What Chris Hitchens and Jonah Goldberg both got wrong
Christopher Hitchens
In his atheistic diatribe “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” the late Christopher Hitchens revisited the various evils and excesses committed in the name of religion over the centuries. And they are many.
Yet what about the brutal excesses of secular, atheistic regimes, such as Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Third Reich, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge? Doesn’t their existence challenge the claim that it is somehow religion that is at fault, rather than something still deeper in the human psyche?
In response, Hitchens offered what I consider to be an intellectually lazy answer, an answer designed to try to win a debate rather than get at the truth:
The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were also religious in nature, Hitchens argued, because they substituted the worship of an individual or ideology for the worship of a god. Therefore, all evil that those regimes did must be totted up on religion’s side of the ledger, leaving the secular world unstained.
With that contention — voila! — Hitchen’s problem was solved, or so he claimed.
In a 2007 tour to promote “God Is Not Great”, Hitchens traveled the country debating religious experts about its theme. Here in Atlanta, he crossed rhetorical swords with Tim Jackson, a professor of Christian ethics at Emory’s Candler School of Theology. And Jackson, to his credit, refused to condone Hitchen’s cheap debating tactic:
Timothy Jackson
“If we can embrace such doublespeak that North Korea is a religious institution, a religious regime, and understand Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot as fundamentally religious, then religion has become an ugly meaningless term,” Jackson pointed out.
“We’re all sinful and we can all contribute to horrific injustice, whether we’re believers or not,” the professor reminded the crowd. “….the worm at the heart of human nature is deeper than that.”
(An audio of the Hitchens/Jackson debate is available here.).
In that regard at least, Hitchens shared a lot with his one-time neighbor in New York, conservative writer Jonah Goldberg. In his 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” Goldberg echoed Hitchens by alleging that all totalitarianism, including fascism, is by nature liberal in its origins.
Clearly, communist regimes in the USSR and China were brutal and tyrannical. But what of, say, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, which are historically treated as examples of right-wing dictatorships? Do they not demonstrate that totalitarianism is a temptation to which both the right and left might succumb?
To Goldberg, the answer is no. He argues that Nazi Germany was actually a left-wing manifestation that drew its poison from the wells of liberalism and socialism. In fact, in his view of the world the phrase “right-wing dictatorship” is an impossible contradiction and a null set. Conservatives by definition could never be tempted to seek absolute power; thus, those who seek absolute power could never be conservative.
In a new posting at National Review, where he works as a columnist, Goldberg claims to have found further evidence of his thesis in a two-part series on Nazi Germany that was originally published in 1932 in The Atlantic and has now been republished on the Internet.
(The articles by Nicolas Fairweather are astonishing in their own right, demonstrating just how predictable the coming nightmare really was. Everything — the attempted genocide of the Jews, the invasion first of France and then of the Soviet Union — was all well-known and understood by those who cared to do so long before Hitler even gained power.)
Jonah Goldberg
However, when you read the articles cited, you realize once again how thin and downright silly Goldberg’s argument really is. For example, the 1932 Atlantic article lists “the principal articles of Hitler’s political faith,” which included:
“(Hitler’s) violent animosity to Marxian Socialism as in essence opposed to his ideal of a nationally minded people and a racial state. He condemns the Socialism of Marx as a poisonous teaching which by its humanitarianism, its internationalism, and its pacifism — all legacies of the unnatural and unwholesome democracy of the French Revolution — operates to undermine the clean ideal of Aryan (that is, German) overlordship.”
Hitler saw “Marxian Socialism” as a Jewish invention, “the principal tool by which they insinuate themselves into healthy, pure blooded, racial states.” He despised labor unions and expressed contempt for the common man. As the Atlantic piece reported:
“Class warfare, it appeared (to Hitler), was necessarily a destroyer of nationalism. In reacting against the internationalism and class-consciousness of the orthodox Socialists (’Marxists’ is the term Hitler always uses), he has made himself the outstanding opponent of all Communistic tendencies.”
Remember, this is all in an article cited as evidence in favor of Goldberg’s thesis.
