On Tuesday’s edition of "Nightline," anchor Martin Bashir interviewed businessman Tom Monaghan, founder of a new Catholic university in Florida and also a community called Ave Maria that will be based around Catholic values. Bashir parroted criticism that the town has "been described as a Catholic Jonestown, a kind of Catholic Iran, where individual rights and liberties are curtailed."
Earlier in the segment, Bashir asserted that the community, which will encourage traditional values but be open to all, has "been called a Disney World for Catholics, a country club Christianity."
The "Nightline co-host began the segment, which aired at 11:35pm, by wondering if Ave Maria would be as "welcoming to unbelievers" as it is to Christians. (Would it ever occur to ABC to ask, for instance, if San Francisco would be welcoming to conservatives?) He then proceeded to regurgitate criticism from a nearly two-year-old Wall Street Journal column that featured a quote maligning the proposed community as a "Catholic Jonestown":
Martin Bashir: "But not everyone is delighted at the prospect of a town so avowedly Catholic, especially those concerned with civil liberties. You know that’s it’s been described as a Catholic Jonestown, a kind of Catholic Iran, where individual rights and liberties are curtailed."
Tom Monaghan: "That was a statement made in the Wall Street Journal for which I got an apology in writing from the publisher of the Wall Street Journal for. That was a very nasty statement, because it's nowhere near what were about."
Monaghan, the founder of Dominos Pizza, went on to challenge the media generated concept that opposing abortion and promoting traditional values makes one strange. "Maybe you're odd," he shot back at the ABC journalist.
The pizza magnate certainly has endured difficult interviews with hostile reporters. In March of 2006, Katie Couric, then with NBC’s "Today" show, grilled him over how intolerant Ave Maria would be:
Katie Couric: "At the same time, you can understand how people would hear some of these things and be like, wow, this is really infringing on civil liberties and freedom of speech and right to privacy and all sorts of basic tenets this country was founded on? Right?"
She even closed the piece by announcing, in a threatening tone, "Well, we’ll probably be following this story because I know the ACLU is too."
Monaghan, however, seemed to be philosophical about media coverage. During Tuesday’s interview, he told Bashir, "...I'm very happy. And when the media gets on me, I just say a Hail Mary for whoever wrote the article and it goes away just like that."
A partial transcript of the August 7 segment can be found below:
Martin Bashir: "But not everyone is delighted at the prospect of a town so avowedly Catholic, especially those concerned with civil liberties. You know that’s it’s been described as a Catholic Jonestown, a kind of Catholic Iran, where individual rights and liberties are curtailed."
Tom Monaghan: "That was a statement made in the Wall Street Journal for which I got an apology in writing from the publisher of the Wall Street Journal for. That was a very nasty statement, because it's nowhere near what were about."
Bashir: "You were quoted as saying, ‘Our plan is that no adult material will appear on the town's cable system. And the pharmacy will not sell contraceptives.’"
Monaghan: "I don't remember the one about the cable system. I don't think I ever probably had control over that."
Bashir: "But the truth is, you do believe that abortion should be outlawed?"
Monaghan: "Yes."
Bashir: "You do believe that contraception should not be available. You do believe that pornography should not be easily accessible. These are the things you believe fundamentally."
Monaghan: "Well, so does the Pope. So does the hierarchy and most of the priests in the Catholic Church. So, what's so unique about that? What makes me so unique? You’re looking at me like I'm some kind of an odd person."
Bashir: "Not at all. But what makes you unique is–"
Monaghan: "Maybe you're odd."
Bashir: "But what makes you unique is that very few people have the resources and ability to build a university in the middle of a community and actually try and influence the social situation in that way."
Monaghan: "Ahh. That's where the rub comes. I'm dangerous."
Bashir: "What would the response be if a gay couple wanted to live here and buy a property?"
Blake Gable (Project manager): "Same as if a gay couple wanted to buy a house anywhere in America. I mean, this is America in 2007. We don't discriminate against anybody for any reason. That’s never, never part of what Ave Maria is all about."
Bashir: "Whether the town represents a single religious denomination or not, there was no shortage of interest, at a recent open day."
Unidentified man: "We want to be surrounded by people that think like us. We have deep religious values and deep moral values."
Bashir: "And as for Tom Monaghan, he seems genuinely at peace with himself. Attending mass every day and preparing to live in the community of his dreams. Are you happy?"
Monaghan: "I think I'm very happy. And when the media gets on me, I just say a Hail Mary for whoever wrote the article and it goes away just like that."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
Wow, the lib MSM is dripping
August 8, 2007 - 18:22 ET by rbosqueWow, the lib MSM is dripping with disdain and contempt. I wonder if they feel this way with Iran or Saudi Arabia. And why would the MSM care what the ACLU says. They do not run this country.
kool aid anyone?
August 8, 2007 - 18:27 ET by TruthMongeris this what the left means by "getting religion"
this will warm the heart of the Catholic vote for sure
but they still have the
August 8, 2007 - 18:35 ET by vrwc13but they still have the 10%? gay vote! And all them voting "undocumented immigrants" too.
