Posted on 06/16/2005 7:09:41 PM PDT by curiosity
First, I don't think it's possible to make an honest distinction between Darwin and the Social Darwinists. One of my former profs, Edward T. Oakes, SJ, who has also written some devastating criticisms of the Intelligent Design movement, has a review of the sensationalistically-titled academic history "From Darwin to Hitler" in a forthcoming issue of First Things.
Secondly, I would sound a warning against believing that scientific theories are neutral things in themselves and do not reflect any cosmologies, politics, and so forth of the scientists who put them forward. What's more, they also shape any succeeding cosmologies or politics. The State of Nature theory which is one of the bases for Classical Liberalism reflects a Newtonian cosmology brought down to the political level. Locke himself was a buddy of Newton. Much of modern democracy and indeed modern intellectual inquiry takes as its inspiration Einstein's reflections on relativity and different observers' frames of reference. And I'd bet Einstein himself got some of those ideas from Kantian philosophy.
On interpretations of Scripture, there are also other timebomb passages, like the last lines of Genesis 1 that declare that no animal, including man, was given the right to eat meat, and I seem to recall that Isaiah's prophecy of the Lion lying down with the lamb is generally interpreted to be a recapitulation of the Garden of Eden as well as a foreshadowing of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Humans cry when someone dies not for the sake of the dead, but for ours. We will miss the person who has passed on.
This reduces crying to an excercise in self-referential masturbation. Why did Jesus weep for Lazarus?
The result is that our species is not likely to change very much, if at all, for a very long time.
How long is "very long"? Evolutionary change takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. Are you saying that mankind is now mostly immune to such history? Science and religion need to be united in order to defeat the forces of nihilism.
Arguably, the contemporary conception of science has inspired contemporary nihilism. The upcoming Oakes review I mentioned above reflects on Nietzsche's debt to Darwinism, and decades before either thinker John Stuart Mill advocated allowing "experiments in living" by applying "scientific" methods to social order and morals. Also, since science is incredibly provisional and religion is not supposed to be provisional but dogmatic, there is definitely a big tension in any alliance of both against nihilism.
Nihilism is based on the idea that human will endows the universe with meaning. This isn't a far cry from nominalism and the other anti-essentialist habits of thought that undergird the dominant philosophy of science, not to mention much of modern atheism.
Why not? You can't derive an "ought" from an "is."
Secondly, I would sound a warning against believing that scientific theories are neutral things in themselves and do not reflect any cosmologies, politics, and so forth of the scientists who put them forward.
Well, you are correct that scientific theories do reflect and affect these other things. The problem is that ethics cannot follow logically from any scientific theory, preciesly for the reason mentioned above: you cannot derive an ought from and is. Unfortunately, the temptation to do so is very strong, and not all scientists have successfully resisted it.
On interpretations of Scripture, there are also other timebomb passages, like the last lines of Genesis 1 that declare that no animal, including man, was given the right to eat meat,
I know of no such declaration. Care to give me the verse?
and I seem to recall that Isaiah's prophecy of the Lion lying down with the lamb is generally interpreted to be a recapitulation of the Garden of Eden as well as a foreshadowing of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Interpreting appocalyptic prophesies literally is very dangerous.
This reduces crying to an excercise in self-referential masturbation. Why did Jesus weep for Lazarus?
He missed him. Why is it masturbation to feel sad when you miss someone? I take serious issue with such a characterization.
Are you saying that mankind is now mostly immune to such history?
Largely. There modern technology has eliminated almost all selective pressure.
Arguably, the contemporary conception of science has inspired contemporary nihilism.
But it does not logically follow from science. Again, you can't derive an ought from an is. Many scientists, like Ken Miller and Stephen J. Gould, understand this. It is with these people that we need to form an alliance.
True enough. But if animal death is not evil, then it does not conflict with the notion that creation is very good, provided there are other "very good" things about it.
But can you trust your interpretation of that evidence?
No less than I can trust your interpretation of scripture.
I should hope our court system would not put the same value on circumstantial evidence that you seem to.
Most defenents are convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. Nothing wrong with it, so long as it is strong enough, and the cirucmstantial evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming.
When given the choice between circumstantial evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I usually go with the eyewitnesses.
Genesis is not an eyewhitness account.
That is simply incorrect, especially as the evidence establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt did not occur until Newton
Sorry, but Lutherans and Calvinists rejected heliocentrism solely on religious grounds. Catholics only allowed for it to be taught as a hypothesis, even after Newton.
if kinds are just species, then Adam would have had trouble naming them after millions of years of diversification. If they diversified afterwards, there would have been no problem.
Huh?
if the kinds are just species, then Noah would have had trouble fitting them on the ark.
I don't believe every single species was on the Ark.
Science has not given us any mechanism for adding information to cells. Yet that information is there
It's called genetic mutation.
Regarding birds, haven't you ever seen birds hanging out near boats on a lake? They landed on the ark because 1) there's food there and 2) it's less trouble than to fly to another location. Some birds are territorial don't leave their general area.
Likewise, if you look at the carrying capacity of the ark, you can see that this is for much more than just one regions animals, especially if there are only two of most kinds.
I see, so you've calculated precisely how much space all the "kinds" in world would take up? What about space for food?
Now you're making me laugh.
That is part of the language. It's not something I'm making up -- it's actually a part of Hebrew. vav-consecutives can indicate consecutive action, but don't necessarily do so.
Come on. It says there were no plants because there was no man to till the soil. That clearly indicates man came before plants.
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.