth from Africa. We are their descendants.
eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol223/Newsweek-for%20ECOL223.pdf
When we were slower and less lethal than the other predators, it made sense for us to [censored] like raunchy rabbits. We’ve developed nuclear weapons and nerve gas since; we are able to defend ourselves against the grizzly bears and white sharks now.
But our genetic heritage still tells us to [censored] [censored] [censored] like crazed weasels regardless of how educated we are.
People with emphysema and lung cancer are known to smoke cigarettes. People with doctorates are known to have unprotected sex.
For those who believe the Garden of Eden myth, I guess it’s God’s curse on Adam and Eve that we are such crazed fornicators.
Report comment to moderator
You would be supprised how illuminating it is to have someone in the last stages of HIV explain the dangers of unsafe sex.
Similar to having someone dying from lung cancer talking about the evils of cigarettes.
This is education. Brutal, terrifying but if anyone has seen someone in these circumstances, effective.
Showing the famous infected, Greg Louganis, Magic Johnson, etc., athletes seemingly unaffected and in stellar health certainly doesn’t help.
Report comment to moderator
#80 (RDEAN): Evolution is a SCIENCE. It is NOT a religion. It is an absolutely undeniable part of earth’s history. Only those that are determined to be ignorant beyond all common sense can possibly make this statement, “Hence, not believing in evolution is a very reasonable position.”
Your rant betrays you. Evolution is not a science. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, and Neuroscience are sciences. The Theory of Evolution is a set of hypothetical statements about origins. The preponderance of evidence calls many of the statements into question. Your refusal to accept that smacks of religious zeal and intolerance.
Report comment to moderator
I said, “Moreover, science is completely silent on ‘WHY.’”
#80 (RDEAN) responded: Just that one statement, that one small statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what science is. “Why” is a question for philosophy. Science is a tool. Much more complex than a hammer or a screwdriver, but still a “tool”, just like a hammer or a screwdriver. Do you ask a hammer or a screwdriver “why”????
Thank you for making my point again; although since you are loudly and incoherently agreeing with me, I fail to understand how your agreement “demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what science is” on my part.
The fact that both of us are agreeing so loudly does not change the fact that it is the profound wonder of “WHY?” that dogs all of us. I would be interested in your thoughts about “WHY?”
Report comment to moderator
#81 (STEVEG): You say this about the “why” question as though you think it is some kind of challenge to evolutionary theory. It is not. Philosophers and theologians properly ponder and discuss the why of creation, but the honest and educated ones have to explore the why within the how and the when that science has discovered.
Actually, the “WHY?” question is a philosophical question as RDEAN so “eloquently” points out. As such, it has nothing to do with some sort of challenge to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory stands or falls on the data–which at present is not very supportive. I’m not sure how you derived that from my postings.
To say that “science cannot say ‘why,’ so we are free to throw it out in favor of Genesis” is a logical fallacy. You might as well say that since science can’t tell us why the Earth orbits the sun, we may reasonably believe the sun is Apollo’s chariot crossing the sky each day. It is the same sort of logic.
Your inference, not mine. Like I said above, I don’t know how you got from my statement that science cannot answer “WHY?” to the above. As near as I can tell, it is you and RDEAN who are conflating “WHY?” and “HOW?”
Do you have an answer to “WHY?” If so, I would be interested in hearing it.
Report comment to moderator
#88: Evolution is not a science.
Like I said, “determined ignorance”. There is a great site called, “Your one stop source for information on evolution. The page below is titled: “Lines of evidence: The science of evolution”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
Determined ignorance. Ignorance by any means. Click your heels together three times and say, “I will not learn, I will not learn”. Maybe you will end up in Oz.
You know what? Just go to the main site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
Which was put together by the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Check out what they teach.
How can we expect to teach our children when this type of determined ignorance are fighting education at every turn????
On the science channel, right now, there is a show called, “The greatest scientific discoveries of 2007″. One of the discoveries was enough soft tissue from a 68 million year old T-Rex, they could create a genetic map. I wonder where it led them????
Report comment to moderator
#82 (COYOTEBLUE): Actually, you were perfectly clear if you know what the “is” well then you know. The question remains knowing you know then do you then work toward proof of it? I think yes, as that it human nature.
Actually, knowing “WHY?” is pretty much independent of knowing “HOW?” That is why Augustine and Acquinus could so strongly advocate seeking to know “HOW?” since it would glorify God to think His thoughts after Him. They and all Christian scientists (the great one’s of history as well as the present ones) believed, as I do, that learning “HOW?” could only bring Honor and Glory to the creator.