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
vrwc13, regarding your statement: "10%? gay vote"
August 8, 2007 - 21:54 ET by RJI assume the ? is because you're not sure the number is correct, and you shouldn't be. The 10% figure was thrown around for years as a ploy to gain political and social strength, but the true number of gays is closer to 3-4%. This was admitted in Federal Court by one of the leading gay advocacy groups.
TM - all fallen major
August 8, 2007 - 18:42 ET by vrwc13TM - all fallen major civilizations fell from within. Maybe that'll be true for the dems. From Dean's primate scream, to Kerry's "I can't believe I'am losing to this idiot" to bashing Catholics while pretending to be "religious", their end is in sight.
Sarc's Libertarians may well become the next 2nd party after the dems pass away.
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
Sounds good to
August 8, 2007 - 18:52 ET by TruthMongerSounds good to me...
But I do think the dems still have a solid lock on the Islamic terrorist vote so it's not like they don't have ANY people of faith, you know...
And the Jewish vote. I
August 8, 2007 - 18:57 ET by vrwc13And the Jewish vote. I never have been able to understand this one.
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
that's the barbara
August 8, 2007 - 19:04 ET by TruthMongerthat's the barbara striesand/steven speilberg et al Jewish vote
understand now?
my orthodox Jewish friends don't vote Dem by a longshot
But look at the numbers on
August 8, 2007 - 19:11 ET by vrwc13But look at the numbers on the link. Averages from 2 to 1 to 4 to 1, dems to Republicans. babs and stevey carry that many with them?
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
Heh. They're not mine
August 9, 2007 - 02:50 ET by sarcasmoHeh. They're not mine anymore, I'm a big-R Republican these days. But the old large-L Libertarian me was still right when I made fun of ballot access laws. Dividing Fidel Castro's communist system into a tax-and-spend welfare-state half and a borrow-and-spend warfare-state half to make a 2 party state was my suggestion combined with a jab at the competition. I then suggested promptly instituting an exact Spanish translation of Florida's moronic and immoral ballot laws for the "2" new parties in order to argue for an end to the USA's socialist embargo policy despite 0 actual change from communism unless you believe a duopoly's different from a monopoly, which you won't if you've fought one. That old Miami Herald article I wrote was right, is right, and will remain right until we change the morally-challenged law. My party registration change didn't change anything about immoral ballot restrictions.
This means that the new big-R Republican me still supports reform in ballot access laws, because the new me and the old me both have no fear whatsoever of competition in the idea-market. Both also see no need to support immoral laws, even if they suddenly "help" my current political party instead of hurting it. That's the burden of having moral principles; as a Republican I'll need to admit the Libertarians are right when they're morally right, and ballot access laws is one of those areas of small-l libertarian morality for me. Maybe it's because I've experienced the statist immorality of ballot law-abuses firsthand.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ave Maria bad, Vedic City OK?
August 8, 2007 - 18:24 ET by nkviking75I'm embarrassed to say that here in Iowa we have a city based on Transcendental Meditation known as Vedic City. It has gotten very little attention here in Iowa, let alone nationally--certainly not the cross examination that Monahan is getting.
It's not as if people are rounded up and herded into Ave Maria like the Nazis forced Jews into concentration camps. If Catholics want to have a community based on Catholic values, let them. People who don't want to live that kind of lifestyle can live elsewhere. Among our freedoms in the Bill of Rights is freedom of association.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Vedic City, ha. How about a whole state?
August 8, 2007 - 19:12 ET by vrwc13How about a whole state? Surprised the msm hasn't jumped on this "vast right wing conspiracy" plot.
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
It seems to me
August 8, 2007 - 19:45 ET by mjgIt seems to me that the media is so biased and hates Catholics. Evrytime I turn around they do nothing but bash us. I received a news letter 2 years ago when Monaghan had planned to do this . As a Catholic, I wouldn't mind living in Ave Maria. It sounds like the town where I would be most comfortable with my Church, religion and the way I was raised. I wish some of the LEFT media would stop picking on us.
Thou shalt not covet...10th
August 9, 2007 - 07:53 ET by Senior ChiefThou shalt not covet...10th commandment states. The democracks are not capable to organize and make a village such as a Ave Maria, therefore to trash them out is the way to make evil out of them. Democracks are a bunch of jealous and coveteous group of people. Those which are good, they'll find a way to demolish it...
Community
August 9, 2007 - 09:51 ET by cvgbuckeyemjg:
I am a Christian but not a Catholic. You and I know that in time we Christians will have our own community, and the others will have theirs as well. I think that you and I will be eternally happy in ours but I cannot speak for the others (although I really could).
The Democrat party has been
August 8, 2007 - 18:25 ET by TEThe Democrat party has been described as a pagan, atheist, Marxist, leftist, tree hugging, earth worshipping, race baiting, feminist, fundamentalist homosexual religious cult. What are the chances that Bashir will declare, on camera, to the next Democrat to whom he speaks that "the Democrat party has been described as a pagan, atheist, Marxist, leftist, tree hugging, earth worshipping, race baiting, feminist, fundamentalist homosexual religious cult"?