In one sense, I am admittedly rehashing old ground — both the Goldberg book and the Hitchens book were published years ago. However, as the 1932 Atlantic pieces demonstrate, bad ideas and bad history can have profound consequences if left unchallenged.
It is dangerous for any group of people to wrap themselves in a belief that they are immune to the temptations of power, because once you make that mistake, those temptations become all the harder to resist. As George Orwell documented so well, for example, a similar arrogance on the left during the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s led many liberals to dismiss evidence of just how brutal the Soviet Union had become.
There will always be those who are eager to take as much power as possible; likewise, there will always be those who are willing to surrender that power to others. Political philosophy and religious faith make no one exempt to either temptation.
Because, as the good professor noted:
“The worm at the heart of human nature is deeper than that.”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
903 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:17 pm
“We should be more concerned on our future than wasting time on that issue”
That waste of time issue lead to the theory of quantuum mechanics, without which we would not have our modern, computerized world.
larry
April 23rd, 2012
7:17 pm
Sinkhole, please list what we got from the $5,000,000,000,000.00 we spent in EYE-rack.”
A lot of soldiers who need caring for, so that 5,000,000,000,000.00 is just for starters.
Soothsayer
April 23rd, 2012
7:17 pm
Sometimes the job depends on being thorough!
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:19 pm
“but as far as I know, it’s never been demonstrated to be the case.”
And therein lies your problem. “As far as I know” just means you don’t know enough.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:19 pm
“Yes, there is. It is possible to “kill” a theory by showing where it’s wrong…but there still remains the observable phenomonon to be accounted for.”
Science assumes that all questions are answerable – or perhaps more than actually are. We may or may not be able to discover an verifiable explanation for any given observable phenomena.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:20 pm
And this guiding “intelligence” that you posit? It resides where exactly?
Jay–I gave you and everyone here the bottom line a while ago. Because the atom is the building block of the Universe, ultimately we have to explain all of the observable phenomena in terms of atomic properties, which is the whole point of Quantum Mechanics. Unfortunately, there remains a deep disconnect between known atomic properties and the amazingly complex macro-world that we inhabit. So, until Science can start explaining the obvious intelligence by which the Universe operates in terms of atomic properties, then we don’t know much.
And please don’t try to deny the obvious intelligence all around us. The fact remains that our bodies consist of approximately 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms, all working in coordination. At some point, arguments for “randomness” as the driving, creative force in the Universe look pretty silly.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:21 pm
Oh lawdy, Carlos picked a science fight with Bruno.
As Mr. T would say “I pity the fool”.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:22 pm
“Science assumes that all questions are answerable”
So does religion. Maybe not any particular, given religion…but religion in the generic makes the same assumption. The difference being that science set pretty rigorous standards for a theory to become accepted. Religion just says “believe” – no rigor required.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:22 pm
Our President is up by 40 with Latinos so willard panders with rubio and the dream act.
Good luck with that willard.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:23 pm
And therein lies your problem. “As far as I know” just means you don’t know enough.
Here’s your chance, then, Doggone. Show me a study which documents how random genetic changes lead directly to intelligent adaptation. I don’t know of any, but I’m all ears.
Soothsayer
April 23rd, 2012
7:23 pm
Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble
dbm
April 23rd, 2012
7:24 pm
Oscar
April 23rd, 2012
5:30 pm
If you look at the various ways in which the two words are actually used, you’ll find a lot that doesn’t fit those definitions. For example, are you saying that Communism is “conservative”?
larry
April 23rd, 2012
7:24 pm
Soooooooooooo, maybe its magic !!!???
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:27 pm
Ah, the “obvious intelligence” approach. Because of course, it’s “obvious.”
One more thing, Bruno. If mere common sense tells you that evolutionary theory is nonsense, why do ALL of the world’s top life-science experts accept it as the basic narrative for the differentiation of species? They argue sometimes heatedly over details of it, but not over the essential truth. None of them as far as I know — and please correct me if I’m wrong — espouse the theory that you find so convincing.
So why are they all so wrong when again, mere common sense tells us that their theory is implausible?
dbm
April 23rd, 2012
7:27 pm
Oscar
April 23rd, 2012
5:33 pm
What you’re saying is that you disagree with my definition, since you think anything that is not theistic is not a religion. So neither one satisfies your definition, which is not the question I was raising.
larry
April 23rd, 2012
7:28 pm
so willard panders with rubio and the dream act.
