Skip to comments.Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
click here to read article
Any sort of a theory whose adherents simply ignore major disproofs over a long period of time is basically a religious doctrine. Evolution should have been abandoned after the fruit fly experiments.
agreed.....so look in a mirror. Evolution is REAL science.
When Communists in the last century took over a country, they “educated” the people. Not in the wonders of socialism or communism, but in EVOLUTION. This was to eliminate the idea that there was a CREATOR, a HIGHER POWER than the government.
Nope, through evolution, those HUMANS who were in power in the government were the only souce of truth to be had, based on their own definitions.
How exactly, could any of these theories affect the survival of America?
V..Evolution is REAL science.
First: science, like politics is merely a product of culture. In turn, culture is founded on two core presuppositions: 1. the origin of life, 2. the source and/or cause of evil (suffering).
Because Evolution purports to tell us the origins of life, it is not science but cosmology.
Second: microevolution is undisputed. Horticulturalists, animal breeders, etc. have ALWAYS known of this capacity.
Evolution deceptively disguises itself behind microevolution when in reality it’s true purpose is to cause people to believe the entirely fallacious proposition that bacteria can change into fish and fish into proto-apes and so on. This is macro-evolution.
In the final analysis, macro-evolution is a superstition.
The important thing this article does is affirms what I've said before - evolution is a philosophy, NOT a science. Evolution is a worldview and a philosophical lens through which empirical evidences are interpreted. Evolution, itself, is not science. It is not empirically verifiable. It is not repeatable. It relies upon the interpretation of circumstantial evidences which, in and of themselves, would have nothing to do with evolution except that evolutionists have chosen to jam them into the evolutionary framework which they've built.
Kind of like Creationists.
Waiting for evolutionists to invoke an "Evolution in the gaps" argument in 5....4....3....2....1....
stuart..How...could these theories affect the survival of America?
Reread the essay.
Well, evolutionism has served as a philosophical enabler for everything from totalitarian Communism to eugenics and Nazism, for one.
Exactly. If only MORE Americans would ‘wake up’ to this truth, our nation would not be sinking into an abyss of naturalism.
Then you must be hell on Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and so forth, and so on.
Because our understanding of politics has been corrupted, we cannot discuss what threatens our political sovereignty until we free ourselves from the effects of that corruption. It’s as if we are looking at our political life through lenses or panes of glass that obscure and distort everything we see, including the nature of our own actions.
Thus, though the very possibility of electoral politics derives from moral premises that justify and require self-government, we are led to consider our political choices without regard to those moral premises, as if economic and other material consequences are the only proper subjects of political life.
Why do the American people accept this approach, when it so evidently undermines their claim to political sovereignty?
Blah blah blah evolutionism blah blah humanism blah blah Dahmer blah blah blah Stalin blah blah Hitler blah blah blah.
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
No, just the philosophical approach which misinterprets the empirical evidences obtained from those disciplines. Evolutionism just likes to add it's own spin, and then claim that these interpretations, in and of themselves, are "science". It's all bunkum, it's all circular, and it belies poor thinking abilities on the part of the evolutionists who do it.
“Waiting for evolutionists to invoke an “Evolution in the gaps” argument in ...”
Or more likely to call out the ACLU and demand that talk radio and the internet be banned. Critical thinking and free speech is dangerous to the superstionists of evolution.
I must say that this is indeed the question that I ponder day and night. Not "will the country be destroyed by the 20 million illegal Mexican invaders that Kongress and Jorje Bush want to ram down our throats", not" will Kongress and Jorje Bush advance gun control and finally get rid of that annying second amendment". No. These pale in comparison to the question of evolutionary humanism.
No....but then again, their "creationism" doesn't serve as a philosophical justification for their actions.
"Survival of the fittest", on the other hand, has served wonderfully for justifying the attempted extermination of "inferior" races, and so forth.
EXACTLY!!! Evolution is as much of a science (or religion) as Six-Day Creationism.