"Monaghan, the founder of
August 8, 2007 - 18:28 ET by vrwc13"Monaghan, the founder of Dominos Pizza, went on to challenge the media generated concept that opposing abortion and promoting traditional values makes one strange. "Maybe you're odd," he shot back at the ABC journalist."
Nope, got to disagree with pizza man here, we are the "odd" ones, aliens in fact. The Bible says so. Must be true.
Home is where the heart is, so I am already living in heaven!
Strange, how the MSM feels
August 8, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Chris NormanStrange, how the MSM feels they can first insult, then ignore the protests of, certain "unprotected" groups of people for which they hold utter contempt.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
}}---> Omega Man
August 8, 2007 - 18:54 ET by Cool ArrowAt the end of this movie, one of us is left sitting in his cell, incarcerated for social deviancy because the new inhabitants of the planet have different norms.
CA, Now that you mention
August 8, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Chris NormanCA,
Now that you mention it, sometimes, especially with the media declaring the end of any disageement on global warming, I do get the eerie feeling we're the in an episode The Twilight Zone - or a "Brave New World".
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I live in Southwest
August 8, 2007 - 20:11 ET by msh1973I live in Southwest Florida, for the entire story here is link from the local paper.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/21/ave_maria_open_public/
The 1st Amendment
August 8, 2007 - 20:56 ET by WingletDriverThe 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .
Ave Maria is a free exercise of religion. Nobody is required to live there. Furthermore, Ave Maria residents have the right to peaceably assemble. The ACLU seems to miss this part of the 1st Amendment quite often. Will they go after religious orders like convents and monasteries next?
What is ridiculous (and shows just how stupid Bashir is) about his line of questions is the assumption that abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and pornography are preferable to people freely exercising their religion and assembling with others who are like-minded. And that there is something in the penumbra and emanations of the Constitution that guarantees these as rights more sacred than those specifically enumerated.
What happened to tolerance of diversity?
August 8, 2007 - 20:57 ET by Alfred J. LemireMedia leftists are understandably worked up over restrictions on liberties they
advocate and most accept. They champion “diversity,” but, as this instance
demonstrates, incoherently yowl when diversity happens. People who likely have
criticized others for not accepting “difference” now demonstrate a willingness
to oppose precisely that quality in American society. Assuming no abortions are
performed in the planned community, the desired service will be available
somewhere else nearby in Florida. Ditto with any other presumed projected
liberty restriction. And the choice of hostile characterization lies athwart
any notion that “objective” journalism was on display.
America has a long history of Utopian communities. Transcendentalism led to Brook Farm
and Fruitlands in Massachusetts. Religion spurred the Oneida Colony in
Massachusetts; others have sought Utopia in socialist and hippy communities
with zero religious impulse. One arguably can include Amish, Hutterite, Shaker,
and Orthodox Jewish communities, though most of those represented and represent
more a desire for separation from society than for some novel Utopia inherently
criticizing contemporary dystopias. I recall secular liberals, or liberal
secularists, trying to crush out of existence the Kiryas Joel community in New
York State, organized according to Jewish law. One may live there or not; some
liberals would rather that no one have that choice. Meanwhile, others can find
Utopia elsewhere, at the end of the world, which is somewhere in Queens in New
York City.
Once upon a time very long ago, when society did not organize according to liberals’
wants and desires, liberals, a/k/a progressives, clucked approvingly over
efforts to create separate communities, safer and more peaceful, perhaps providing
examples for the rest of society to emulate. I don’t know whether anyone has
hurled the pejorative description, “religious fanatic,” at Tom Monaghan, who
seeks to organize a community based on principles other than those suited to
the desires of people on the left.
Yet, as one can discover with a second’s reflection, the worst fanatics of the last
century were emphatically irreligious, e.g., Joseph Stalin, Mao Tze-tung, Adolf
Hitler, to name only a few, and their millions of followers and friends, in
their countries and around the world. One needn’t go far on the Internet or
contemporary society to find people irrationally pressing issue positions with
the blindness and intolerance leftists ascribe to the “religious fanatics,” but
without the limitations on thought or action that religions impose on
believers, or should, were believers not free to reject the strictures of their
religions regarding moral behavior, which so many have done, through the
centuries.
Mr. Monaghan’s planned community has little chance of success and it will face
continuing efforts to destroy it. The folks who gather to protest the good,
whether at the GOP convention in New York City or international, “globalist”
meetings in Seattle, will surely discover protesting a community in Florida,
especially in winter, has its appeal. Expect protests there some January or
February.
Great Idea
August 8, 2007 - 21:03 ET by takingmyconstitutionalIf Monaghan wants to take the money he made selling artery-clogging pizza and use it to create a community for people who prefer to live in the Middle Ages, more power to him. In fact, there are a lot of fundamentalist Protestants out there who would be well advised to do something similar. Rather than trying to impose their particular values on the rest of us, why not buy an island, set up a gated community or build a whole town where they can deny evolution, pray in school, and put their manger scenes wherever they want? They'll be happier and so will those of us who think they should mind their own business.