The key word is pander. They already disagree on immagration reform.
I still think its either going to be Sen. Portman or the Gov. of Virginia.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:28 pm
Scientists should be innovating in areas like green energy because there is no proof bruno.
We need a national focus on jobs and not silly distractions like social issues.
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
7:29 pm
I missed news of the
experiment where a
non living mass was
was turned into a
living mass and the
repetition thereof as
proof of evolution.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:30 pm
larry,
The reason why you are 40 points behind was the gop coordinated attack on immigrants.
The farmers are mad at the gop.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:31 pm
” I don’t know of any, but I’m all ears.”
No, you aren’t…because if you were you would have found the information that exists. You can’t find what you aren’t even looking for.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:31 pm
“Thulsa that is just so sad.
You guys are bringing up Peron and Allende and Argentina and Chile from 40 years ago, but it’s somehow out of bounds for me to cite an American president who left office less than four years ago? That’s real logical there….”
Jay,
Well now actually you brought up Pinochet in Chile and I simply responded.
Secondly the point that both I and ragnar have made is that in looking at the 2 countries they languished under leftist govts and under right wing governments were much better off. For God’s sake look at the disaster Argentina has become ever since the leftists took over. Chile went center right and has done much better. How and why you make that connection to the blame W game that Obama plays everyday is bizarre. Sad too.
And your argument that right wing dictatorships such as Pinochet or the Argentine military junta were “totalitarian” is ridiculous. A totalitarian state controls or tries to control nearly every facet of your life. And while right wing dictators such as Pinochet are oppressive they don’t seek to dominate and control every facet of your life. Hell you could just leave if you don’t like it and should you choose to stay you won’t have much for political freedom but you will certainly have more economic freedom than in a totalitarian state like the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and other totalitarian states.
Soothsayer
April 23rd, 2012
7:32 pm
Even thought Little Rickie has “suspended” his campaign, his sweater vest fights on!
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:33 pm
“The reason why you are 40 points behind was the gop coordinated attack on immigrants.”
I guess those mean ole republicans are at it again- organized shootings of immigrants. Can’t get nothing past getalife.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:33 pm
Harvard? Cal-Berkeley? Stanford, Cornell? Would any of them hire someone who espoused that theory?
Maybe you’re naive enough to believe that politics plays no role in who gets hired and who gets research money, but Big Science is just as much of a “good ol boy” network as any out there. Express any type of heretical view, and see how far you get. The gentleman who proposed that ulcers are caused by bacteria was nearly laughed out of the medical community.
http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=571&id=571
While the large-numbers theory has not been proved to be the process by which evolution occurs, it has been proved to be a process by which it COULD occur. The mechanism works.
BFD. Many mathematical constructs “work” on paper, but have no basis in the real world. Saying something COULD work is about the weakest argument I’ve ever seen for forcing school children to be force fed an unproven theory.
And this theory of yours …. by what mechanism would this cellular-level “intelligence” work?
Read up on epigenome theory, and we can talk more. As far as explaining this on an atomic level, good luck. But, a lack of a specific explanation shouldn’t prevent us from acknowledging the obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:35 pm
“The difference being that science set pretty rigorous standards for a theory to become accepted. Religion just says “believe” – no rigor required.”
Rigor can be and is applied, but to the text and not the world at large. The problem of evil is perhaps the biggest challenge to biblical faith because the Bible does not provide the kind of answers we want for the existence of suffering. We all confront it sooner or later. Someone earlier quoted from one of Bart D. Ehrman’s books. He has written one specifically dealing with this issue. At this point in time, I suspect that the reason the kind of answer we are looking for is not given in the Bible is because the most important thing to God is for us to believe the opposite of what Satan suggested in Eden to Eve – namely, that God is not really good. Believing that sometimes despite all appearances to the contrary He is good is the bedrock of trust (whereas in Eden, despite all appearance to the contrary, mankind was enticed to believe He was not good). There is either a God of the Bible or there is not. And, if He exists, He is either good or He is not.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:35 pm
A con could call out willard on moving left but there are none left.
