Slashdot Mirror
Origin of Species To Be Given For Free, With FUD
PhrostyMcByte writes "November 24th will mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the pivotal work that helped bring the theory of evolution through natural selection into popularity. Around this same time, Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron is spearheading a plan to pass out 50,000 free copies at universities around the country. The catch? Each copy will be altered to include creationist propaganda and FUD targeting evolution and Darwin himself."
If anyone who receives a free copy can't separate the science from the pseudo-science they deserve to look like idiots when they say "God created the world in six days because Darwin said so."
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
If memory serves me, On the Origin of Species mentions God 56 times and ever since the second addition affirms that evolution is a miracle of God. So I was left wondering how they could tie more God into the book. After a search on the net, I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.
Therefore he made lies and slander. As such, we may use these tools of God to promote our beliefs in him (not her). Anybody found promoting the idea that maybe, just maybe, that evolution was the tool by which God made life and that the 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour periods will be stoned, as is also mentioned somewhere in the bible, so it must be biblical.
FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
Shooting down evolution doesn't grant victory to Judeo/Christian creationism by default. Given that there are thousands of creation mythologies involving sometimes teams of deities, giant turtles, lumps of clay and supercomputers owned by mice -- I'm not sure what ad hominem attacks on Mr. Darwin will even accomplish.
The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over, say, Norse creationism. ( Odin laughs at your puny little Yaweh. )
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Why must people keep saying Einstein a Catholic? (they do in the clip)
Do they know something that Einstein didn't? I mean he did repeatedly deny his religiousness. Has proof come out that he was high at the time or something?
My computer is salient and lonely - it NEEDS cybersex, you ignorant clod!
Inferior genes aren't necessarily selected out out in the evolutionary model. As long as it doesn't prevent reproduction and the host themselves surviving long enough to reproduce, it's going to stay in the gene pool. Example - if there was a gene that caused the host to drop dead at 50 in 100% of cases- that's not going to be weeded out. Heck, in certain scenarios, it could be helpful by reducing competitive pressure for resources wrt the next generation.
People with blue eyes are more often nearsighted, which put them at a competitive disadvantage, but we still see blue-eyed people.
My point is twofold: that the definition of "inferior gene" is plastic and can change wrt circumstances, and that the evolutionary process doesn't select out all types of genes - just those that affect the odds of successfully breeding another generation.
As for eugenics, we practice it all the time. We choose our mating partners based in part on how desirable we perceive them to be. Given a choice, most people want someone who they are attracted to; their kids will probably look better than the ugly people who hooked up because of the beer-bottom goggles.
With all the hoopla coming from both sides of the evolution argument, who, with no opinion, could see it as a pissing match?
Both have zealots shouting "hooray for our side", pointing out the perceived flaws in the others fanfare. Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.
There is even a minority third party, drowned out by the warchants, prayers, and ancestral epithets; those who see evolution as part of YHVH business model.
Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.
We don't know there is God. We don't know there is evolution. We only believe. Belief is different than knowledge. Science relys on knowledge derived from belief.
Until it is distilled to fact it is not science.
The only thing we KNOW is; there are two (three) camps of belief, and the vast majority of people are devolved morons who will say anything they believe with or without proper analysis if only to drown out the beliefs of their opponents.
There are infinite undiscovered beliefs yet only a tiny amount of supposed fact that we own. Start behaving like it. Quit quarreling before I bang your heads together.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.
... which is not exactly an expression of faith.
Darwin did have deist beliefs at the time of the writing, which is reflected by his frequent references to a Creator, but that Creator is not necessarily theistic God.
Hey, that's cool. If he wants to remix a book in the public domain, that's fine- he's well within his rights to do so. Passing it off as the original Origin of Species? Well, that's pretty-freakin'-dubious, especially considering the controversy around this, but I guess he's well within his rights to do that as well. A kind of 'Origin of Species 2.0' with full Christian-theology compatibility, I suppose you could say.
But, of course, evolutionists are free to do the same to the Bible. Let's see how it might look...
1:3 And God said, Let the Universe expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continue to expand to this day. ... ... ... ...
1:4 And God saw the bang, that it was good: and God divided the photons from the.. lack of photons. Not his most crowning achievement, but he thought it profound.
1:5 And God called the light, typically bought upon by a rotation of a planet relative to its axis, Day, and the darkness he called Night. Well- not really. The naming of the day and night cycle will come much later, with the evolution of man and man's languages, but at least he thought of the concept at this point and possibly gave it it a name in his own language. Plus, being a cosmic being who didn't live on any planet the concept of night and day really had no meaning for him, and he hadn't even created any planets at this point and oh I've gone crosseyed. Let's move on.
1:8 And God called the firmament Deep Space, wherein he created thousands and millions of other similar solar systems and planets. Inhabited? Perhaps, but that is a secret God will keep until the great revealing (or not. Psyche!).
1:10 And God called one particular lump of soil, carbon and hydrogen/oxygen liquid Earth; and on it he planted the seeds of primordial life, which would one day evolve into man: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass eventually, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, with each generation changing very slightly to adapt to its surroundings, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind (slightly changing with each generation, adapting and improving), and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creat- wait, no. This came first. Before the grass- at least, according to the most recent scientific theory. So yeah. Disregard what I said earlier, the water stuff came first.
1:21 And God eventually created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and much later every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and adapt, and fill the waters in- wait, no. Don't go back into the water on second thought, that's going backwards again.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth eventually bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God eventually made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us eventually make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that have after billions of years creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own imag- wait. This isn't really possible- humans can't survive in the unprotected void of space... at best it would be a superficial appearance of being 'Go
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
A few creationists actually have a few good points. There are a number of examples where irrelevant fossil fragments created whole "missing links," for example. Listening to them would give evolutionists some healthy skepticism, which would help everyone. However, it seems that the whole ID vs. evolution debate is mostly relegated to a few nuts who hardly understand what they're talking about. Some real dialog between well-educated people on both sides would work wonders.
God doesn't love those poor who are unable to afford an ivy league edumication. NOO BOOK 4 U