Evolution proponents don't have the definitive skinny on the origin of life and they admit that. Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on. What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east. Being it is faith it is undesputable to them....so be it. I cant see why there cant be evolution as started by God and as they say "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
Actually, you are absolutely right in this statement. This is why even the merest suggestion that ID/creationism would even be mentioned alongside evolution in the public schools is met with frenzied howls of rage from the evolutionists. It's not that science is "under assault", but rather it is the evolutionists religion which would be challenged. And like the mullahs in a shari'a state, the evolutionists cannot allow the dominance of their theological system to be challenged in any way, shape, or form. Even if it means stifling free inquiry and open criticism.
People can come up with all sorts of justifications for their actions. “Survival of the fitest” was never meant to be a model for human behaviour, it is simply a description of how nature works. You can’t argue that an idea is invalid because some people have chosen to misuse it to justify their actions.
I did. I still don’t see how it would affect our survival, granted things may change, but I really doubt we wouldn’t survive.
Can America survive the end time biblical prophesies and is America safe from the true believers who are going out of their way to ensure it happens?
As I asked, how does this afffect the survival of America?
No, you don't. Absent the observation of such, all you have is speculation. And even this is tenuously done, since you have no fossil intermediates which have stood the test of criticism. Even evolutionists bemoan the lack of intermediary structures in the fossil record.
but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
Actually, the speculated origins of life on earth upon which empirical science can actually be brought to bear (i.e. excluding exotic nonsense like panspermia or "aliens brought life to earth from somewhere") are positively excluded by an understanding of simple chemistry. There simply was no abiogenesis of life on any early earth.
What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.
You are aware that the evolutionary philosophical system relies upon a cosmogeny which is still basically the same as what people in the Stone Age believed, right?
What is an abyss of naturalism?
Perhaps not, but I *can* point out that it HAS led to those actions.
“First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. “
And this is bad how? Some people used to burn “witches.” But fortunately that’s sort of “evolved.” The Old Testament contain many strictures that we just ignore now. Thank goodness.
Except that there is more science to support evolution than there is, for example, to support Noah's flood.
Major parts of all three directly contradict creationism, are purely theoretical, or cannot be duplicated. Does all that fall under the 'misinterpretation of empirical evidence' part?
nice spin, pseudo-science at its best. you should be congratulated for you use of hyperbole.
fossil intermediates eh?
yes there are holes in the fossil records. if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.
I am done with this post, your faith is strong, have a good life.
Well we did survive Jimmy Carter...
No, you can’t. It has been used as a justification by people who had their own agendas, but I don’t think it can be convincingly argued that communism, for example, developed out of a belief in evolution. I’ll admit that it was the major driver of the eugenics movement, although again that was a misapplication. Note that Darwin’s theory was about “Natural Selection”, and there’s nothing “natural” about what the eugenicists were trying to do. In fact, what they were trying to do was a lot closer to traditional animal husbandry and breeding techniques, concepts which predate the theory of evolution by several thousand years.
We don’t stone people for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, at least.
The whole point of those that push evolution is the exclusion of a Creator, and more to the point, of the existance of truth and rules that are objective and outside of human manipulation.
Once you’ve destroyed the concept of an absolute truth, then your society is open for the “truth” as promoted by the strongest, the cruelest, and the most politically powerful.
Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.
No, (some) evolutionists just gas Jews for being, well, Jews.
No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.
Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
I would say you only think you know, actually you only believe in your theory, no more, because you have no proof only the beliefs of like thinking individuals.
Saying that there are holes in the fossil record to justify the complete lack of intermediary fossil structures is like arguing that a few welfare pimps are the reason why the whole welfare system is broken.
if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.
So, instead you'll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn't even actually support the philosophy?
YOU'RE faith is strong, my friend....
yes and physicists put their faith in a man who failed high school math. and rocket scientists put their faith in a man who built terror weapons for the Nazi's....
the man you deride, was a scientist who went on a voyage of discovery and yes he had nothing better to do.....whats your point?
So, instead you’ll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn’t even actually support the philosophy?
Actually they put their faith in the belief that a rock came to life. And accuse us of believing in a myth!
Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?
Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?