Marginalized .
The gop attacked every voting group to appease the cons and now they will pay by losing.
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:36 pm
It’s hard to know just who’s channeling Pope Paul V here this p.m.
but…
dopo, il muovi…
St Simons - he-ne-hah
April 23rd, 2012
7:36 pm
as to the article, it’s a little deeper than that, mon
if you were at de island you could see it, mon
whether it’s the rigid ideology of religion, or rigid political ideology,
it’s all about affordable control of the masses. When you free yourself
of that, then you will be free. That’s what the Elders meant when they
told us about the New Age coming this December. You’ll see.
It’s all good, except for those stuck in the old ways.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:37 pm
“Rigor can be and is applied, but to the text and not the world at large”
And therefore there is no rigor applied. The text is manmade. When it comes to God it just says “believe” – no rigor required or applied. When you say “God willed it” you’ve ended all discussion and all rigor.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:37 pm
“why do ALL of the world’s top life-science experts accept it as the basic narrative for the differentiation of species?”
Just about every Christian I know believes in evolution within a species- adaptational changes over time within species. Its on the evolutionary theory of one creature turning completely into another that we disagree. Of course I’ll believe the evolutionists who say we completely evolved from one creature like monkeys into what we are now when they can conclusively prove it. Hell I’ll believe them when they can just point to me one species that completely evolved into a whole different species. Just one. That’s all Doomy is asking for. Just one.
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:37 pm
frog
It was the Golem of Prague…
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:38 pm
“Maybe you’re naive enough to believe that politics plays no role in who gets hired and who gets research money, but Big Science is just as much of a “good ol boy” network as any out there. Express any type of heretical view, and see how far you get.”
Well said, Bruno. Universities are often very less than “scientific”, but they keep that somewhat hidden. They. like the Catholic Church of old, have their own orthodoxies to which members must submit.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:39 pm
How big is space?
How did we get here?
Where is the beef?
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:39 pm
St Simon’s
You’ve got until December to give me back my five bucks, Pete…and no t-shirt with Jesus riding a unicorn or some such sh*t…and where are my car keys?
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:39 pm
“Just about every Christian I know believes in evolution within a species- adaptational changes over time within species”
But that is not evolution in a scientific sense. That is just adaptation. It isn’t scientific evolution until there is a separation beyond which there is no going back to a single species. It is speciation that is scientific evolution…not just change and adaptation.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:40 pm
“And therefore there is no rigor applied. The text is manmade.”
In your belief and so, from that vantage, it is worthless (as it would be to me if thought similarly).
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:41 pm
Science assumes that all questions are answerable
Not true, Crier. Some problems are “undecidable”, such that no answer can ever be found, no matter how much time and energy we put into it.
None of them as far as I know — and please correct me if I’m wrong — espouse the theory that you find so convincing.
Jay–By your own admission, no can demonstrate how random genetic mutations lead to intelligent adaptation. As such, why should I respect any of their opinions at all??
No, you aren’t…because if you were you would have found the information that exists. You can’t find what you aren’t even looking for.
Doggone, Jay admits there is no proof of random genetic changes being the driving mechanism behind Evolution. Though I haven’t looked lately, I’ve never hearde of any studies which make that link. If you know of some, put it up, or else admit that you don’t know anything more than anyone else.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:42 pm
“In your belief and so, from that vantage, it is worthless”
What is worthless? Religious texts? I would never say that. I try to apply a rigorous test to them to try to differentiate what is human made in them and what is truly divine, but I don’t ask or expect that everyone agree with me.
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
7:42 pm
I survived Y2K.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:42 pm
“But that is not evolution in a scientific sense. That is just adaptation. It isn’t scientific evolution until there is a separation beyond which there is no going back to a single species. It is speciation that is scientific evolution…not just change and adaptation.”
What part of TD’s statement that “Its on the evolutionary theory of one creature turning completely into another that we disagree” did you not understand?
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:43 pm
We need a renewable energy resource that will never run out like oil.
Get to work scientists.