Evolution
August 8, 2007 - 21:33 ET by ConservativeRexTaking,
Please provide one scintilla of evidence for evolution, I'll put the coffee on while I wait.
ConservativeRex, I was
August 8, 2007 - 21:45 ET by msh1973ConservativeRex,
I was drinking coffee at the time I read your response to Taking, and I almost spit it out on the keyboard! If I could see you I would give you a high five...funny and to the point!
Conservative, without religion
August 8, 2007 - 22:04 ET by HeikiCR,
I'm not scientifically qualified to comment on whether or not evolution, which is only a theory, not tested scientific fact has scintillas of evidence that intontrovertibly prove it to be true, but speaking only for myself, it's a lot more sensible a proposition scientifically than to presume that the Earth and cosmos were miraculously created 6,000 years ago, or that a great flood covered the entire earth and a boat floated around with two of each of all land animals following a 40-day flood and then came to rest on Mt. Ararat. Simple math: for all land (including Mt. Everest) to be covered by flood waters worldwide in a 40-day span, it would require rainfall at the approximate rate of 11 feet per HOUR. That's not rain, that's hydro-mining, and would scrub every last scrap of soil from the bedrock of the continents and sweep it into the ocean basins, killing off all marine life.
On a separate note, commenting on something I read earlier in the thread about the Libertarian party replacing the Democrat party as the second major party, as a Republican, I fear more about the GOP becoming numerically irrelevant vis a vis the dems. How to go about keeping the Republican party viable is the question of the day. America is in fact becoming less religious as a nation, and gnashing teeth about moral decay isn't going to endear large swaths of the voting public, including people who agree with most conservative goals, like smaller government, personal responsibility and the preservation of the nuclear familiy.
Let me see if I can make
August 8, 2007 - 22:42 ET by RESTLESS 1Let me see if I can make the story of Noah more palatable to you. You have to understand that in those days, algore was not around to tell them of their evil, carbon creating ways. Also, they were alot like us in that they liked to buy the best transportation they could afford. So, you see, you had camels and mules and the like to transport poeple around, and the ones who could afford it had bigger camels and such (SUV's of their day). The truly rich would have speedy horses to race around. Obviously, the more these horses ran, the more CO2 they produced.
Also, many people had to cook outside on an open flame, putting still more CO2 into the atmosphere. Then, of course, you had those damn greeks and their olympic games, forcing them to excercise, which led them to eating more, which led to more cooking outside, which led to more and more CO2.
Anyway, without algore to show them the light on global warming, the climate changed over a 40 day period so that as it was raining, it was also getting unbearably hot, thus the polar caps were melting as well. This is how the water levels rose so much in so little time.
I hope this explanation helps. <sarc off>
Heiki, Scientific
August 9, 2007 - 04:51 ET by hydrodynDMHeiki,
Scientific theories are not capable of being "proven" true.
While dismissing religious belief in favor of "sensible" scientific ideas, you show that you don't understand what science is.
Good luck with that.
ConservativeRex, So, the
August 9, 2007 - 04:46 ET by hydrodynDMConservativeRex,
So, the thousands of people around the world in the scientific community who work with evolutionary theory as part of their profession are all just delusional morons... right?
I'm asking, because is seems strange to me that so many people, from so many backgrounds with so much time spend in school and learning and thinking about what science is and doing research would all adhere so strenuously to a theory that you dismiss as ... well, lacking in "evidence".
Maybe you can write up a memo for them. You know, send it out so they can understand the stupidity of their life's works. Explain to them how wasted their efforts have been working with a theory that, according to you, has absolutely no evidence behind it.
I think they would appreciate it.
While your at it, explain to them how there is no evidence for "Big Bang" theory or most of cosmology.
}}---> Point taken hydro
August 9, 2007 - 05:12 ET by Cool ArrowAnd maybe these students of evolution could lay out the remarkable advances in science derived from the theory of evolution.
I'm sure you can cite many right off of the top of your head.
Horse and dog breeding don't count.
Cool Arrow, Well, I'll
August 9, 2007 - 11:59 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
Well, I'll first point out that you didn't address the point of my post, but that aside...
The merit of a scientific theory isn't gauged by the number of technological advances derived from it. That's something that's relevant to engineering fields.
By your argument (assuming you mean to suggest that evolution is worthless), Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is crap since off hand, I can't come up with a laundry list of technology that's been derived from it. Can you?
That's funny, hydro....
August 9, 2007 - 12:10 ET by RJFunny that you demand Cool Arrow be required to address the "point of your post", hydro, when your own response to ConservativeRex dodged HIS point.....
RJ, ZING! You are
August 9, 2007 - 12:48 ET by hydrodynDMRJ,
ZING! You are correct, sir. Apparently, my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
But actually, I didn't "demand" anything of Cool Arrow, I just pointed it out - as you did me - and I then went on to address the point he made - something you didn't bother to do.
