Talk:Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

One question of clarification. Does the "materialistic theory of evolution" specifically refer to atheistic evolution, or does it include theistic evolution? MountainDew 20:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Materialist evolution is without divine intervention. Materialistic evolution is what is taught in schools.--Aschlafly 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Most Americans also reject theistic evolution, by the way.--Aschlafly 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The more unsourced the better! Mmmm, mmm good!-AmesGyo! 20:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)1

Sources will follow. Rome wasn't built in a day.--Aschlafly 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see that 13% source. Human 02:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Neither was the Earth built in six.-AmesGyo! 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha ha. We were talking about human achievements. Surely that was within God's power to do so if He liked. Or do you think God is incapable of that?--Aschlafly 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I know that most Americans reject theistic evolution (as do I, although it seems to be dominant among the people I know). I was just curious about the numbers. MountainDew 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think Andy's comment about how "evolution" is only to make money got deleted. It was pretty funny; I wish it had stayed. I guess the government will throw money at any valid scientific project these days, huh.-AmesGyo! 20:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Ames, I hope your entries here are more accurate than your misattribution above of what I wrote. I never said that evolution is *only* to make money. But money is an incentive, and inflates stated beliefs, as people often say things for money that they wouldn't do in the absence of the money. Check out what executives say who run the beer industry, the tobacco industry, the pornography industry, the gambling industry, etc. A decade ago the new Philip Morris CEO was someone who had personally quit smoking. Of course he pretended that was easy and no big deal.

The search for truth is also an incentive.

Yes, financial incentives do make a difference in what people say.--Aschlafly 20:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT) Financial incentives do matter. For example, why are you starting this site? To get money for Eagle Forum, by being as outlandishly right-wing as possible? Is that a reason you censor more moderate perspectives?-AmesGyo! 23:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

If Andy were collecting money for the Eagle Forum... how? I see no donation venues or obligatory fees. Maybe we can all tithe. --Hojimachongtalk 23:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Press coverage.-AmesGyo! 23:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought the political section was interesting

I thought the political section was interesting. Could you give the footnotes? I would be interested in reading the sources. Conservative 23:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

You would think it was interesting. Did you know that 90% of Young Earth Creationists think separation of church & state is a lie, and wish the First Amendment would go crawl off to die in a corner?-AmesGyo! 23:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Which would make way for a nice and dandy American theocracy. I recall another nation trying that... Ah yes, Afghanistan. It didn't work out too well for them. --Hojimachongtalk 23:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget Iran and Saudia Arabia. But, if they were CHRISTIAN theocracies, I'm sure they'd be veritable utopias. After all, just look at the Middle Ages and how great they were. --PassingThru 14:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Unique incentives?

What's unique about them? Tsumetai 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"May become a factual entry" Oh, good Gd, no?

If anything, there should be a big emboldened line at the top saying: "This essay is written from the perspectives of one person and as such holds opinions held by that person." Also, in the financial section, shouldn't it read that the government supports scientific instituions, many of which research the Theory of Evolution along with many other scientific theories? In fact, that first sentence of that section is a joke! How can you compare "no funding for religious beliefs" with "a lot of financial support for science". The two are entirely different! Would you mind if I had a go at rephraseing it ASchlafly? MatteeNeutra 05:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

of interest

See Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design, also a discussion developing there.

As for financial motives, see [1]

PalMDtalk 18:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Financial incentives

I am not aware that Darwin had any financial incentive for developing evolution as a theory. I'd like to see a source on that. Sterile 19:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

See my "sister essay" above.PalMDtalk 19:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that Darwin was opposed to classroom prayer, or in support of abortion or gun control either. Sterile 21:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Public opinion

How can it possibly be of interest in this context how many Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution or not? Did science suddenly become a question of popular vote while I wasn't looking? AKjeldsen 19:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, as with freedom, the price of science is eternal vigilance.--PalMDtalk 19:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

What does that mean?

It means that in order to avoid deception and tumble into the abyss of tyranny, whether it be political or scientific, people must keep their eyes open, keep themselves educated, and not just believe anything told to them. As you stated, science is not a democracy.PalMDtalk 20:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe a theocracy is either.

You learn well, my young friend (sign your posts with 4 ~'s.) A theocracy denies freedom and science in favor of ideology. I direct you to Chris Hedges book "American Fascism" and to Umberto Eco's article.--PalMDtalk 20:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT) Anyway, I'm apparently about to get blocked, so enjoy your stay here, read more than edit, and be well.PalMDtalk 20:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a certain difference there, isn't there, though? While a theocracy in its purest form denies science, fascism is a different beast. It does not so much deny science as it exploits it to fit the ideology. Of course, at some point, science will have become so contaminated by ideology that it is not in fact recognizable as such anymore, so the end result may be the same, but I still think it's worthwhile to make the distinction. AKjeldsen 21:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I do agree, however theocracy and fascism share some superficial and deep similarities, and can even completely overlap in the right circumstances. It is theoretically possible for a theocracy to be democratic (but unlikely) but fascism, while it may begin democratically, is inherently undemocratic.--PalMDtalk 21:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Of course, the whole question is made much more difficult by the fact that fascism is a consistent ideology in itself, while theocracies can potentially be more diverse, depending on both the leadership and the theos in question. That being said, maybe one could say that theocracy and fascism, while coming from different directions, will eventually move towards a common ground? AKjeldsen 21:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Worldwide Evil Science Conspiracy

Taking this article (and the other Creationist stuff here) at face value, apparently something over 90% of the world's supply of biologists, geologists, physicists, archaeologists, and paleontologists are either too stupid to recognize evidence that the Bible is literally true even when it's right under their nose, or DELIBERATELY suppressing the truth for their own evil reasons.

And not just in the USA, either, this is a WORLDWIDE conspiracy, supported in juust abotu every first-world nation prosperous enough for active scientific research!

Clearly, this needs to be exposed to the world. I bet the Illuminati is behind it. --PassingThru 15:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)