A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

Human Events ^ | September 15, 2000 | Nancy Pearcey

[1000 silverlings]

Not very democratic. Darwinists have a natural tendency to believe that they belong to a superior race of beings, higher up the evolutionary scale than the rest of us. Freudians, too. Anyone who questioned their theories was "hostile." Therefore, like good Marxists or Freudians, Darwinists think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to think, and more especially how to brainwash our children.

It is written

Pr 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Central Scrutiniser]

You think that's hard? Try discussing acutal science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vouge.

[betty boop]

Don't bother pinging me to your posts. I've given up on dhimmitude.

From your statement I gather that you are resorting to polemics, and not to rational debate.

Good luck!

[tpaine]

It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..

You think that's hard? Try discussing actual science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vogue.

I hear you.. I try to stick to 'political science', but the majority rule crowd always manages to divert discussion to 'moral majority' questions. -- Fancy that.

[betty boop]

It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, tpaine.

Still, the constitutionalists have to step up to the plate, or else the concept of human liberty will be lost for lack of an adequate, that is reasonable defense against the ideologists who attack the very foundations of a free republic.

And so, from my heart I thank you tpaine for stepping up to the plate....

All I would wish to add is this: friends of liberty -- pass the ammunition, keep your powder dry, and do not fire until you see "the whites of their eyes."

Thanks for writing, tpaine. I really am delighted to see you again.

[tpaine]

Delighted to see you too kiddo.. -- Now if we can just keep Voegelin out of the discussion maybe I can keep up ---

[cornelis]

Voegelin!

[Louis Foxwell]

Delighted to have something nourishing to chew on. I have been tasting the paste of a wannabe libertarian on another thread today and am hungry.
Two thoughts -
The notion of religion as subjective misses the mark. Religion is a construct, an edifice through which spiritually minded folk share their common convictions. This is to differentiate religion from a (personal) relationship with God. Religion is never subjective. It is as objective as the church down the street. It is manifest.
My relationship with Christ, however, is intensely personal and subjective. I cannot objectively prove that this relationship even exists. I can, however, stand on it absolutely and accept it as the unequivocal Truth in my life, before which all other truth must stand or fall.
This leads to my second thought on this wonderful article.

The Darwinian notion that all behaviors can be explained as of evolutionary advantage else they would not exist, forgets that a full 99% of all species are extinct. I dare say it was not their evolutionary advantage that led to their downfall. Rape, it could be better argued, is an evolutionary flaw producing the harshest treatment of those cursed with its predisposition.
Jesus taught us that we, His followers, will always be at war with the world. It is simply our willingness to stand in the breech and demand Truth over truth that expresses the God who lives within us. His is the victory. There is no other.

[Liberty Wins]

"Try discussing acutal science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vouge."

We only burn the bad spellers.

[milagro]

"With God--everything is possible." -- Jesus

As for me and my house, I would much rather put my trust in God than in what Erich Heller, in his excellent work on existentialism entitled The Disinherited Mind, calls "the vast lovelessness of a chance constellation of energy."

[Central Scrutiniser]

I spell how I want to.

I'm Irish.

[Cicero]

Thanks!

[cornelis]

Maybe he was. But the real problem is an advantage: Dimensio says, "The theory of evolution has no inherent political bias." In his view, the fact is evolution. Since evolution is science, voila! ergo-propter-hoc, evolution is without bias or prejudice. And you know, Dimensio is right, as much as Wolf Blitzer was right in his apology for CNN terrorist tapes: "Just the facts ma'am."

But facts are advantageous to a party in cooperation with supressed information. When a kind of scientific thinking is raised so high (no doubt for its amorality, nonmorality, content neutrality, etc.) then it becomes exclusive. It will turn a blind eye to all else. Religious dogmatists are not exempt.

What we end up with is an old office joke:

Rule #1 A cause is what we say it is?
Rule #2 If another cause is found, see rule number one.

[Liberty Wins]

Okay, the atheists argue that morality is the result of blind evolutionary forces rather than an omnipotent Creator.

This view is flawed because it cannot explain motive and intent, it denies rather than explains morality, and it cannot account for the "oughtness" of morality. (Most of us know what "ought" to be right or wrong.)

Given the widespread existence of moral concepts in humanity regardless of race, creed or religion, as well as the obviously negative results of immorality, the existence of a Higher Intelligence seems to be the best explanation for morality.

[gcruse]

The point is the ongoing fragmentation of conservatism. It's not enough to be a socon, ie, social conservative. Now we have the newly-coined MORAL conservatives. It's looking like the fragmented splinter groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian, which I assume a MORAL conservative would have refused to watch.

[betty boop]

Now if we can just keep Voegelin out of the discussion maybe I can keep up ---

LOL tpaine! I'll really, really try, I promise!

[betty boop]

You're most welcome, oh wise one!

[TXnMA]

Thanks for the ping, BB!

As you (and A-G) know, I am both a physical scientist and a Christian who believes that all that is was created by God. I was mentally preparing a statement for this thread when I read this:

"My relationship with Christ, however, is intensely personal and subjective. I cannot objectively prove that this relationship even exists. I can, however, stand on it absolutely and accept it as the unequivocal Truth in my life, before which all other truth must stand or fall."

beautiful and apropos proclamation by Amos the Prophet.

It is so fitting that, Amos, I hope you wil permit me to adopt (and adapt) it to describe my own position.

Thanks to you both!

[milagro]

Amen!

And, in Defeating Darwinism, Phillip Johnson points out the difference between "matter" and "information." He even quotes George C. Williams, who Johnson describes as having done "more than anyone to develop the gene selection theory". Johnson offers the following quote from Williams:

"Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter....The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution."

When I first read this quote from Williams, I immediately thought of the Apostle John's words, "In the beginning was the Word". Then--a few paragraphs later, Johnson mentioned that same Gospel passage!

VERY interesting!