Do you believe in accidentalism? (Creation vs. evolution)

WorldNetDaily ^ | 9/1/05 | William Rusher

[CarolinaGuitarman]

And the Julian Huxley *quote* was a complete fabrication, because *Dr.* Kennedy was a liar.

The Aldous Huxley quote was in a book that was DEFENDING meaning in the universe; it also was not about Darwin.

*Dr.* Kennedy took a part of the Huxley quote, mixed in some deceit, and said it was Julian Huxley. He made up the interview and he made up the part about Darwinism being more in tune with their *sexual mores*. Kennedy, like all Creationist leaders, is a pathological liar.

[Oztrich Boy]

Aldous & Julian were brothers.

So were Isaac and Ishmael

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"*Dr.* Kennedy took a part of the Huxley quote, mixed in some deceit, and said it was Julian Huxley. He made up the interview and he made up the part about Darwinism being more in tune with their *sexual mores*. Kennedy, like all Creationist leaders, is a pathological liar."

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Kennedy is not the liar, you are!

Even Aldous made reference to "sexual mores" but he called it licentiousness.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"So were Isaac and Ishmael."

Half-brothers; same dad, different mother.

The promise from God was for Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Kennedy is not the liar, you are! "

I think you are unable or unwilling to read the link that was provided to you. Kennedy said he heard this in an interview on TV; this interview never happened. He said that Julian Huxley (who was the evolutionist and atheist, not Aldous) said that they adopted Darwin because it went well with their sexual mores. This is an out and out lie, Julian Huxley said no such thing. Neither did Aldous.

Here is the Kennedy misquote,

""Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, descendant of Thomas Huxley -- Darwin's bulldog -- said on a talk show, 'I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.' (Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 58)."
-- D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe, originally published 1980 (revised in 1999)"

This was allegedly a quote from Henry Morris's book. Problem is, the citation in Morris' book was about T.H. Huxley, not Julian. Notice that book came out in 1974. The alleged Julian Huxley quote was supposed to come from 1975.

When questioned about this, Kennedy's organization ("Creation Studies" (mail@creationstudies.org)) said,

""That is not a lone opinion. Aldous Huxley, one of the great agnostic evolutionists of the twentieth century, said the same thing. He believed in the meaninglessness of the world, which Darwin taught, because, he said, 'We objected to morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom.'"


This is also a lie. Aldous Huxley was arguing AGAINST meaninglessness, not for it. The quote was a negative example, not a positive one for Aldous. And he wasn't talking about Darwin. The original Aldous Huxley quote, from 1937, was lifted out of context and dumped into a "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: News of the Month in Perspective, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19. Problem is, Aldous Huxley was NOT an atheist. It seems that creationist lying is endemic.

THIS is where Kennedy got his quote; not from a TV interview of Julian.

"Even Aldous made reference to "sexual mores" but he called it licentiousness."

Where? Please cite.

And BTW, saying *No, YOU'RE the liar!!* without answering the argument against you makes you look like a 2 year old. A very dishonest one at that.

[Elsie]

In the battle for survival the weak die, the strong prevail.

I thought that the prolific prevailed??

[Elsie]

Why is it that Christianity and Islam alone among the worlds religions think they MUST convert everyone else to their religion.

Don't know about the Muslims, but Christians do it because we have a vision of what the end is for those who don't!

(Oh... there's that little thing in Matthew 28:20 as well....)

And the banquet parable that Jesus spoke, telling the servants to go into the highways and byways and COMPEL them to come in.

[Elsie]

Why is it that Christianity and Islam alone among the worlds religions think they MUST convert everyone else to their religion.

Oh, yeah: Them other religions think that any ol' belief you have is ok; as long as you're 'sincere'.

Whereas Jesus said, "I am the way. NO man comes to the Father, but by me."

(Sorry, Muslims.....)

[bert]

Among the prolific there are genetic gradations. The strong traits will be naturally selected as the weak die off.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"I think you are unable or unwilling to read the link that was provided to you. Kennedy said he heard this in an interview on TV; this interview never happened."

Actually, I think Kennedy got it from Robert Meyer/Myer, of some newspaper.

The point is: One of the Huxley's brothers said it. And, in my opinion, atheism goes beyond "sexual mores" to killing, raping, stealing...such as we are seeing in New Orleans. Huxley's "Brave New World" is a small glance of things to come.

Atheists think they can be "good people" without God. I suppose we could probe for their definition of the word 'good,' but would that be in word only or in actions?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point is: One of the Huxley's brothers said it."

No, the point is, NEITHER said it. Kennedy lied about both of their statements. Aldous Huxley never linked materialism with Darwin, nor did he use the phrase *sexual mores* nor did he mention *licentiousness*. All of the Creationists who have continued to spread this falsehood are as guilty as Kennedy in the smear.

"Actually, I think Kennedy got it from Robert Meyer/Myer, of some newspaper."

