Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
1. A scientific theory about the origin of species has nothing whatever to do with political rights, and connecting them is a logical fallacy.
2. The theory of evolution does not address origins of life (our Creator). So it specifically has nothing to do with human rights under the Constitution or how or why they are "endowed."
In the United States, they are certainly connceted. They are not necessarily connected, so you are right in saying that one leads inevitably to the other would be a logical fallacy. But they are in this particular case, and it is this particular case the I care about.
What does that have to do with this debate? Just because you might not like the consequences you see for "inalienable rights" if there is no creator does not mean that there then must be a creator.
Sadly, some churches do view astronomy and astroligy as the same thing and believ ethat astronomy is Satanic. It happened in my ex-wife's church. They even quoted Scripture to prove their point. Something about it is a sin to make a graven image of anything in Heaven above or Hell below. As a result, astronomy and geology are considered sinful because they study that which God commanded not be studied.
Surely you jest?
That’s my understanding, expressed here: Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research More here: Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs
I differ with you though on how creation affects morality. I think the pattern of what we know of creation as an expansion forming greater complexity and organization supports the premise of greater life as the measure of good.
The major religions of the ancient world (worship of Baal, Maloch, Adrammelech and Anammelech, etc) DID NOT value human life except as a sacrifice. Human sacrifice (including infants) was the norm.
The worship of Yahweh (YHVH or YHWH) was the exception and His followers were the minority. Life was given such a high priority that even the blood of animals was to be handled carefully.
Even with a creator, we humans did not value "human rights" until instructed to do so. Humans were TAUGHT to value life -our most basic right- by God.
Indeed. While we're at it, I think we should stop and consider the consequences if there were no Santa Claus. Millions of children would be disillusioned, and come to think of adults as inveterate liars. They would likely stop believing anything they're told, and take up drugs, sex, rock music, and the Green Party. Addiction rates, teen pregnancy rates, and crime rates are sure to skyrocket, as the youth of today waste their days ignoring the sage advice of their elders, preferring debauchery and violence instead. Obviously this is too horrible to contemplate, so therefore the conclusion is inescapable - Santa does exist. How can it be any other way?
70 biologists. World-stinking-wide.
Unfortunately, there will always be many (hopefully not most) who get it wrong - some more than others. I pray your ex left that group and found a solid, God-fearing, Bible-teaching church.
Considering we are all descended from Thrintun food yeast, he wouldn't be far off.
I understand your concern for our rights, but I don't agree that that concern should govern science.
I think the pattern of what we know of creation as an expansion forming greater complexity and organization supports the premise of greater life as the measure of good.
I don't understand what you're getting at here -- can you please elaborate?
There seems to be a lot of passion being expended over this issue, and I wonder why. How pollywogs evolved into pussycats could not possibly be farther from the day to day concerns of modern existance. And yet, Darwinists and Doubters "clash".
One point on which the existance of the Creator does impact my life is in my relationship with this particular government. I very much like my Life, my Liberty, and my pursuit of Happiness, and wish to maintain those things. My concern is that many of the people who advocate a Creator-free creation are the very same people who advocate creeping governmental incrementalism taking over more and more control over day-to-day life.
It is almost as if man needs a big, controlling influence that is beyond mortal control or understanding. If the Creator is rejected, they will find a substitute in overarching government.
That is what my point has to do with this debate. Since message board is more concerned with Constitutional government than pollywogs and pussycats, it seemed appropriate to bring it up.
In a way, but it brings them up to date. It's also a superb explanation.
So that potato from my garden that looked like Henny Youngman was designed?
Considering we are all descended from Thrintun food yeast, he wouldn't be far off.
Continuing the questioning of the ID "teacher".....
Student: "Since the Intelligent Designer could be a space alien, aren't all the of science fiction accounts of how space aliens created life on earth equally plausible?"
Teacher: "How right you are. You're really picking this theory up quick. I'm going to give you a Gold Star you can take home to your parents."
"If we are not endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator, then all of our rights are the results of agreements between men, and can be removed just as easily by agreements to the contrary."
That's one helluva good line!
Anything that looks like Henny Youngman couldn't be designed, by definition :-)
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.