Culture Intelligent Design News Science

What would ISIS, or a similar group, do with Neanderthal remains?

Spread the love

Further to: Darwin trolls: Meet a genuinely anti-science group… (The (Islamist) authors of the document also urged women to refrain from “exploring science”):

Here’s real anti-science, if anyone is interested: From Reuters:

Islamic State fighters have looted and bulldozed the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, the Iraqi government said, in their latest assault on some of the world’s greatest archaeological and cultural treasures.

A tribal source from the nearby city of Mosul told Reuters the radical Sunni Islamists, who dismiss Iraq’s pre-Islamic heritage as idolatrous, had pillaged the 3,000-year-old site on the banks of the Tigris River.

The assault against Nimrud came just a week after the release of a video showing Islamic State forces smashing museum statues and carvings in Mosul, the city they seized along with much of northern Iraq last June.

Most readers have probably never even heard of the destroyed Bamiyan Buddhas.

Darwin’s followers and new atheists in general probably won’t get it until fanatics destroy fossils and Darwin’s Sandwalk. Is that divine retribution? Kismet? Karma?

After this, you do not need a Fri Nite Frite.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

17 Replies to “What would ISIS, or a similar group, do with Neanderthal remains?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    That would seem to be one religion destroying the monuments of others. Just another example of how ruthless True Believers can be in promoting their own Absolute Truth. It has e’er been thus.

  2. 2
    goodusername says:

    Most readers have probably never even heard of the destroyed Bamiyan Buddhas.

    I would bet that most have. It was really huge news.

    Darwin’s followers and new atheists in general probably won’t get it until fanatics destroy fossils and Darwin’s Sandwalk.

    Huh? Won’t get what?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: podcast – Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Donald E. Johnson about his book, Programming of Life, which compares the workings of biology to a computer.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....g-of-life/

    Programming of Life – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

  4. 4
    Graham2 says:

    I think O’leary is so pleased to find some religious fanatics that are even more anti-science than herself.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    correction:

    I think O’leary is so pleased to find some religious fanatics that are even more anti-science than herself Darwinists.

    There all better!

    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings – Mar 22, 2014
    Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“
    ,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“
    http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/.....ng-beings/

    In fact, neo-Darwinists have a fairly long legal history, in the courts of America, of trying to suppress the free speech of anyone who opposes their worldview:

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

  6. 6
    daveS says:

    correction:

    I think O’leary is so pleased to find some religious fanatics that are even more anti-science than herself Darwinists.

    There all better!

    That’s not really much better.

  7. 7
    Graham2 says:

    ‘News’ just cant resist a science article with a title ending with the words ‘than expected’.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL, you have a point daveS,,, seeing the devastation left by atheistic regimes in the twentieth century, (and the continued negative impact of the naturalistic worldview in America), a fairly strong case could be made that Darwinism is actually a worse religion than ISIS.

    A few notes as to the religious foundation of Darwinism:

    Darwin’s degree was in Theology. Thus, not so surprisingly, his arguments in Origin were primarily Theological in nature, not scientific:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    And again, not so surprisingly, the conservative ‘scientific establishment’ of Darwin’s day reacted against his book whilst the liberal, and unscientific, clergy accepted it:

    “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species

    Here is an excellent lecture, based in part on Dr. Cornelius Hunter’s book, ‘Darwin’s God’, which exposes the theological core of Darwinism:

    The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    to this day, bad theology, not science, is integral to Darwinian theory (i.e. God would not have done it that way therefore Darwin,,,):

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:21-23
    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    Jeremy Camp – Jesus Saves
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JLC6FmRo

  9. 9
    anthropic says:

    Severesky 1 “That would seem to be one religion destroying the monuments of others. Just another example of how ruthless True Believers can be in promoting their own Absolute Truth. It has e’er been thus.”

    Do you truly believe this is absolutely true? How about materialism, do you truly believe that is absolutely true?

    Just checking… 😉

  10. 10
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    LOL, you have a point daveS,,, seeing the devastation left by atheistic regimes in the twentieth century, (and the continued negative impact of the naturalistic worldview in America), a fairly strong case could be made that Darwinism is actually a worse religion than ISIS.

    What I meant was your comment does not particularly flatter Ms. O’Leary. I don’t think she is actually pleased to read about the things ISIS is doing.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Well, I’m sorry I meant compared to ISIS not O’Leary.

    I really appreciate Ms. O’Leary work and certainly don’t see her as comparable to ISIS or Darwinists.

    Not even close!

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    There are no Darwin trolls here.

  13. 13
    sparc says:

    The holier-than-you may google “Beeldenstorm”, “Bildersturm” and “iconoclsm” before adding further comments.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....viet_Union

  15. 15
    Mark Frank says:

    I think Denyse’s paranoia about “Darwin trolls” has finally caused her to flip.  She seems to think that:

    1) We all might somehow have missed what has been front page news for the last day or two (and was similarly front page news when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas.)

    2)  Darwin’s followers are much the same thing as new atheists (Darwin’s followers and new atheists in general). I am not sure how you qualify to be a “Darwin follower” but presumably it is something to do with accepting that evolution is not guided.  New atheists are a tiny subset of this group. Many of them are theists and those that are atheists are mostly just common or garden atheists with no particular axe to grind.

    3) “Darwin’s followers” (or is it new atheists) do not “get it” that IS have done something really awful. I can assure you that the worldwide conspiracy of Darwinist tax-payer funded atheist liberal academics that give you such sleepless nights are equally upset about the actions of IS.

  16. 16
    aminetali says:

    that’s No Islamic State that’s a Terrorist mad people state oki of course they are not muslims they call theme selfs muslims but they are not 🙂 and muslims in iraq,jordan are fighting against theme ; ( the unislamic state is a group of people who folow the scripts not of the Coran but of other sorces to the letter and without having a full understanding of it they are mad people all muslims know that and i know that and i m telling you that they have no relation to the islamic religion

  17. 17
    JimFit says:

    Lets not forget the Atheists Nazis and the Atheists Communists that destroyed both ancient artifacts, old books, historical buildings/Churches and modern art such as Gustav Klimt and Kandinsky.

Leave a Reply