There are a group of people with a radical ideology that want to destroy our liberty and enslave our minds. This group of people are not the Discovery Institute to my knowledge. The problem is Jihadis not everyone that believes in G-d.
Jeffrey P. Schloss, a former Senior Fellow at the anti-evolution Discovery Institute, has raised the ire of his ex-associates by breaking from the ID/creationist line: The evolution of Jeffrey P. Schloss.
In August 2003, Jeffrey Schloss left the Discovery Institute.
What happened?
In 2005, Schloss spoke out in a public interview published in the Sacramento Bee:
Then Schloss realized that unless people like him spoke up, the public would never get to hear more moderate ideas on the subject - such as the notion that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive; that scientists are not by definition godless nor religion advocates brainless; and that extremists on both sides have been responsible for fueling a feud that need not exist.
(Source: Sacramento Bee “Some find middle ground in science-theology clash” By Edie Lau – Published 2:15 am PDT Monday, October 3, 2005.)
Why did Schloss join the Discovery Institute?
Like Townes, Schloss believes science can contribute something to the question of whether the nature of the universe is accidental or purposeful. That’s why the Westmont College biology professor was an early supporter of the Discovery Institute, which was founded in 1990.
Why did he decide to ‘part ways’?
“Is there a way we can formalize (that understanding) and make it scientifically rigorous rather than intuitive?” Schloss said. “I think that’s a fully legitimate question.” Schloss said that while he supports science applying its tools to the question, he disagrees strongly with the institute’s stance against evolution. “I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith,” Schloss said.
Schloss’ review of Ben Stein’s film is a must-read, especially the sections that explore the question, “Did Darwin lead to Hitler?”
Notice Charles doesn’t go after the Left anymore or Jihadists. He hates Christians now.
Comment by trajan75 — August 17, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Now that all those pesky Christians have been escorted to the door, Zombie and Killgore (not Kilgore, btw - but KILL-GORE) can fantasize all they want about killing lots of babies. After all, life does not begin until they, in their omniscient opinion, say it does. It’s like watching a bunch of modern day Nazi’s having a catered banquet sitting around discussing whether blacks, gypsies and Jews have souls.
Comment by Kurt Vonnegut IV — August 17, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Kurt do you have any examples?
Comment by avideditor — August 17, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Avideditor:
#72 zombie 8/17/08 4:16:01 pm reply quote 1
re: #62 Killgore Trout
An interesting (but long) read…..
When Does Human Life Begin?
Pretty good overview of the different “When does life begin?” options.
Personally, I vote for “viability” — the age at which a fetus could conceivably survive outside the uterus. I.e. in the 6.5 - 7 month range.
Catholics and some pro-life folks vote for “at the moment of conception.”
Pro-”choice” activists vote for “at the moment of birth.”
I’m somewhere in the middle.
———————————-
Zombie needs to explain that to the mother of identical twins, where the egg immediately divided moments after impregnation. I have the feeling z’s some sort of lab assistant in some modern day Dr. Goebel’s lab.
btw: Charles Jonestown is going around blocking the I.P.’s of banned posters. I suspect he’s afraid of something. Here’s some options:
http://compnetworking.about.com/od/proxyserversandlists/tp/anonymousproxy.htm
Comment by Kurt Vonnegut IV — August 17, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Kurt,
Welcome to here. I will now give you a hat tip and post on the blocking of IP’s.
Comment by trajan75 — August 17, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
I am not sure Kurt. It seems you explanation doesn’t draw the line between the morning after pill an the type of Abortion that is really infanticide that Obama supports. Maybe it is my religious world view. But I think there is a big difference between the morning after pill and the killing of a baby.
Comment by avideditor — August 17, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
well I respect your right to believe what you do and post what you want here. I was just giving my 2 cents.
Comment by avideditor — August 17, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Kurt,
You can post here all U want. Killgore will not be here to have U banned. This is free debate.
Comment by trajan75 — August 17, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
A couple of thoughts about this topic.
Panda’s thumb is a pro-evolution web site so don’t expect any kind of unbiased opinion there.
From the Jeffrey Schloss article:
But not so fast with a plea for moderation. If it is important to avoid the fallacy of false extremes, it is also important to avoid the fallacy of the supposedly golden median. Maybe we need, as lifetime Darwin critic Tom Bethell claims in his movie review, to “reject what might be called the diplomatic option, [which] seeks to keep everyone happy” by seeing reconcilable truths on both sides. For in so doing “it puts diplomacy before truth.
“Belief in God doe not preclude belief in evolution” or “the Pope says…..”
Is just that, putting diplomacy before truth.
