“As a pre-Christian, I worshipped [sic] science.”

No one wanted you to. That was your choice, and it indicates the kind of person you are.

“Fallen together by a happy chain of accidents” - argument from personal incredulity: “I don’t believe it so it couldn’t have happened that way”; and a strawman: “I don’t understand it so I’ll restate it in a way that has nothing to do with real science but makes it sound ridiculous.”

And there’s no code or language in DNA, except that humans have assigned codes to parts of DNA to help study it; that’s the conscious mind picking and placing the symbols.

And are you under the impression that CSI has ever found a supernatural explanation for any of the crimes it investigates? Aren’t they all committed by humans?

So obviously “[t]he answer to designed or all-natural(?)” is humans.

In other words its perfectly okay for a corporate ceo to be unregulated ruining lives, the environment, spoiling the food chain and water and wreaking the economy and environment for self directed financial gain and profit no matter who gets hurt but those rules of unfettered self determination don’t apply to individuals when it comes to child rearing and that responsibility.

I can not reconcile their concern with a microscopic cellular unconscious molecular mass with their entire disregard for human life after it is born.

Nor can I reconcile their love of the death penalty and their shooting of doctors, and defenseless animals with the teachings of their messiah or their complete contempt and utter disregard of the poor, uneducated, hungry, sick and dying at home and abroad with their obsessive action and violent defense of a microscopic cellular mass.

Abortion is not a religious event for most and those to whom it is a religious issue should have more faith in their god and the way he directs our lives and the choices and roads he lays out before us…Life is a learning experience and I severely doubt that any of this would be here if we all didn’t have a lot to learn.

The sheer magnitude of the infinite variety of life on this earth as represented in the animals, trees, fish, insects, frogs, flowers, weather, culture, size and shape, color, grass, fields, mountains, streams, rivers, valleys, music, art and literature as well as the birds of the Galapagos Islands should certainly be a clue, and hint as to otherwise that their isn’t only one way for life or ourselves to evolve and certainly not one way for us to live our lives outside the guiding principle of love.

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home

And one less person born is equally one less chance for a Hitler, or a Hussein, or a Stalin, or a Jerry Falwell.

You don’t promote breeding like bunnies just because you’re afraid that if you don’t you’ll miss Beethoven.

China, for example. Doing a hell of a job there.

Perhaps Nancy hasn’t noticed world population is increasing, and resources are ultimately limited, as in finite.

I’d be perfectly happy to drop the whole issue of evolution vs creationism if the creationists would recognize that creationism is a myth, admit that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit and quit trying to get it taught in public school science classes in a pathetic attempt to insert their particular god into my child’s classroom, and quit telling me how I must live my life when it doesn’t affect them and is none of their bloody business.

Evolution is a scientific theory, but “Evolution vs creationism” argument is a philosophical argument. It is also bad philosophy: since it posits a “straw man” (dumb fundamentalists) to knock down, instead of recognizing that the “evolution” part of the argument is the philosophy of scientism/meterialism, not science per se.

So I would have to distrust his “history” of science too.

(Science posits a way that things work/ philosophy posits a why things are Indeed, the reason science flowered in the West is because western religions posited a rational God who created a logical world which runs according to his rules, one of which is that species evolve..).

A second mistake is saying that Darwinism can be applied to anthropology. Who has proven this?

For example: Most societies have managed to limit sexuality that results in reproduction, despite his claims that the sexual desire is “overwhelming” and must result in overpopulation.

Finally, the part about people overwhelming the earth suggests that the scientific theory of Darwin is being used (or rather, misued) by the author to impose on us the religion of global warming, including forced population control.

This misuse of scientific Darwinism is similar to those pseudoscientists who used Darwin’s theories to justify killing untermensch and sterilizing inferior races.

From your review, it sounds like the book is propaganda.

Try the Teaching company’s series on the history of science instead of this crap. You won’t get an agenda, just the facts.