Keep a notepad with you while driving.Whenever you see this on the back of a car:
Check the bumper for stickers indicating political affiliation.Be sure to keep an honest score now!
|
"There is no reason why God could not have used natural evolution as the way to work out his design for the universe."
That's how I've always thought about it.
God gave us 'freewill' and in so doing has allowed us to shape out destiny.
Natural evolution would seem to be just another form of it.
The problem that I perceive is that people have been viewing what is nothing more than an objective attempt to see nature as it actually is, and turning it into a political and moral philosophy to be propounded by one side or another through the powers of the State. You might just as well try to codify the laws of gravity.
Funny how this got lumped in with the biological evolution we usually discuss.
Double talk!
Recently a liberal pseudo male psychologist tried to feed me a line of bull puckey that "Women don't like conservative men". He couldn't explain why approximately half the country was conservative. By his explanation conservatives should have died out long ago.
It didn't take long for him to get his education when even liberal women chimed in and said that it wasn't really true because the things that attracted them to men weren't usually found in very liberal men. The only women that really agreed with him were the far left code pink types who weren't "breeders" anyway.
So much for the PHD.
Possibly true.
However, "Darwinism" today means much more than what was written by Darwin, just as Marxism today incorporates a lot of ideas never propounded by Marx.
For instance, Darwin himself carefully avoided any attempt to explain how life came into being, as opposed to the differention of species in existing life forms. However, Darwinists today try to explain not only the emergence of life from non-living matter, but some even try to use the theory to deny the possibility of God being involved in the creation of the Universe.
The Nazis saw history as a struggle between "races," in much the same way Marxists see in it a struggle between "classes."
Nazis are much more Darwinist insofar as they view the issue as one of survival of the fittest race, with little or no morality involved.
Marxists, OTOH, base their appeal largely on moral grounds of fairness, equality, etc.
In a very real sense, Marxist ideology is a Christian heresy whereas Nazism is an attempt to revive pre-Christian and anti-Christian ideologies.
In power, of course, the two ideologies function very similarly.
The Creationists/ID-iots are an embarrassment - and a clear, present danger - to the Conservative Cause. The primary difference between knowledge and ignorance is that knowledge has limits.
Just read in Friday's local paper on an article that there are 35 million reasons why humanity didn't evolve from chimps and that scientists have turned elsewhere to explain humanity's evolution. But for those who believe they evolved from apelike creatures, Darwin's evolution theory will still be taught in schools.
The conclusions of evolutionary biology about human nature at their core, restate the doctrine of Original Sin.
Check the bumper for stickers indicating political affiliation.Be sure to keep an honest score now!
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Very interesting point of view.
Both Rush and Coulter, I feel, are pandering to what they construe to be our base when they make anti evolutionary statements...in fact Rush has talked, on his show, about the dinosaurs millions of years ago...so he plays both sides of the fence. as much as I love Ann for the most part, I have become disheartened with this aspect.
As always, Rotsa Ruck!
If conservative darling Ann Counter doesn't agree with evolutionists, then it must be because Ann just hasn't thought through it. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's not possible that she evaluated evolutionist arguments and found them wanting, she must just not know what she's saying. She needs more education. No rational person could possibly dissagree with evolutionists. It's just unthinkable. (saaaaaaaaaaaaarcasm off)
Excellent thread on the larger political issue. Thank you for posting it.
The utopians believe that the perfect, world-wide society can be orchestrated, if only the right people are in charge. They believe in government by intelligentsia design. Realists understand that social institutions such as markets and juries and so forth have come about through an arduous process of trial and error over the centuries. Languages and societies evolve. It is so hard to realize this is a reflection of the natural world around us? Coming to this realization emphasizes the worth of traditional social institutions such as marriage and religion.
This is still a conditional or relative-valued morality. Logically, you would have to also support injustice as "moral' if it were more useful in survival/reproduction.
You can't get to an absolute (non-conditional) morality from here. So in this instance Darwinism supports the left's moral relativism.