Now even without argument, it is clear by inspection that atheism must entail evolution: for anyone who rejects the possibility of an intelligence behind the cosmos, there is no viable alternative to some sort of naturalistic evolutionary account of origins.
Perhaps that is why the extreme reaction to those who oppose evolution, for the atheist it is an attack on their religion and it’s the core of their religion. This could very well explain the claims like “if you deny Darwinism, you deny science and you are anti-science”.
This is actually not just a minor point, because evolutionary theory doesn’t propose an explanation for life’s origin, nor do we even have an agreed upon theory from any scientific field outside of evolution.
This claim is made time and time again and its true that Darwinian evolution does not address the origins of life, it only attempts to explain how existing species turned into other species. But the theory of evolution as taught in American schools does mention spontaneous generation and thus lays the foundation for Darwinian evolution, without that foundation it has nothing to stand on.
Ironically over 100 years ago Louis Pasteur also clearly understood that Darwinian evolution required spontaneous generation for the theory to be plausible, that’s why he spent a lot of time disproving spontaneous generation and thus proclaiming Darwinian evolution to be false.
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Darwinisn is a racist Ideology. How did species get here, I have no clue. God did it. How and when is beyond my comprhension. I just live my life and enjoy.
Comment by trajan75 — August 18, 2008 @ 10:08 am
The House of Representatives in a December 2006 report found the (taxpayer funded) Smithsonian Institute top officials permit harassment of a Darwinian evolution skeptic.
What I found most disturbing in the report is once Dr Sternberg allowed the ID paper to be published he was attacked on purely religious and political grounds and nothing else. He was asked what religion he was and his co-workers were all questioned about his religion, it was also noted in e-mails from top officials that had they known he was anti-evolution and involved with creationist, they would not have allowed him in the door.
Dr. Sternberg’s OSC complaint describes efforts to discover or disparage his supposed religious and political beliefs, and the OSC investigation concluded that there was “a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.” The emails reviewed by subcommittee staff corroborate this finding. In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know “if Dr. Sternberg was religious.”56 Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg “was a Republican.”
http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
A month or so ago Charles was on the Dennis Prager show, now I suppose Charles was unaware that Dennis had Michael Behe (who LGF proclaims a fraud ) on his program about a year prior, and as anyone could guess Dennis is a pro-ID (anti-science) guy and a supporter of Behe.
With all this guilt by association going on, one is left to wonder why LGF would be on a pro-ID guys radio show?
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Great point Bar
Comment by avideditor — August 18, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
One thing I just remembered.
It’s the policy of LGF not to post comments on any other blog, so Charles will request that the minions ride to his defense, he did it with Pandas thumb when they mentioned LGF and Sharm showed up, to the discredit of LGF.
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Remember the good old days when LGF went after Jihadis instead of people that believe in G-d. I wonder what happened to Charles.
Comment by avideditor — August 18, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
avideditor
Zombie proposed purging the embarrassing (read Christian) elements to attract “moderate moonbats” in the April 21 to April 25 threads. Look at who had the audacity to respond to her. Write their names down. Then look at who got banned in the subsequent months. Notice anything?
Now either his testicular fortitude level is lower than a dinosaurs footprint or he agrees with her.
Comment by Kurt Vonnegut IV — August 18, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Kurt Vonnegut IV
I can vouch for that, I was there.
Although I was banned for other reasons.
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Re: the zombie anti-Christian comment back in April
I remember either Ma sands or Mama winger asking Charles if that was the goal of LGF.
Charles response was proclaiming only he had the power to ban people at LGF, he didn’t deny it, he just stated that zombie didn’t have the power to enact such changes.
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Bar:
Here’s what Charles Jonestown said back then:
“Yes, you’re reading something wrong … the only person who can “draw a line” like that is me, and I have no intention of doing that, or of “purging” anyone. Sheesh.”
He was responding to Mandy Manners who said:
“Well, I reckon the line has been drawn. Christians are not wanted. Or, am I reading something wrong?”
Mandy is the sole survivor of the purge.
Comment by Kurt Vonnegut IV — August 18, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Kurt Vonnegut IV
Very nice, thank you.
I see that my recollection was somewhat close but not close enough, I see he did deny he would not that.
Who are you going to believe him or your lying eyes?
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
I see he did deny he would not that.
I mean, he denied he would purge anyone (group).
Comment by bar — August 18, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
We need to get more readers and make this site better then LGF. It can be like it was back in the old days before the anti-religious purge. I am heading out to NYC for 2 weeks. Cya all when I get back.
Comment by avideditor — August 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
I got a lot of ideas for this site that have nothing to do with Charles Johnson and LGF.
Comment by savagenation — August 19, 2008 @ 10:54 am