09 Jan 12
Perhaps one of the best-known advocates of the “Christian nation” theory in the U.S. is Texan author and evangelist David Barton. Among his recent claims are that the Founding Fathers had the entire debate over creation and evolution and that the they explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541718
Any thoughts on Barton's arguments?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFImpossible. Charles Darwin didn't publish Origin of the Species until 1859. Most if not all of the founding fathers were dead by then!
Perhaps one of the best-known advocates of the “Christian nation” theory in the U.S. is Texan author and evangelist David Barton. Among his recent claims are that the Founding Fathers had the entire debate over creation and evolution and that the they explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541718
Any thoughts on Barton's arguments?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFWhat paragraph is that?
Perhaps one of the best-known advocates of the “Christian nation” theory in the U.S. is Texan author and evangelist David Barton. Among his recent claims are that the Founding Fathers had the entire debate over creation and evolution and that the they explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541718
Any thoughts on Barton's arguments?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe paragraph in the OP is mine.
What paragraph is that?
There is an article about "Religion in the U.S." at link to The Economist, as you will have seen.
Here is some more commentary on David Barton's ideology:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/gops-favorite-historian-founding-fathers-opposed-evolution
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4736/david_barton%3A_creationist_founding_fathers_settled_debate_over_evolution/
Here is Barton's blog: http://davidbartonblog.weebly.com/
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFI like this David Barton guy............some nice reading material.
The paragraph in the OP is mine.
There is an article about "Religion in the U.S." at link to The Economist, as you will have seen.
Here is some more commentary on David Barton's ideology:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/gops-favorite-historian-founding-fathers-opposed-evolution
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4736/david_ba ...[text shortened]... _settled_debate_over_evolution/
Here is Barton's blog: http://davidbartonblog.weebly.com/
10 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOkay, I understand now. You misunderstand what Barton was saying.
The paragraph in the OP is mine.
There is an article about "Religion in the U.S." at link to The Economist, as you will have seen.
Here is some more commentary on David Barton's ideology:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/gops-favorite-historian-founding-fathers-opposed-evolution
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4736/david_ba ...[text shortened]... _settled_debate_over_evolution/
Here is Barton's blog: http://davidbartonblog.weebly.com/
He was talking about the idea that Darwin popularized, which had
already existed. I believe I read Darwin's father already had a similiar
idea, which he got from someone else.
P.S. From the Wikipedia article on Charles Darwin
One day, Grant praised Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Darwin was astonished, but had recently read the similar ideas of his grandfather Erasmus and remained indifferent. Darwin was rather bored by Robert Jameson's natural history course which covered geology including the debate between Neptunism and Plutonism.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are missing the point. For a "historian" to claim - in 2011 - that people in the late 19th century "had already had the entire debate on creation and evolution", is nonsensical - and a kind of polemic that is not intended to further anyone's understanding of anything, but instead is tailor made for a certain mindset... all of which is most likely very lucrative for Barton.
Okay, I understand now. You misunderstand what Barton was saying.
He was talking about the idea that Darwin popularized, which had
already existed. I believe I read Darwin's father already had a similiar
idea, which he got from someone else.
P.S. From the Wikipedia article on Charles Darwin
One day, Grant praised Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Darw al history course which covered geology including the debate between Neptunism and Plutonism.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI see him as a man interested in uncovering the true history of this
You are missing the point. For a "historian" to claim - in 2011 - that people in the late 19th century "had already had the entire debate on creation and evolution", is nonsensical - and a kind of polemic that is not intended to further anyone's understanding of anything, but instead is tailor made for a certain mindset, and is most likely lucrative for him.
great nation, which has been rewritten by the naturalists and liberals.
Our founding fathers were very knowledgeable men and not the
backwood farmers as liberals like to make out. I believe it is possible
that they had already had the entire debate on creation and evolution
based on the information they had at the time. It is true it would
have not included Darwin's studies, but I don't think that was his
point. However, we should allow him to answer that question himself
rather than speculate on it.
10 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHis "point" is ahistorical and nonsensical. He is supposedly a "historian" talking in 2011 and he is also trying to link what he describes as "the entire debate on creation and evolution" [which purportedly took place in the 1700s] to present day America and to what ought to be taught in present day America. He is deliberately dodging the question of what was obviously lacking in "the information they had at the time" and declaring it be "the entire debate" on the topic regardless. It is utter, disingenuous nonsense designed to appeal to a certain credulous mindset that is gagging continuously and insatiably for something - anything - that shores up, or disguises the absurdity of, their ideology.
I believe it is possible that they had already had the entire debate on creation and evolution based on the information they had at the time. It is true it would have not included Darwin's studies, but I don't think that was his point.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFI bet it is okay when liberals utter disingenuous nonsense as long as it
His "point" is ahistorical and nonsensical. He is supposedly a "historian" talking in 2011 and he is also trying to link what he describes as "the entire debate on creation and evolution" [which purportedly took place in the 1700s] to present day America and to what ought to be taught in present day America. He is deliberately dodging the question of what was ob ...[text shortened]... something - anything - that shores up, or disguises the absurdity of, their ideology.
agrees with you. 😏
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsActually no, skeptics attack any who try to claim things that aren't true, or backed by evidence and/or reason.
I bet it is okay when liberals utter disingenuous nonsense as long as it
agrees with you. 😏
The fact is though that it isn't the liberals who are trying to rewrite history.
It's the Christian Evangelical Republican.... well you basically.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen and if I do, you can attempt to point it out, by all means. The kind of nonsense that Barton came out with, about "the entire debate on creation and evolution" happening back in the 18th century, ought to be an affront to every thinking person, regardless of whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
I bet it is okay when liberals utter disingenuous nonsense as long as it
agrees with you.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFI think he is a wonderful guy for doing what he is doing. 😏
When and if I do, you can attempt to point it out, by all means. The kind of nonsense that Barton came out with, about "the entire debate on creation and evolution" happening back in the 18th century, ought to be an affront to every thinking person, regardless of whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFIts an absolute joke that for over 50years the great debate of whether to teach the kids creationism or evolution in the class room is still going on.
Perhaps one of the best-known advocates of the “Christian nation” theory in the U.S. is Texan author and evangelist David Barton. Among his recent claims are that the Founding Fathers had the entire debate over creation and evolution and that the they explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541718
Any thoughts on Barton's arguments?
The joke is that we have false evolution in one corner and false religion in the other corner trying to to convince the other of their origin of life theories.
When we speak of creationism ......why is Christianity the flag bearer with its false doctrine and nonsensical teachings.
Creationism is certainly the way life came to manifest............but Christian creationism with its false Genesis theory leading the charge, only attracts ridicule amongst the people with its 6500 year old universe theory - and its one life theory - and its animal slaughtering - and its turn the man Jesus into God fabrication - and its get your sins cleansed by the church through atonement - and its burn in hell if you don't become a Christian etc.
False region can never be taught in school and either can false science.
This debate will go on for eternity until people become honest and reject false science and false religion.........and embrace true knowledge found in the Vedas.
*And that is the true Vedas - and not the Vedas you find online written by pseudo authors who speculate and fabricate.
Hinduism is not the Vedas...............and when the Supreme Personality of Godhead gave the Vedas to mankind - he did not give Hinduism.
The word Hindu does not exist in the Vedas.
Hinduism is a concoction of ideas and wrongly understood Vedic knowledge coming about by speculation and fabrication by unqualified persons.