Brosephus™
April 23rd, 2012
7:43 pm
josef
When you get a chance, I sent you a message…
—————————
St Simons
What’s the deal with the “Orange Crush”? Any idea of what schools, if any, specifically were involved?
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:43 pm
JAY
But, what does Th- Ha-ry Th-nderer have to say about this, since y’all are on a first name basis!
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:44 pm
“The gentleman who proposed that ulcers are caused by bacteria was nearly laughed out of the medical community.”
I agree with that. I remember that case well. Once he produced actual evidence, people looked at it and said, “Wow! He’s right and we’re wrong!” And science changed in response to actual data.
Likewise, if someone were to successfully challenge the theory of evolution, he or she would cement a reputation as a scientific titan for all time, standing alongside Einstein and Newton and displacing Darwin. And yet …. nothing. You’d think that if it was so “obvious,” as some claim, or “simple common sense,” somebody would have stepped up to claim the glory.
Must be that “political correctness” holding them back.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:44 pm
“Doggone, Jay admits there is no proof of random genetic changes being the driving mechanism behind Evolution. Though I haven’t looked lately, I’ve never hearde of any studies which make that link. If you know of some, put it up, or else admit that you don’t know anything more than anyone else”
I’m not Jay and am under no obligation to agree with him. That you refuse to even try to gain a better understanding of the process and the proofs for it says FAR more about you and your attitudes than anything I could say says about my own.
And I am under no obligation to “admit” any such thing as you demand. I made the effort to educate myself on the subject…I am under no obligation to undertake to be your teacher. If I can self-educat on the subject, so can you.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:45 pm
“Not true, Crier. Some problems are “undecidable”, such that no answer can ever be found, no matter how much time and energy we put into it.”
I qualified my initial statement if you look at the original post, so we agree. I was writing “out loud”.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:45 pm
““Its on the evolutionary theory of one creature turning completely into another that we disagree” did you not understand?”
I understood it. I disagree with it.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:45 pm
“We need a renewable energy resource that will never run out like oil.”
We already have one. We just need to find out how to make the best, maximum use of it.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:45 pm
“At some point, arguments for “randomness” as the driving, creative force in the Universe look pretty silly.”
In reading the atheist view of how life got started I read that 2 Swiss evolutioniist mathematicians calculated the scientific odds of life randomly beginning on earth in the last 2 billion years or so. The odds? One in 10 to the 160th power. A perty large number.
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:46 pm
BROSEPHUS
When? It hasn’t come up yet…resend?
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:47 pm
“One in 10 to the 160th power. A perty large number.”
But it isn’t zero
josef
April 23rd, 2012
7:47 pm
BROSEPHUS
There it is…ignore previous….
St Simons - he-ne-hah
April 23rd, 2012
7:48 pm
josef, i spent the 5 bucks on the medicine for the spirit
of the extension cord.
So guess what’s in my wallet? Not 5 bucks, i tell ya, that’s what
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:48 pm
“Orange crush” sounds like blotter acid.
Brosephus™
April 23rd, 2012
7:48 pm
josef
Sent at 7:42
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:49 pm
H-rry has not authorized me to speak for him, Josef. I am not his Moses.
And as those who saw me on Maddow might agree, I am also not his Aaron.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:49 pm
Oh lawdy, Carlos picked a science fight with Bruno.
As Mr. T would say “I pity the fool”.
Help me out here, Doom, and please be objective. Don’t sugarcoat it for my sake. carlos has been running his mouth here for a while about how certain our scientific knowledge is, yet he can’t provide any specifics other than vague generalities mixed in with a bunch of insults against anyone who doesn’t toe the Science Orthodoxy line. On the other hand, I believe that I’ve demonstrated at least a working knowledge of the topics at hand in order to raise reasonable objections. Who has made a more convincing case tonight?? Is our level of scientific knowledge as demonstrated by carlos and Jay strong enough that heretics like me should simply sit by quietly??
Soothsayer
April 23rd, 2012
7:50 pm
This whole question is just so complicated. I’m having a hard time understanding it.
If only Redneck Convert were here, maybe he and Norman Einstein could explain it to me so’s I could understand it!
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:51 pm
“Is our level of scientific knowledge as demonstrated by carlos and Jay strong enough that heretics like me should simply sit by quietly??”
