Posted on 04/16/2004 10:50:14 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
The last decade was riddled with headlines of children killing other children in the classroom and schoolyard, teen pregnancy and drug abuse on the rise. According to the Educational Testing Service, studies show between 75 and 98 percent of college students surveyed each year report cheating in high school. One study asked 1,700 sixth- to ninth-grade students to share their attitudes about rape. Sixty-five percent of the boys and 47 percent of the girls said that forced sex was acceptable if a couple dated six months. Even in a debate over the war in Iraq, students on campuses nationwide are arguing whether terrorism is wrong and the fight against terrorism is right, suggesting "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
These head scratchers are best explained by the nation's overwhelming embrace of moral relativism, which rests on the teaching that values are subjective and ethics depend on the situation. In other words, there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil.
So where did moral relativism gain its footing in a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
It actually started in the 1920s when a belief began to circulate in the U.S. that there were no longer any absolutes, specifically, of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge and above all of human value. This belief system was built on the work of at least two prominent scientists: Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin.
The work of these scientists ultimately conveyed the same singular message: That the world was not what it seemed, so old rules, philosophies and ways of life no longer applied.
The basis of Einstein's life-changing view called the theory of relativity can be summed this way: Time is not constant. Both velocity and gravity can distort time. Nearly nine decades ago, this surprising discovery shook the very foundation of human perception, understanding and reality.
Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism. So it was in the 1920s and still today that the popular interpreter of Einstein's work finds himself saying "All things are relative" and thinks that he is voicing a scientific discovery. This notion of "all things relative" moved from the laboratory into the public domain, creating an era in which all absolutes disappeared. Relativism has become the prevailing spirit of thought and action in our modern culture, but that is just half the equation.
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning, then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse, we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.
Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity and evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life, giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to traditional Judeo Christian principles.
But what if Darwin's theory is wrong? And what if Einstein's theory of relativity were rightly understood apart from the concept of relativism? Could we regain our moral hold on the value of life? Could we assure ourselves and our children that right and wrong still exist? The answer is yes, but how do we turn back the indoctrination of nearly 100 years?
Despite the paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory, secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic institutions. Its impact on the devaluation of human life can be seen in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion, human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning. The list goes on.
It is also clear that the misunderstanding and/or deliberate misuse of Einstein's theory of relativity has convinced a majority of society that there are no absolutes. If anyone dares to claim otherwise, they are labeled by secularists as self-righteous, backward-thinking, fanatics.
Sadly, the church has largely abandoned its post on these issues as well. They retreated years ago under the pressures of arrogant academics who claimed the church wasn't smart enough to understand science and needed religion as compensation for their inability to reason. Even today, few pastors will speak from the pulpit on the issues and impact of relativity and evolution.
So it is left to individuals to educate themselves and those around them.
With that in mind, scientists will soon launch a rocket to test Einstein's general theory of relativity in space. Regardless of the results, we should take this opportunity to explain to our friends, our children and anyone who will listen, the difference between relativity and moral relativism.
It's time to stop the distorted use of science by advocates of the secular agenda because the impact on our children and our nation is very bad.
Despite the paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory, secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic institutions. Its impact on the devaluation of human life can be seen in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion, human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning. The list goes on.LOL, I guess Kelly Hollowell didn't think anyone would take her seriously if she tried to deny the truth of Einstein's theory of relativity, so she falls back on hoping that people don't misinterpret it to mean that everything's relative in a moral sense.It is also clear that the misunderstanding and/or deliberate misuse of Einstein's theory of relativity has convinced a majority of society that there are no absolutes. If anyone dares to claim otherwise, they are labeled by secularists as self-righteous, backward-thinking, fanatics.
This actually makes a lot of sense. But why not admit the same thing about the theory of evolution? The fact that humans are humans instead of just another chimpanzee species says nothing about whether life is precious, or whether morality is subjective, or whether principles matter. No matter how we came to be the rational animal - the one species that is forced to think to survive - the fact is: Here we are, with our big brains and not much else. Now what do we do?