I am getting the strong sense that RDEAN and STEVEG have real difficulty separating questions of “HOW?” and “WHY?” Is that the case with you as well?
Out of curiosity, what is your answer to “WHY?” I seem to be asking that of a lot of you tonight.
Report comment to moderator
You guys are killing me. You can’t be that dense. Science asks three questions. Count ‘em, “THREE”.
1. What’s there?
2. How does it work?
3. How did it come to be this way? (Not it’s “origin”, but how it evolved)
Notice there is no “WHY”???? Science doesn’t care about “why”. That is philosophy. Get it? “Why” is philosophy!!!! How can you argue science and no nothing about it? How is that possible? Is it self-confidence?
#92: could only bring Honor and Glory to the creator.
This is mysticism and the occult. It is NOT science. There is NO science in “supernatural”. None, zip, zilch. Get it? No science in “spirituality”.
Report comment to moderator
no should be know
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave at #88: The Theory of Evolution is a set of hypothetical statements about origins.
Depends on what you mean by “origins.” Evolution has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life. It does, however, have everything to do with the forces that shape and change life over time and, therefore, the origin of individual species.
It is also not a “set of hypothetical statements.” All of the scientific disciplines that you rightly recognize as science contribute knowledge about how organisms are affected by their genetics, their environments and changes in those environments.
Evolution is not itself a single scientific discipline, but it is also not a guess. We observe it happening on a small scale (the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes is evolution in action) and we see its footprints on a large scale in the fossil record and geological strata. The science of genetics, which emerged after Darwin, has only confirmed his observations and provided a better understanding of how the factors he observed act upon organisms.
Dr. Dave at #90: Evolutionary Theory stands or falls on the data–which at present is not very supportive.
So you keep saying. What data are you talking about? The data as I understand it is very supportive.
Do you have an answer to “WHY?” If so, I would be interested in hearing it.
I do not know why you say that RDean and I are conflating anything. We are the ones pointing out that ‘why’ is philosophy/theology, not science.
As a Deist, my answer to ‘why’ is that Nature’s God chose to create, but it would be hubris to pretend to know his reasons. However, I have the humility to acknowledge that this is a faith statement and not anything I could provide evidence for.
Report comment to moderator
#91 (RDEAN): #88: Evolution is not a science.
Like I said, “determined ignorance”. There is a great site called, “Your one stop source for information on evolution. The page below is titled: “Lines of evidence: The science of evolution”
Yes, Indeed it is. Unfortunately, “Truth in Labeling” does not apply to the web site does it? Did you notice that just below that erroneous title is the phrase, “At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time [Emphasis Mine]”
And did you notice that just below that, it states, “Overwhelming evidence supports this fact [Emphasis Mine].
Now a non-critial, biased reader might conclude that Evolution is a science from the title, but what would he/she do with the appearance of “theory” in the next line. Being a really sloppy reader, he/she might further conclude from the third line that “evolution is a fact.”. Of course, everyone on this blog would realize immediately that the word, fact refers to the statement that, “…life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.” Of course, some people would quibble and state that the term “life” is ambiguous since the modern Phyla have existed less than 1 Billion years and only single celled critters have existed for “billions of years.”
Obviously, the site is not very precise in its use of terms. Pity.
Report comment to moderator
#91 (RDEAN): On the science channel, right now, there is a show called, “The greatest scientific discoveries of 2007″. One of the discoveries was enough soft tissue from a 68 million year old T-Rex, they could create a genetic map. I wonder where it led them????
Gee, not me. I will take a wild guess and say the following (if the soft tissue specimen has not deteriorated too far):
1. They will discover cells containing chromosomes.
2. The chromosomes will contain long strands of DNA.
3. The DNA will containg protein-coding sequences and non-protein coding sequences.
4. They will discover a variation of Cytochrome-C
5. They will find that the DNA shares a lot of similarities and near-identities with other members of the animal kingdom.
6. They will demonstrate yet again that the genetic code of all living things is directly analogous to a magnificently complex, self-replicating, self-maintaining computer that gives such a strong sense of language and design that they will use terms like messenger, translation, stop codes, codons, etc.
Did I miss anything?
Report comment to moderator
#95 (STEVEG): Depends on what you mean by “origins.” Evolution has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life. It does, however, have everything to do with the forces that shape and change life over time and, therefore, the origin of individual species.
I meant “origins” in the same sense Darwin meant it in “origin of Species.”
It is also not a “set of hypothetical statements.” All of the scientific disciplines that you rightly recognize as science contribute knowledge about how organisms are affected by their genetics, their environments and changes in those environments.