Clearly, hydro
August 9, 2007 - 13:09 ET by RJ"didn't bother to do"
Clearly, hydro, the purpose of my post was not to address anyone's "points", just the amusing irony of your complaint..... ;^>
RJ, Fair enough. I have
August 9, 2007 - 13:12 ET by hydrodynDMRJ,
Fair enough.
I have no problem with folks pointing out my mental hick-ups.
}}---> My point hydro
August 10, 2007 - 14:17 ET by Cool ArrowThere's that post.
My point is that evolution is every bit as much your common everyday "scientific consensus" aimed at steering human behavior as Global Warming is.
Since you've had a few days to think about it, what are those advances evolutionary theory have brought?
Cool Arrow,
August 11, 2007 - 19:36 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
I would argue that there is a difference between evolutionary theory and anthropomorphic global warming theories (AGW). AGW theories are models built within a larger context of theories. Models that attempt to simulate the Earth's weather systems or surface environment make use of other scientific theories, like theories of fluid flow, theories of radiation, mechanics, etc... AGW models are just a particular application of these ideas (along with a bunch of assumptions and guesses about how to implement them).
By contrast, evolutionary theory is the main (and as far as I know, the only) naturalistic theory (ie no supernatural agents) available to scientists who study the origin and change of organic systems over time.
I think that the move to make AGW the "accepted" view in science is, at best, premature and worst, disingenuous. There is no compelling reason to accept AGW as the final word over non-anthropomorphic models at this stage.
But with evolution - what other (naturalistic) alternative is there? To frame the acceptance of evolution within science as a form of "consensus" doesn't make sense when you consider there is no other scientific model out there that vies with it. I guess you could call that consensus by default, but then, you could say the same thing for Relativity Theory or Quantum Mechanics. Do you consider the acceptance of these theories to be by "scientific consensus"?
And as for technological advances derived from evolution - I already addressed this in a previous post, but I'll restate my position. The amount of technology derived from a particular scientific theory isn't a relevant factor in assessing the theory's qualities. If you can find me a single instance of a scientist or philosopher who thinks it is, I'd like to see it. And either way, it certainly isn't a commonly held belief within the sciences. If you think this it is, you don't seems to understand what science is about. First, scientific theories have never been expected to produce technology. Some do, but many of the most widely hailed theories in science don't. Can you provide me with a list of technological achievements derived from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity? I can't. So I guess that must mean it's garbage, right?
Second, as I suggested to WingletDriver in another post on this page, evolutionary theory is still in an early developmental stage, much as astronomy was back in Kepler's time. In time, evolutionary theory might be advanced or replaced by a theory that allows it to move from being descriptive to predictive (as happened to astronomy when Newton came along) and, who knows, perhaps some technology might be derived from the entire endeavor. But even if it doesn't, so what? As I mentioned, scientific theories are judged in that way.
Edit: By "advances" I've assumed you mean technological advances. If you mean something else (like epistemological or something), let me know.
}}---> OK, hydro
August 12, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Cool Arrowevolutionary theory is still in an early developmental stage.
Sounds like a matter of faith to me. Whatever is plausible goes to bolster the claim.
But, just out of curiosity, maybe you can explain how, after supposedly many more millions of years than man, the male black widow dies after mating more often than not. Some do escape, don't they? Why has the more clever of the species not dominated by now?
I'll bet you have a "logical" explanation that fits in very well with your preconceived dogma.
When George Boole developed his corner of the mathmatical world, it was probably an attempt at deciphering how decisions could be made logically. But his application resulted in electronics and computer applications.
So, evolution theory is nothing more than a ton of scientists trying to disprove God. What they seek is more within the realm of philosophy than science.
This should be clear to you every time some rock chipper finds a new fossil. There is no application other than disproving God.
Have at it. He's seen it all before.
Cool Arrow, ""evolutionary
August 12, 2007 - 20:07 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
""evolutionary theory is still in an early developmental stage."
Sounds like a matter of faith to me. Whatever is plausible goes to bolster the claim. "
I made the observation that evolutionary theory is a work in progress and also suggested that its development might mirror that of astronomy. If you find this to be a stretch, I'd like you to explain to me why. You do know that all scientific theories developed over time, right? So why can't evolutionary theory be in an early state of its development?
Your black widow example is interesting but, so what? If your point is that evolutionary theory doesn't seem to account for all the empirical evidence that it hopes to, then ok. I think all people working with that theory would agree with that obvious assessment - that's why there a tons of folks working to improve or advance the theory. But while you're at it, why not point out the problems with theories like Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity or just about any other theory in science? They all have their flaws or fail to account for some phenomena that are suppose to fall within their range of explanation.
By your argument, scientists should have rejected electromagnetic theory in the late 1800's because it failed to even come close to explaining black body radiation. It took the development of Quantum Mechanics to get around that. Isn't it possible that an analogous development might occur in evolutionary theory?
"I'll bet you have a "logical" explanation that fits in very well with your preconceived dogma."
I don't work with evolutionary theory so I'm not in a position to address the kind of specific criticisms you bring up. That's why my comments about the theory have been of a general sort. And as I stated above, all theories in science have their shortcomings.
