If Fundamentalist where setting federal policy then I would be in
your camp. They do not, therefore the entire issue is suspicious. Why is
a particular group being picked out for derision? This is the first step
of Alinski's methodology
<http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/roa018.htm> to steer a
population at the whim of a select few. Mass psychology is very
On 9/3/2012 3:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
You seem to agree with me but missed my point.
Scientists are willing to adjust their thinking when new information
Fundamentalists are not because all the important information is ancient.
You may argue correctly that not all scientists are left wing
and not all fundamentalists are right wing.
You may also argue correctly that important information
such as economics is not ancient.
But I claim that my broad brush characterizations
are more accurate that Roger's.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 9/3/2012 8:26 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less, whereas
anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less. Science is
selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining its conclusions
whether in science or sociology.
Whereas the right is unable to correct itself because it is based on the
bible or some such tradition. So as a result, the right thinks it cannot be
wrong because everything they believe is ordained by God.
The left has no such limitation, thank god.
As I read your post above I was filled with a large diversity of
emotions and ruminated a long time over whether or not to respond to it. I
think that you might appreciate a different point of view. I happened to
have been raised by a family that was a prototypical "Bible Thumper" even to
the point that my parents where missionaries to a foreign country where I
learned via "home schooling". I discovered after many years that it is only
a very small minority of people that actually live their lives under the
belief that "everything is ordained by a person-like God". I also
discovered, as I have continued my education, that there is another minority
that believe that "everything is ordained" but not by some kind of person
but instead by inhuman entities named "boundary conditions" and "initial
conditions". What is the real difference other than naming conventions?
Could you stop for a moment and think about the idea that nothing at all
is "ordained" and that the concept is a fiction that we have habituated
ourselves into believing merely because it gives us a comfortable illusion
of control. Humans are strange creatures, if they can't control things
themselves they will accept that someone else that is a friend controls
things, but get all crazy angry at even the hint that someone else could
control things to the disadvantage of the home team. Control freaks, we are
such control freaks that we are entirely missing the point of it all. Laws
of Nature are merely a concept we invented to explain things to ourselves,
no one has the power to control all things. Power is a delusion.
I challenge you to write about one example of a real person that is well
known as a Leftist that does not believe that "everything is ordained" by
something. You should spend a little time thinking hard about what you are
saying here as it is a massive exercise in self-contradiction.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at