Newshoggers Comments
I certainly don't believe in evolution, but I accept that the theory that explains the huge amount of evidence and that is also able to assimilate new evidence without breaking the theory is close to the truth. Our knowledge of the course of evolution and the process by which it occurs is pretty good and getting better. No increment of information has had to be explained by the supernatural, be it Vishnu or YHWH.
I don't believe in belief as a way to get to the truth, but I have to admit it's a way to feel good and to most of us apes, it's better to feel good than to accept that the universe isn't all about us.
That's why it's hard to argue reality against the addiction of faith.
It has become de rigeur to ignore nuanced or complex positions in favor of simplistic narratives and a very narrow, linear notion of causation ...
Those remarks are then followed, with no apparent sense of irony, by these:
There's no doubt in my mind that such a current is more advanced in conservative circles (global warming, the war on terror, tax cuts, welfare, abortion, gay rights, etc) ...
... but as this survey shows liberals can be guilty too.
Indeed.
Hi Paul, a good try but no cigar.
I'm writing a blog-post here, not a book. I'm willing to cite sources and make a nuanced argument to back my assertion, if needed.
In the first instance, I would point you to Newshogger's archives where I and my colleagues have argued often against linear conservative narratives on those issues. That those are this blog's archives and I'm posting my claim on this blog makes them an implicit part of my argument - like previous chapters of that hypothetical book, if you will.
To refute my claim, you would have to cite sources showing nuanced arguments which were accepted by a majority of conservatives on those issues. I don't think you can (or will) do that but feel free to give it a try.
Regards, C
That`s not a parody site? Seriously, I thought it was. Some of the comments were so outrageous they had me rolling on the floor. Astronauts partying in Vegas? The mission somewhere in Utah? Plus I felt the spelling and vocabulary were too, uh, precise. Would a Brownback follower even know what empiricism means?
Are you sure that Blogs for Brownback is not a hyper-ironic post-modern creation --- I don't care what the author writes elsewhere --- go through his comment section on the complexity of toasters and I am crying from my laughter.
Fester
Cernig,
I can see you don't visit me very often. Where's the love?
http://anythingtheysay.blogspot....-that-
hill.html
http://anythingtheysay.blogspot....nd-
monkies.html
It speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of the American right that there's even the slightest possibility Blogs4Brownback isn't merely very good satire.
Hey bhc,
I visit you plenty, my friend. As you well know from the number of times I link to you 
Sorry I missed your posts on this one though.
Anon, you said it all. As far as I can see - and I followed one of the authors' link to their own home blog as well as a couple to "friends" blogs - it's real.
Regards, C
Cernig, if you can't see that "Blogs4Brownback" is a parody site, you are suffering from serious myopia. Look at some of the other posts on this blog. It's practically bleeding with sarcasm. So you followed a link to the author's home blog--you think that can't be faked too? Never underestimate how far people are willing to take deception in order to discredit the other side. It may be that Brownback really is a fundamentalist yokel, but this blog is clearly fake and clearly aimed at simply fueling negative stereotypes about Republicans. If you can't see that, you have no credibility as blogger.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Then along comes James to show, with his enormous ignorance of the state of modern biochemical science, that Turlian isn't giving real life enough credit for being beyond the limits of parody.
Regards, C
You know, one of the major problems about the "soul of life" story is that no-one's ever explained why a soul is confined to one body and can only animate that body (make it move, live, think etc). I mean, that same body replaces every atom of matter in it several times over its lifetime...so why can't my "soul" just reach out and infuence matter beyond my body? You know - magic. Why is there a cut-off at my skin? There's no explanation from them - it just is that way and that's that.
Regards, C
Another thing - James, biologists don't claim to omnipotent.
I'm fairly sure you've come across the old logical cracker for omnipotence. It runs like this:
If God is all powerful, can he make a boulder so massive even he cannot move it?
Becuase if he can't make such a boulder, he isn't all powerful...
And if he can, and then cannot move it, he isn't all powerful.
Oops.
Regards, C
Commenting by HaloScan