But I'm curious to know why you think I'm being dogmatic? Is it the part where I acknowledge that the theory has flaws or is the part where I suggest that the theory will change over time or even be replaced by another? Or is it that you think anyone who thinks it's worth the effort to approach the origin and development of organic systems over time from a scientific stand point (ie no supernatural agents) is being dogmatic. If that's the case, then ok.
"When George Boole developed his corner of the mathmatical world, it was probably an attempt at deciphering how decisions could be made logically. But his application resulted in electronics and computer applications."
OK. Not sure what your point is. I've been talking about scientific theories, not mathematical ones. There is a difference. But that aside, I already commented about the role of technology in scientific theories in my previous post. You didn't bother to address the specific points I brought up.
"So, evolution theory is nothing more than a ton of scientists trying to disprove God. What they seek is more within the realm of philosophy than science.
This should be clear to you every time some rock chipper finds a new fossil. There is no application other than disproving God. "
Science doesn't use supernatural agents in its models and theories. Since supernatural agents are non-empirical it's impossible to consistently derive unique consequences from them. However, not using supernatural agents (like God) isn't the same as rejecting their existence. Since science doesn't use or even talk about supernatural agents, how can science possible be used to reject the existence of God? It can't. Maybe you think it's more of a hidden agenda on the part of scientists?
Either way, if you want a more fully articulated version of my view on this, I would ask that you read something I posted in the forum section of this site (or, at the least, read through the conversation I had with mattm under that same post).
I know some people of faith like to dismiss scientists who work with evolutionary theory as a bunch of atheists (or, at best, agnostics), but it simply isn't true. Don't get me wrong, there are scientists who are atheists and agnostics (just as there in any other field of work), but to suggest that they all are is truly uninformed. It also reflects a lack of understanding about what science is.
As a final note, I'd like to point out that you failed to comment or address most of the comments and questions I put to you in my last post.
Back again, douchebag?
August 8, 2007 - 22:12 ET by fitzfongBack again, douchebag? You and the rest of your pinko-atheist creep trolls should follow suit and form your own little "community". That way, you can stew together in your pathetic bitterness, eating your tasteless tofu and wheatgrass and closing yourselves off to any hint of that scary organized Christianity. That way, you can stop pretending that anyone is minding your business and you can stay the hell out of ours. And get something straight, jackass...no one works harder at "trying to impose their particular values" on others than you bedwetting, terrorist enabling lefty scum. And here's a suggestion: form your little club on a leper colony.
So much for civility
August 8, 2007 - 22:17 ET by HeikiFitz,
All I can say is, wow. I am a conservative in nearly every other area than sharing Christian belief, and I get flamed like this? If that bit of nastiness had been posted by some of the liberals that visit this site (think Six String Spiff, Balboa and Leon), they would be banned.
May God bless you and heal your heart of the hatred that apparently lives there.
I don't know where you get
August 8, 2007 - 22:23 ET by fitzfongI don't know where you get the idea I was "flaming" you.
Heiki
August 8, 2007 - 22:35 ET by botgsometimes you need to put your thumb on the screen and scroll up to see which post is in answer to which, Fitz was answering takin-a-dump. Also sixstring spiff is not a lib
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Thanks botg
August 8, 2007 - 22:50 ET by HeikiThanks for clearing that up. I'm still new at this blog-posting thing and am making some rookie mistakes. Thanks everyone, for your patience. Also, my apologies to Six, if I've inadvertently offended.
You called Six a liberal.
August 8, 2007 - 22:57 ET by RESTLESS 1You called Six a liberal. I'm sure Six is offended. I think Six if forgiving as well, so fret not.
Heiki
August 9, 2007 - 08:28 ET by Six String SpiffSPIFF A LIBERAL?!
You don't know me very well. We need to talk :-)
Aligning me with the likes of LEON?! I don't think so.
In fact, I share you exact sentiment you posted above. I also hold very close all things Conservative. Except the Christian part. But I do not hate them at all.
Liberal... bah! Many people here have called me an extremist for the Conservatives.
The American Revolution Continued
Possible "Oops"
August 8, 2007 - 22:33 ET by HeikiPerhaps you were referring to someone else. If so, I retract my previous post. Yours was some pretty vitriolic commentary, though. Relax, buddy. I'm (mostly) on your side.
Perfectly relaxed, Heiki.
August 8, 2007 - 22:50 ET by fitzfongPerfectly relaxed, Heiki. You weren't the subject of my original comment, but I think you've figured that out.
You lefties really hate that
August 8, 2007 - 23:14 ET by robert108You lefties really hate that "Freedom of Religion" thing, don't you?
Those horrible Middle Ages!
August 9, 2007 - 07:19 ET by bulbasaurThere are quite a few medieval scholars who would point out that the Middle Ages were not as dark as you insinuate they were.
Indeed, were a time traveller from the Middle Ages to arrive in the 20th century to witness the terrible consequences of Enlightenment liberalism such as atheist totalitarianism, the destruction of the family, suicide, alienation, and especially the trash that poses as art, he would return to his benighted times frantically warning others of the coming epoch of barbarism.