They do indeed. But they do not confirm any of the hypothetical statements in the Theory of Evolution because no one has yet been able to generate a testable hyothesis from the statements that could be exercised in an appropriate scientific discipline. A major case in point: HOX genes. Let me quote you what the discoverer of HOX genes (Mike Levine) said about his discovery: “ED LEWIS had worked for 30 years on different homeotic mutations, he published very little during this period of time, and then all at once, in five of the most densely packed pages I’ve ever seen, out came this unifying theory, as to how these garish mutations could control the blueprint of an organism, and it’s phenomenal. In trying to understand what controlled the process of development, he had worked on the very mutations that had fascinated me – mutations like Antennapedia, where legs somehow appeared on the fly’s head. It was as if major pieces of the fly’s body plan had been mis-programmed. He had seen how the fly’s embryo forms into segments, into body sections. His breeding experiments showed that there were eight of these sections and that they persisted into the adult fly. He saw, too, that his mis-programmed mutations always recurred precisely, without variation. With such precision he wondered whether the mutations involved only single genes. Could it be that there were eight master genes controlling each of eight body sections? He called these control genes Homeotic, or Hox genes. This idea of 8 master control genes, was radical stuff. He was proposing a hierarchy. Go after the most powerful ones, these Hox or Homeotic genes, and then you might have a handle on the whole mystery of what shapes an organism.
I can’t tell you how many times we must have read that paper, I mean it was almost like scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the various things that you’ll find in that paper, which for me is the equivalent in the field of sort of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is the notion that there is a special class of genes, regulatory genes, that control the development of the embryo, that act in limited regions of space in the embryo, to control its blueprint, that’s radical, at, at that point genes were mainly thought of as static entities which controlled our height and eye colour and, and, here’s Lewis saying there are also genes, not many of ‘em, special groups that control the basic embryo. That’s powerful.”
Now do you see any mention of the Theory of Evolution guiding this research? In fact, the findings are so strongly suggestive of design that the discoverer falls back on design and programming terms to communicate what he found.
Evolution is not itself a single scientific discipline, but it is also not a guess. We observe it happening on a small scale (the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes is evolution in action) and we see its footprints on a large scale in the fossil record and geological strata.
We certainly see species adaptation (I prefer the less loaded term) and extiction. There is no doubt of that. I am unaware of fossil data that confirms the Theory of Evolution. In fact, the fossil record suffers from a dearth of data that supports it.
The science of genetics, which emerged after Darwin, has only confirmed his observations and provided a better understanding of how the factors he observed act upon organisms.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows how organisms maintain and reproduce themselves. It also shows that many protein-coding and non-protein-coding regions are conserved across species. Both of these findings are consistent with designed organisms (think about it–if you have a nail or screw that works really well in maintaining a given structures, why not use it in all structures? See the HOX gene quotes above.
I do not know why you say that RDean and I are conflating anything. We are the ones pointing out that ‘why’ is philosophy/theology, not science.
Because you inferred from my statement that I know “WHY?” somehow precluded my considering evolution. It has not.
As a Deist, my answer to ‘why’ is that Nature’s God chose to create, but it would be hubris to pretend to know his reasons. However, I have the humility to acknowledge that this is a faith statement and not anything I could provide evidence for.
Thank you for your answer. I trust that your answer to “WHY?” does not impact your desire to know “HOW?” I only ask the same courtesy from you.
Report comment to moderator
#97: Did I miss anything?
Yes, everything. If you can’t understand the difference between the regular everyday usage of the word, “Theory” and the different way it’s used, as in, “Scientific Theory”, then you miss the very beginning.
Yet, with all the evidence of evolution, you prefer to believe in a magical, mystical God, who “shimmered” things into being. An invisible, supernatural being who appears as a burning plant or a dove (why not an eagle or a peacock – at least they look pretty?).
Look, there are bones in the ground, where did they come from? That is the very first question.
Considering the discovery of the bones of thousands of different dinosaurs all over the world, some being enormous, and the lack of any mention in the Bible, and the fact that man’s bones, or even the bones of large mammals are never found with these creatures remains, doesn’t that give some slight indication that we came after????
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I am so late with a response to me being a one issue (fiscal) person. This is not true but I feel very good about where Thompson and Romney are on social issues the big difference in the four top candidates are you have Rudy is socially liberal and I could not vote for him in primary then the other three are in lined up with me on social issues so the question is who is also a fiscal conservative and shows the right judgement, character, and leadership ability to lead this country in the right direction. Mike Huckabee has proven he is not a fiscal conservative he has awful judgement and his character is in question with news breaking that he took money to offer pardons and commutations. I am a right wing christian conservative who thinks we should look at what candidates did not what they say. This is why I am leaning to Romney or Thompson.
Report comment to moderator