A church on every corner. The second highest murder rate in the Western Hemisphere. … A description of America? No, Jamaica.Their answer is: Jamaican churches don't teach young-Earth creationism! But of course! That's why Jamaica "has the second highest murder rate in the Western Hemisphere". Now it's all clear!Ever since AiG board member Carl Kerby visited this tiny Caribbean island in 1998 (see Jamaica—vacation or evangelism), our ministry has felt a great burden to reach this beautiful, troubled nation with the gospel. Dr Terry Mortenson just returned from a trip there, and he gives an encouraging report about AiG’s ongoing ‘experiment in creation evangelism.’
Same problem …
Jamaica is a perfect testing ground for the problems that the church faces in every nation. A British colony for over 300 years, this island enjoyed a flourishing church and all the ‘benefits’ of Western culture. In fact, this self-proclaimed ‘Christian nation’ has more churches per square mile than any other nation on earth.
So why is the murder rate so high? Why all the drugs and violence?
[...]
While the church pretends that Genesis and six-day creation don’t matter (see The necessity for believing in six literal days), young people go off to school, hear the claims of evolution and a fossil ‘record of death’ over millions of years, and leave the church.
The challenge is heightened by teachers within the church who undermine people’s faith in the historical foundation of the gospel in Genesis, while they attempt to share the good news from the New Testament.
… same answers
Just as we find in the UK, the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (where AiG has separate offices), countries like Jamaica have the same basic needs—and solution. ‘Jamaican culture is brainwashed with evolution, just like everywhere else,’ Terry found. ‘Even while I ironed my shirt on Saturday morning, I heard it laced into the children’s cartoons on TV.’ [...]
Would only be fair; seems many today listen to biologists about spirituality.
Really? Who?
Nice catch.
Oh, horse manure. There is an enormous amount of evidence in support of evolutionary theory. See below.
secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic institutions.
...as it should be, along with physics, calculus, and well-estabilshed fields of science.
Its impact on the devaluation of human life
Excuse me? The theory of evolution does not "devalue human life".
can be seen in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion, human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning.
Why doesn't the author go ahead and blame evolution for dandruff, bad weather, outsourcing, and hay fever while he's at it? Evolution has nothing to do with those activities. With the exception of the high-tech last two items, which weren't possible until recently, all those activities still took place long before Darwin was even born.
The list goes on.
Yes, I'm sure the author could spend all days listing things he imagines are due to evolution, but that doesn't make it true.
Now, as for the ignorant assertion that there is a "paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory", allow me to provide just a *small* taste of the *overwhelming* amount of evidence supporting evolution:
Start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
Follow a number of the more promising links from those pages, as well.
Then move on to: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.
Then: Horse Evolution.
Then you may be ready for the *excellent* and detailed 43-page overview of: What does the mouse genome draft tell us about evolution?
Then in whatever order you think best for your own education:
Introduction to Evolutionary BiologyThat's just a *small* taste. And note that these are just essays *about* the evidence, not the vastly larger, more detailed mountains of *primary* literature (i.e. papers of scientific studies, experiments, vast catalogs of fossil specimens, gigabytes of DNA sequences, etc. etc. etc.)Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Observed Instances of Speciation
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution
Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
Alec's Evolution Pages with scientific evidence for evolution
Eomaia scansoria: discovery of oldest known placental mammal
Discovery of a Transitional in Romer's Gap
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
AMBULOCETUS AS A FOSSIL TRANSITIONAL
CETACEAN EVOLUTION (WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES): EVIDENCE OF COMMON ANCESTRY OF CETACEANS AND CERTAIN SPECIES OF LAND MAMMALS (Excellent article -- written by a former young-earth creationist!)