That goes completely against your assertion that he says he saw it with his own eyes on TV.

You earlier posted,

"Dr. Kennedy said, "When I heard him say that, I nearly fell out of my chair." Dr. Kennedy was present when Julian Huxley uttered those words."

This is a lie, as Julian Huxley NEVER said those words. I called Kennedy a liar for saying this; your response was to childishly call me one. You are both guilty of bearing false witness. Or do the commandments of your God not apply to you?

"And, in my opinion, atheism goes beyond "sexual mores" to killing, raping, stealing...such as we are seeing in New Orleans. Huxley's "Brave New World" is a small glance of things to come."

Aldous Huxley was not an Atheist. And you are trying to squirming out of your assertion that Julian Huxley said that he adopted Darwinism because it got rid of God and was therefore in keeping with their sexual mores. Julian Huxley never said anything even remotely like that; nor did Aldous Huxley.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. Creationists are spreading lies about what both Huxleys said because they feel they have to. Considering the deceit that is evident from the creationist side, any correlation of creationism and morality is strictly coincidental.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

I think we're arguing on the same side.

http://www.euro-tongil.org/swedish/english/ehuxley.htm

When Aldous said "we", he didn't meant it personally. It was like the proverbial "they".

Myers is the one who said he saw the British TV broadcast where Julian said "we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores".

http://www.unification.net/dp96/dp96-1-2.html

"All people have an original mind which inclines them to reject evil and pursue goodness. Yet, even without our being aware of it, we are driven by evil forces to abandon the goodness which our original mind desires and to perform evil deeds which, in our innermost heart, we do not want to do. As long as these evil forces assail us, the sinful history of humanity will continue unabated."

[Donald Meaker]

Oh, to make your probabilities work, you could add in the several billions of other planets that may have complex proteins in it, for several billions of years.

So far as we know, we are alone here.

The interesting thing is that in todays world, if there was a soup of complex proteins, it would be EATEN!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Your first link said, "
"The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof is because
we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores"!"

Problem is, Aldous Huxley NEVER said this. This is the paragraph from Aldous Huxley's "Ends and Means" from 1937;

""For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was an admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever... The men of the new Enlightenment, which occurred in the middle years of the nineteenth century, once again used meaninglessness as a weapon against the [conservative] reactionaries. The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so great that, during the period when they were formulated, neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification for sexual indulgence. [p. 316-317]"

This is very different from the quote you linked to allegedly from Aldous Huxley. The real paragraph said nothing about accepting Darwinism *without proof*. It also says that in the period that evolution first took hold, it wasn't used as a justification for sexual indulgence. Remember too, the fabricated Aldous Huxley quote appeared in a newsletter with the caption *Confessions of a Professed Atheist*; this of course is a lie, as he was no such thing.

Huxley was talking about the rise of the philosophy of meaninglessness after the horrors of WWI.

"Myers is the one who said he saw the British TV broadcast where Julian said "we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores"."

Then he, along with Kennedy, is a liar too. There was no such quote by Julian Huxley.

[Elsie]

... but would that be in word only or in actions?

In 'definition', I would think....

[Elsie]

UNless they had offended the Soup Nazi!

[Donald Meaker]

Rather, it indicates that Intelligent Design is bankrupt, if intelligent designers can not perform as Evolution has already demonstrated it can.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom..."

"We didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores."

Misquoted but the thought is still the same.

---

The "History of Theory of Evolution" predates written history but it's still a "theory".

[blowfish]

1) You are assuming, of course, that this particular sequence is the only one that could have resulted in life. That's a pretty wild assumption.
2) If you assume that little angels hand-assembled each nucleotide, then it might have taken that long. Fortunately, chemical systems work a lot more rapidly than that.
3) You statement that life couldn't have formed without some sort of hand assembly of complex systems is so much unsupported hogwash.

But thanks for playing anyway. You might want to read some biochemistry.

[killermosquito]

It indicates that human intelligent designers cannot perform as well as The Intelligent Designer.

It is a very remarkable thing that the two camps (TOE vs ID) can be so far apart and both sides equally dogmatic about what it believes. I will never convince you that I am right and you will never convince me that you are right yet we will both continue to try.

The Miller Experiment was interesting. I saw on PBS a while back another interesting experiment. A "scientist" took the results of the Miller Experiment enclosed the goo in a "bullet" and fired the projectile at a wall. Sure enough the results were peptides. So what? If someone else takes enough peptides and fires them from a cannon will life occur? No.

There are so many things that must have been perfectly in synch for life to have begun from non-life that to be where we are means that we either won the most incredible lottery of all time or we were created by a divine being of infinite power and intelligent.

So...regardless of what a person believes they believe in miracles because life does not occur spontaneously from not living material. It doesn't matter how many eons pass it will never happen. So, if a person believes that life can occur spontaneously from non-life they believe in the supernatural.