Posted on 09/24/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by gobucks
The logical conclusion to the battle between Evolutionism and Creationism is going to be the abandonment or the retention of religion based moral codes.
What? You think the TOE implies morality is useless? Has it occurred to you that morality may be beneficial to the survival of the species? I suggest you read up on Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Need that be elaborated upon?
Maybe for you, but I have children, and I intend to make their world and secure and rational as posible, and I intend to do whatever I can to insure the stability of my culture for all my descendents.
If your Id is so out of control that you endanger my children and their posterity, I will do whatever it takes to stop you from harming society.
That's pretty much it. Most people have children and want the world to be safe for them. The rest will conform to this standard or face the dangerous end of a gun.
It just so happens that you and I are born into the luckiest society that ever existed. The physical and political threats we face are a nit compared to what most of the world's parents face.
I would submit to you that the biggest proponents of Darwin's theory have been liberals and atheists. Need that be elaborated upon?
Yes.
And of course, that is how 'id'iots evolve! (Gotta have a fragment of a sense of humor here....)
While Evolution and Creationism can be fully compatible, in the context that Evolution is marketed, it must deny any sort of Divine guidance.
I would argue something ... you can't win a presidential election w/o harnessing scientific techniques to determine certain demographic questions. Winning a presidential, thus, means the runner has the wherewithal to determine how to do that...
He doesn't have to sound like a scientist, or look like one, in order to be the one to say 'Eureka!'. But, of course, he quotes Isaiah ... and 'scientists' cringe...
Maybe that is a really, really good thing.
Good grief!
LOL
"Darwinism", as popularly marketed is a godless theory used by the anti-religious left and their fellow travelers to deny any notion of a "Creator".
I think you have problem with the charlatans, and not with the TOE.
It is used to center Man as the epitome of nature.
I thought this is what the creationists did.
With Man as the ultimate arbiter of what is and will be, Man becomes infallible. The stronger and the further evolved are the masters.
You are talking about the Nazi theory, not about the TOE.
While Evolution and Creationism can be fully compatible, in the context that Evolution is marketed, it must deny any sort of Divine guidance.
So it's a marketing problem. This is a problem that can be solved.
Yep. This has demonstrated that there's no need to spend millions and billions doing time consuming and tedious research to settle scientific issues. They can be settled by politics and propaganda! Gee, I guess the Nazis and Stalin had the right idea all along. When will the textbooks with the Nazi theories of the hollow earth (hohlweltlehre) and the "Cosmic Ice Theory" (Welteislehre or "WEL") be coming out?
Man is not, and has never been, the center of the universe. For the religious, it is G_d which is center and it is man whom G_d is served by.
Maybe rabid Evolutionists are ideological brothers with Hitler. I can't say, for certain.
Actually wouldn't it be creationism (or spontaneous generation) that says it "just happened," that is to say not by a natural or creaturely mechanisms, themselves mediated by more fundamental and general natural laws (like newly evolved species or manufactured engines) but by divine miracle or divinely ordained and spontaneous fiat of nature?
Maybe rabid Evolutionists are ideological brothers with Hitler. I can't say, for certain.
At least now I know where you stand. You're qualification is ludicrous and disingenuous.
I can't believe you actually wrote this. It deserve its own wing in the museum of regrettable posts.
Gee. Bush and Nazis in a single post. Now, where I have seen that tactic before?
Oh, I forget. We're FreeRepublic, not Democratic Underground. Gotta keep reminding myself of that.
That's 'your', not 'you're'. I gotta stop relying on spell checkers.
"Darwinism" is a tool of the anti-religious left, eh?
Can you then explain why the left clung to non-Darwinian, principally Lamarkian, versions of evolution for most of the last hundred and fifty years (and many still do so)?
If Darwinism was so suitable for atheistic leftists, then why, for instance, would Stalin send Darwinian/Mendelian geneticists to the gulags and allow a neo-Larmakian kook like Lysenko to run (and ruin) soviet science and agriculture for decades?
Gee. Bush and Nazis in a single post. Now, where I have seen that tactic before?
How is this different from the 'Evolutionists' and 'Nazis' in a single post tactic?
I was thinking more along the lines of Communism.
Your offense is your problem.
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.