Ring Species and Clinal Variation: Nature's Way of Making New Species
Transitional Human Fossils: Six Million Years of Human Ancestry
The Evolution of Improved Fitness By Random Mutation Plus Selection
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Evolution: Converging Lines of Evidence
Evolution Library: Evidence for Evolution
And here's a small sampling of my own modest posts on the subject:
Happy reading. Let me know when you've finished all those, and I'll provide much more.Explanation of why shared endogenous retroviruses are extremely strong evidence for common descent
Specific comparison of a gene as found in humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans
Discussion of the evolution of the Krebs metabolic cycle
Support for the assertion that biologists overwhelmingly accept evolution
Information on the biochemical evolution of the blood-clotting mechanism
Evolution of the woodpecker's tongue, and the mammalian eye
A detailed list of 50+ transitional fossils marking the evolutionary path between fish and elephants
Rebuttal to misstatements about SJ Gould, and fossils answering several creationist challenges
Punctuated equilibrim is not a departure from Darwin's original theory
Two papers on assembly of proteins by means of non-protein means
Response to Behe's "Irreducible Complexity", and the Contingency argument
Musings on creationist probability calculations, and references to abiogenesis papers
Exposition on the Dodo (and its evolutionary history)
Overview of a paper on the evolution of army ants
On the Cambrian fauna and the rise of phyla
A ton of links to papers on genetic algorithms
Cladograms of dino-to-bird evolution
Details of Dawkins' "methinks it is like a weasel" evolutionary program
The original fish-to-elephant post, plus dino-to-bird details
While there are those who insist on a complete separation of church and state, it is ironic, and sad, that a separation of science and state is out of bounds. Sacrifice is still demanded and human sacrifice exists in abortion. The social scientists have simply replaced the priests. Nothing's changed. And all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.
While the science book may provide good reading on Sunday morning, the index doesn't provide life and life to the full. Science provided a kind of liberation from the coercion of the abuse of relgion by those trying to draw a large number of followers after them. But at the same time, the abuse of science is used to justify the coercion of liberty.
Congress has the occasional Inferno-update: Madison, Hamilton and Jay would be there for writing anonymously in New York newspapers. Ross Perot would be there for trying to start another political party. Anyone who utters the name of politician during the off-season will be there. Congress doesn't bother with levels of hell, though, they simply hurl them all headlong into the pit.
While there are those who insist on a complete separation of church and state, it is ironic, and sad, that a separation of science and state is out of bounds. Sacrifice is still demanded and human sacrifice exists in abortion. The social scientists have simply replaced the priests. Nothing's changed. And all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.
While the science book may provide good reading on Sunday morning, the index doesn't provide life and life to the full. Science provided a kind of liberation from the coercion of the abuse of relgion by those trying to draw a large number of followers after them. But at the same time, the abuse of science is used to justify the coercion of liberty.
Congress has the occasional Inferno-update: Madison, Hamilton and Jay would be there for writing anonymously in New York newspapers. Ross Perot would be there for trying to start another political party. Anyone who utters the name of politician during the off-season will be there. Congress doesn't bother with levels of hell, though, they simply hurl them all headlong into the pit.
Huh? the concept of relativity between space and time being analogous to relativity between good and evil is well...... idiotic.
Yes -- the shuffling of genes back through the population provides many genetic advantages to the species.
Was that some sort of beneficial mutation?
Right.
How'd we go from muck to male and female of everything?
Well, not *everything* -- there are many organisms that do not have a male/female dichotomy. But as far as how a male/female system arose from a prior system which didn't have male/female, the transition was most likely from hermaphroditic reproduction (where every individual can both "donate" genetic material and "receive" it to produce offspring, as in earthworms for example), and then a "specialization" developed where some individuals became exclusive "donors" (males) and some because exclusive "receivers" (females).
I can give you more details later if you'd like, but right now I need to head to bed (I've been up all night working).
Not a good summary of Darwin, who admitted having virtually no idea how life originated.
What Darwin figured out is that distinct taxonomic orders are related by common descent, having diverged through a mechanism of variation and natural selection.
What if pigs fly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.