Is the level of scientific knowledge as demonstarted by heretics like you strong enough that carlos and Jay should simply sit by quietly?
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:51 pm
Bruno makes an appeal to authority, and the authority is Doom?
Well, desperate times…
St Simons - he-ne-hah
April 23rd, 2012
7:52 pm
Bro, what is dis Orange Crush you speak of?
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:52 pm
“Likewise, if someone were to successfully challenge the theory of evolution, he or she would cement a reputation as a scientific titan for all time, standing alongside Einstein and Newton and displacing Darwin. ”
I admire you flair for the dramatic, Jay. Just how would one go about successfully challenging the evolutionary hypothesis? You seem to regard it as “scientific” when in fact it is more quasi-historical in nature. If it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or by repeatable observation, it is not hard science. All Darwin did is took a geological theory (uniformitarianism) and applied it to biology. Where is the genius in that?
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
7:52 pm
Towncrier @ 7:42,
Thank you. Sometimes people just start arguing semantics and forget the larger point of what is being made.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:54 pm
“If it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or by repeatable observation”
Repeatable observation is exactly what “demonstrates” evolution.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
7:55 pm
“Thank you. Sometimes people just start arguing semantics and forget the larger point of what is being made”
sometimes nuances matter
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:55 pm
The Swiss mathematician who made that calculation, Charles-Eugene Guye, died in 1942. So let’s just say he wasn’t exactly operating with the benefit of modern knowledge, shall we?
JamVet
April 23rd, 2012
7:56 pm
Sooth has trouble with math.
The fact-averse, empirically challenged, apparently UGA non-educated Sink is unwittingly barking up the right tree, but as always is incorrect..
The final tab after all of the maimed GIs and their ruined bodies are taken care of properly will likely top $10,000,000,000,000.000.
But it was all SO worth it, right Bush chickenhawks?!
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:56 pm
I stopped listening to hitchins because of Iraq but he died on the same day the Iraq occupation ended.
.
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
7:57 pm
getalife
orange crush is a
wonderful drink nearly
as good as kool aid.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
7:58 pm
“The Swiss mathematician who made that calculation, Charles-Eugene Guye, died in 1942. So let’s just say he wasn’t exactly operating with the benefit of modern knowledge, shall we?”
So, point us to a current evolutionist who would claim the odds are more like, say, winning Cash 3? Or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
7:58 pm
“Is the level of scientific knowledge as demonstarted by heretics like you strong enough that carlos and Jay should simply sit by quietly?”
Common sense says it is, Doggone.
Obviously. Or so we’ve been told.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
7:58 pm
I agree with that. I remember that case well. Once he produced actual evidence, people looked at it and said, “Wow! He’s right and we’re wrong!” And science changed in response to actual data.
Likewise, if someone were to successfully challenge the theory of evolution, he or she would cement a reputation as a scientific titan for all time, standing alongside Einstein and Newton and displacing Darwin. And yet …. nothing. You’d think that if it was so “obvious,” as some claim, or “simple common sense,” somebody would have stepped up to claim the glory.
Jay–Please reread your own post. Drs. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall were vindicated when evidence proved them correct. Not before. Unlike Obama, no one gave them a Nobel Prize before they actually accomplished something. Yet, that’s essentially what you’re asking us to do for the Evolutionists. No proof, but we’re supposed to bow down to their superior knowledge according to you. Really, Jay??
That you refuse to even try to gain a better understanding of the process and the proofs for it says FAR more about you and your attitudes than anything I could say says about my own.
DOggone–Like carlos, all you’ve offered is vague generalities, while I’ve demonstrated that I HAVE looked into Evolution by critiquing specific facets of the theory. Put up or shut up.
Brosephus™
April 23rd, 2012
7:58 pm
St Simons
Seems like it’s a party that got way out of control over at your neighbor’s place… Tybee Island.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
7:59 pm
Thanks Frog.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
8:01 pm
“Repeatable observation is exactly what “demonstrates” evolution.”