You need to Re-take your constitutional
August 9, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Six String SpiffDenying evolution, Praying in School (If somebody wants to), and manger scenes are not against the contitution if my memory serves correct. If you are so worked up about these things, you have quite a bit of free time on your hands. Up here in MA, there are quite a few people who pray AT MY OFFICE during non-buisiness hours in a single room were they don't bother anyone. I am in no way a Bible thumper. Just ask VRWC and Truthmonger :-)
If somebody wants to deny evolution, that is their perogative. Why somebody's opinion on that subject obviously irritates you, is beyond me. You sound very snobby. I am a believer of evolution, but you don't see me running around getting all pissy that somebody else thinks we were created.
TOLERANCE Where did it go?
The American Revolution Continued
Is anyone forced to live
August 8, 2007 - 23:12 ET by robert108Is anyone forced to live there? Can the Iranians freely leave Iran? There is no valid comparison. This is simply another leftie hitpiece from the leftie MSM, which hates America.
Iranians are not free
August 9, 2007 - 09:10 ET by mjgIranians are not free to leave their country. I am sick of the comparison between Ave Maria and a country whose religion rules it. Did anyone in the leftist media, ask what has happened to the Iranian Americna scholars who are now in prison in Iran on trumped up charges? Unlike Iran, Ave Maria is a free place anyone can come and go as they please. I wish the ACLU would stop trying to find wrong where there is none.
Lying Liberal Hypocrisy in the MSM again....
August 9, 2007 - 00:18 ET by atlasragingOnce again we are subjected to news interviews where members of the MSM are subjecting citizens to their warped view of America and the Constitution with an incorrect interpretation of clear intent and an implication that the ACLU knows the real "intent" of the founding fathers. The time has come to start boycotting CBS, ABC, NBC, and NPR and their advertisers. They do it to anything percieved as conservative, christian, or Republican; its time to do it to them. If its union, I don't buy it; if its Ford, I don't buy it.
Thanks for confirming a sour view of the social left
August 9, 2007 - 01:39 ET by Alfred J. LemireIt was both encouraging and disheartening to see TakingMyConstitutional prove my
point. Encouraging to have my sour view of many on the social and nonreligious left confirmed,
discouraging because so many have self-images so far from reality. I am not a
“fundamentalist Protestant,” but have to note the comment that, “[r]ather than
trying to impose their particular values on the rest of us,” why not, in
effect, isolate them from society, which will make “those of us who think they
should mind their own business” “happier”?
Why not put into isolation chambers those who want blacks get better educations, or
gays live together in peace, and government schools cut out proselytizing--the left
doesn’t like questioning of evolution, but the right’s not keen about
six-year-olds getting happy talk propaganda on King and King (gotta get to
those minds when they’re young)? Why not get everyone who has a cause, everyone
who objects to anything, like somebody’s banging on an auto’s horn repeatedly
at 2 in the morning, why not have all of us, in effect, in some isolation ward
or another? Bet TakingMyConstitutional has a cause and belief or two that
offend others, as the social goals and beliefs of “fundamentalists Protestants”
apparently disturb him.
Communities trying to live within and according to restrictions have more value and
promise, in my judgment, than those wishing for no limits, no restrictions, or,
as a bumper sticker I saw a few decades ago put it, “If it feels good, do it.”
Raping little girls makes some people feel good. Stealing newspapers from racks
and cheating on tests, why, what’s wrong with that? And so one can go on with a
long list of sinless activity and crimes to be ignored. I’m curious enough to
discover whether Ave Maria can work. If it can, why, and if it cannot, why not?
Why not tolerate an experiment? Why must every community follow the rules of San
Francisco and Las Vegas? Why do MSM types--why read their newspapers or listen
to their TV programs?—tip their hands with challenging questions for
conservatives, who are far from monolithic, as comments on this page demonstrate,
while offering only admiring glances and loving comments to liberals? You got
it right, TE!
I think the idea of this
August 9, 2007 - 03:04 ET by sarcasmoI think the idea of this community is good for the exact same reason the idea of a very-gay-tolerant Key West is also a good thing for Florida. We're much more likely to get along if we live close to people we like. Both communities prove (in ways that tend to deliciously-upset the other political side) a "one size fits all" approach isn't always the right thing to do, socially or politically.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul: A good start
August 9, 2007 - 05:42 ET by HeikiSarc,
I bookmarked RP's page. This is the real deal. Minimum governmental interference/influence and maximum consumer choice and the attendant competition (and attendant net benefits to all) therefrom derived. Thanks much.
Wow, thanks! The rally's
August 9, 2007 - 06:16 ET by sarcasmoWow, thanks! The rally's not official at all, but 1578 surprisingly-good-looking people plus me bought ourselves an ad in Iowa yesterday. There's a huge quantity of Ron Paul info on various sites, and more pop up every day. I hope to try to find positive things today about all of the non-RINO Republican candidates, since I figure most of Iowa's made up its mind. I'll start with Mike Huckabee, I think he sounded pretty sensible yesterday about the LTV-pension dude, even though he's not as radical as I am.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Reliance on consensus
August 9, 2007 - 07:05 ET by WingletDriverHydro,
Reliance on consensus, which is what you advocate, is dangerous and unscientific. It is the driver behind global warming hysteria and evolution group think.
