Buchanan on Evolution

I think you're right. Seems to me that he's writing as a way to give a boost to Tom Bethell's new book. They're friends, and I imagine he wants to help sales over the holiday season.

For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found.

Lying for Jesus, example # 14,327.

Buchanan said:

In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze.

You'd think that Buchanan would have learned better, having been educated in Catholic schools and all.

That wasn't Darwin's thesis at all. Darwin's thesis was that life diversifies naturally. Darwin said nothing against a creator, and in fact gave credit to a creator for life in Origin of Species. Darwin's thesis was that each living thing has an ancestor.

If Buchanan can't get the simple facts right, why should anyone expect him to have anything else right?

I spent an instructive day reading this and other threads on the blog. ID and creationism never fail to amaze me - or to make me feel grateful for being relatively safe from their debilitating assaults on society, thanks to living in Europe. One thing always puzzles me, though: some of the movement's figureheads (not many, not Pat Buchanan, but some) appear to be bona fide academics, with authentic credentials. They cannot possibly believe the drivel they publish. What motivates them to do so?

Well, I believe that a lot of this is the Straussian/Neo-Con philosophy: There are "truths" which we intellectually elite know are false, but we must maintain that they are true to the unwashed masses to keep them in check. After all, if the unwashed masses did not have religion to control their behaviour, all hell would break loose.

KeithB wrote:

Well, I believe that a lot of this is the Straussian/Neo-Con philosophy: There are "truths" which we intellectually elite know are false, but we must maintain that they are true to the unwashed masses to keep them in check. After all, if the unwashed masses did not have religion to control their behaviour, all hell would break loose.

Perhaps, but you can't pin that on Buchanan. He's certainly not a Straussian or a neo-con.

He wasn't talking about Buchanan, but "bona fide academics." I do believe that Buchanan fully believes what he says.

I think Pat, has simply stated a position that puts the burden of proof back on the Darwinist. We Catholics have faith and history that support our claims, Darwinists have their theory but no proof to back up that theory. Pat, wants you to be intellectually honest and admit your conclusions are faith based, just like ours. I like this qoute from the article. "If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?"

Robert Sullivan wrote:

We Catholics have faith and history that support our claims, Darwinists have their theory but no proof to back up that theory.

Congratulations. That's the single dumbest thing anyone has said here in several days. I'm sure your parents must be proud.