Only changes within a species. If you can point me to where I can see one species turning into another over and over again, please do and say us the argument. That is the sophistry of evolutionary theory: inter-species mutations PROVE intra-species evolution.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
April 23rd, 2012
8:02 pm
This whole question is just so complicated. I’m having a hard time understanding it.
If only Redneck Convert were here, maybe he and Norman Einstein could explain it to me so’s I could understand it!
Well, Sooth, I ain’t made sense of much of anything since this blog started. I couldn’t even agree with Matti about us messing with outsiders. I don’t know what part of the South she growed up in, but we don’t mess with people just to see if they got a sense of humor. We mess with them to get them out of here. It use to take a burning cross, but now it’s against the law for us to do that.
Anyhow, I’ll stick around awhile longer to see if I can get the hang of the topic. But don’t hold your breath till you hear from me. It’s so deep in here I feel like putting on my trout fishing waders.
Meantime, you still got The Picture? You know, since that Secret Service talked about checking out Sarah, I could use some checking out of Michelle.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
8:02 pm
A tad pole turns into a frog.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
8:02 pm
Bruno,
There’s a reason why I don’t argue with you on scientific matters. I’ve tried before and realized I didn’t have near the scientific knowledge. Nor anyone else on this board including Jay. Frankly I think Carlos brought his peashooter to a gunfight. Towncrier also has some good logical points.
I don’t know as much about science as you or some of the others on here. But I know enough to know an absurdly weak and ridiculous argument such as the ones Carlos has presented.He shoulda just kept quiet. Jay has fared a little better but not much.
Vague generalites, insults, and stalling or just uttering a bunch of baloney as Carlos has done are simply the standard liberal strategy. I notice you have posted several links to back up your statements which I intend to read later at my leisure.
Jay at least has some decent points but I think both you and towncrier have exposed some of his points as less than convincing and lacking in scientific merit.
I’m with you Bruno. Your arguments seem to be more logical, more well thought out, and far more importantly- linked with scientific points and or explanations.
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
8:02 pm
I’m not being disingenuous, Crier. I am merely responding to an earlier claim. That is permitted in this debate, correct?
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
8:05 pm
getalife
tadpoles are living beings
that love orange crush.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
8:06 pm
“I’m not being disingenuous, Crier. I am merely responding to an earlier claim. That is permitted in this debate, correct?”
Of course. So, is there anyone you know of who would not say the odds are astronomically small? That was what I was getting at.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
8:07 pm
Common sense says it is, Doggone.
Obviously. Or so we’ve been told.
In case you’re unfamiliar with how Math and Science actually advance, it always starts with a hunch, an “unscientific” belief motivated by intuition and common sense. Which is exactly how Darwin went about it. Such theories can only move beyond the level of “hunch” when actual proof appears. By your own admission, such proof doesn’t exist for the case of Evolution, and you’ll have to take my word that no proof exists regarding the Big Bang either unless you’re willing to read and critique Roger Penrose’s seminal work “The Road to Reality”. If you can’t afford it, I’ll buy you a copy and send it to the AJC. Good luck getting past the first chapter.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Reality-Complete-Universe/dp/0679776311/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1335225929&sr=8-3
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
8:08 pm
Frog,
“Some residents of Tybee Island are angry after college students and young adults left piles of cans, bottles, cups and other trash on the beach after an annual gathering known as “Orange Crush.” AJC
Clean up the beach mon.
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
8:08 pm
“That you refuse to even try to gain a better understanding of the process and the proofs for it says FAR more about you and your attitudes than anything I could say says about my own.”
I was thinking the same thing doggone. Not to be too critical but you wrote a few paragraphs of heated rhetoric and generalized, vague criticism. You did not present a specific argument or factual point regarding why your point would be correct in this debate.
Towncrier
April 23rd, 2012
8:09 pm
I’m out all…gotta watch The Voice. Goodnight.
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
8:11 pm
getalife
probably the tadpoles.
they may have morphed
and got the frog outta
there.
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
8:12 pm
Bruno makes an appeal to authority, and the authority is Doom?
Well, desperate times…
Doom @ 8:02–Thanks for the backup, but our esteemed host has now informed me that all of your opinions are bunk also.