Spontaneous generation used to be a scientific law--it was so well established and widely believed. It just happened to be wrong.
Every scientist believed and was taught that the atom was like a miniature solar system despite anomalies in the data. No matter, everyone believed it, especially the really smart people; that is until quantum mechanics.
Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler are giants in physics and astronomy precisely because they didn't believe what the smart people were teaching and they proved their case. For evolutionists, and they themselves admit this, there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence, which would end debate fairly quickly. That doesn't stop textbook writers from claiming the opposite or that evolution is a fact.
btw. I am not against the notion of evoltion. But to claim it is something it is not and to resort to the argument that "all these smart people believe it so it must be true" are anti-scientific.
I'm also not a "Young Earth" advocate. Those "proofs" just leave me shaking my head. My point is that there is a lot of people in between evolution and the 6,000-10,000 year-old universe theories. The Bible was meant to reveal the mystery of God to us; not to be cited as a definitive scientific text. Conversely, science is meant to be a rational exercise, not one of group think.
WingletDriver, Thanks for
August 9, 2007 - 12:41 ET by hydrodynDMWingletDriver,
Thanks for the thoughtful response, but I'm not advocating any form of 'science or truth by consensus'.
My point is that if evolutionary theory is so obviously useless, unscientific and/or flawed that people with no scientific background can see it, how is it that so many (supposedly smart) people from so many different countries and so many different backgrounds who have dedicated themselves to science have all been duped by it?
You say "For evolutionists, and they themselves admit this, there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence, which would end debate fairly quickly." So, all of those scientists are delusional? They all know that the theory they are working on is crap but are just turning a blind eye to it?
I think the problem here stems from a lack of understanding about how science works. Is evolutionary theory flawed? Yes. But then so are most other scientific theories in one way or another. That isn't much of a criticism, in and of itself. The suggestion seems to be that it is fundamentally flawed in some way. That I don't know about - I don't work in an area of science that used evolutionary theory. But, as far as I know, it is currently the best empirical theory that they have to work with. Over time, it might be improved or maybe even replaced - who knows. But since science doesn't aim to use only "proven theories" (there is no such thing) any text book that suggests the evolutionary theory is fact is just plain wrong. I think the vast majority of scientists would agree with that.
By the way, the examples you cite all have something in common - those advances in science were all made by scientists, not by those who simply rejected the current (flawed) theory on theological or epistemological grounds. That's what I see a lot of here.
If you want to advance a better (empirical) theory than evolution - have at it. But chances are, you'd have to spent the years to become a scientist to get to the point were you could do that.
And as a last note, every grad student knows that the best way to gain recognition in their field of study is to come up with strong evidence that some currently accepted and widely used theory or model is flawed or incompatible with empirical evidence in a way that necessitates its rejection or a major modification. It's the kind of thing that wins you a Nobel Prize. If evolution is so obviously flawed, how is it that no grad student has come along to point this out?
"My point is that if
August 9, 2007 - 17:26 ET by WingletDriver"My point is that if evolutionary theory is so obviously useless,
unscientific and/or flawed that people with no scientific background
can see it, how is it that so many (supposedly smart) people from so
many different countries and so many different backgrounds who have
dedicated themselves to science have all been duped by it?"
Why were so many duped by a geocentric universe or spontaneous generation? Being smart doesn't make you right. Being right makes you right. Demonstrating your theory through empirical observation and unique prediction makes your theory scientific. This is where evolution has come up wanting. This does not mean that it is wrong, per se; just not demonstrated
"By the way, the examples you cite all have something in common - those advances in science were all made by scientists. . . ." My point wasn't whether they were scientists or not (in fact many of their methods today would be considered unscientific). The point is these giants demonstrated their theories to be superior to the ones they replaced. They utilized empirical evidence to come up with predictive theories that ran counter what was being taught in the text books of their time. Theories that were taught by really smart people like the ones you idolize today. Those smart people were wrong then; so I'll hold out the possibility that a lot of smart people are wrong today. Again, you appeal to consensus, not science.
btw. Evolutionary theory is, at least so far, non-empirical. It is neither directly observed nor observed in fossil history. It's appeal is in its elegance.
"If evolution is so obviously flawed, how is it that no grad student has come along to point this out."
I'm not sure what the relevence of this question is (it really is a non sequitur). However, how do you non-empirically refute a non-empirical theory? It very well may be a case of the emperor having no clothes. But the onus of proof (I will accept probabalistic proof) is on the scientist, not the skeptic. In the end, all the evolutionists have done is demand your faith in their reason because they have very little to support their hypothesis. My response to them is still, "Show me the empirical data; show me how this theory is predictive; show me how it is falsifiable. In other words, show me that it is scientific."