I can see Jay now, sitting in judgment of Socrates for heresy.
getalife
April 23rd, 2012
8:12 pm
Frog,
There is your proof of evolution.
Boris Badnoff
April 23rd, 2012
8:14 pm
Because the acronym NAZI is Nationalsozialismus which means National Socialism, one could certainly make the argument that Hitler and his ilk were left wing socialists. And Stalin headed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics. And socialists are left wing. What then is meant by the term right wing? Anarchy. Law of the Jungle. No government. No taxes. No law. You take care of yourself and government doesn’t exist. The problem with the right wing is with no red lights utter chaos results during rush hour. Somebody has to yield the right of way.
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
8:14 pm
getalife
our president is on the
same educational path as
willard. ditto healthcare.
is he drinking the kolob
kool aid?
Soothsayer
April 23rd, 2012
8:15 pm
Redneck, you’re not talking about this picture are you?
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
8:16 pm
“DOggone–Like carlos, all you’ve offered is vague generalities, while I’ve demonstrated that I HAVE looked into Evolution by critiquing specific facets of the theory. Put up or shut up”
Critiquing is not proving, not is it disproving. The discrepancies in the evolutionary theory are well known, and discussed. You have offered nothing new. And there is no need for me, or anyone, to “put up” because YOU have NOT “put up”either
Thulsa Doom
April 23rd, 2012
8:17 pm
Speaking of who has the absolute certainty of common sense and science on their side this whole debate reminds me of the church vs galileo or of many other instances such as Marconi’s friends who were going to have him committed to an asylum for the crazy belief that sound could be transmitted wirelessly through the air.
Seems like the liberals in the climate debate or theory of evolution or the beginning of life debates all seem to think that any other point of view is absurd, without merit, and deserving of ridicule. They, like the church in galileo’s time, act arrogantly in the belief that their science is the only science and that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or just one of them knuckle dragging neanderthal cons as they like to say.
And as seen yet again here today when their arguments are exposed they resort to the usual generalities, vague arguments, insults, semantics wars, and cacophany of nonsense and bluster to BS their way out of their weak arguments.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
8:18 pm
“That is the sophistry of evolutionary theory: inter-species mutations PROVE intra-species evolution”
Nope, but they do indicate it. There is no obligation to “believe” it. But if you intend to disprove it, you need to disprove it on it’s own ground…not on the quagmire of “common sense”
barking frog
April 23rd, 2012
8:20 pm
getalife
tadpole and frog are just
two labels attached to
the same being in different
stages of development.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
8:20 pm
“You did not present a specific argument or factual point regarding why your point would be correct in this debate.”
That’s the best part about being on “my side” of the discussion. I don’t have to. Thousands of evolutionary scientists have already done that, and far better than I ever could. Their work is public, all you have to do is read it.
Doggone/GA
April 23rd, 2012
8:22 pm
“Because the acronym NAZI is Nationalsozialismus which means National Socialism, one could certainly make the argument that Hitler and his ilk were left wing socialists. ”
No you can’t. All you can make is the argument that they used the word. That is not proof they believed in it. It’s just as likely they were trying to attract those who DID by using the word.
Jay
April 23rd, 2012
8:23 pm
I would certainly never say that all of Doom’s opinions are bunk. Not in the least.
I do, however, question his qualifications to referee this particular debate.
St Simons - he-ne-hah
April 23rd, 2012
8:23 pm
Bro – oh, that’s what we call the “flash mob” thing, the kids with
their cell phones, its all the rage. A lot of egg on Savannah St’s face.
But to their credit, they sent a crew at their expense to clean it up
the next weekend, so let’s look at both sides of that coin.
sad that Youth is wasted on the Young……etc
Bruno
April 23rd, 2012
8:25 pm
Scientists should be innovating in areas like green energy because there is no proof bruno.
Good point, getalife. Just wanted you to know I was paying attention.
Well, gotta run. No use waiting around for Jay to ever admit he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I did want to share a funny episode from “Crooked Cucumber”, which is the life story of my spiritual hero, Shunyru Suzuki. One of his American students tried to trap him by asking Suzuki “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound??” Without missing a beat, Suzuki simply said “It doesn’t matter.”
Beautiful lesson in there somewhere.