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
Post # 100 is for you two as well.
Well see, the problem arose in that your verbiage indicated that you seemed to think that I had already explicitly stated such a case, and that you were challenging such a statement. Which of course caused me to wonder what exactly you were responding to since I hadn't actually stated any such thing. Ergo, if you wish to carry on a conversation, next time try responding to things that have already been said, not things that you think, conceivably, at some point in the future, might be said. Makes discussions go much more smoothly when you actually deal with what people have said....
That being said, I'm finding all of this being attributed to ToE just too much of a stretch to be taken seriously. Genocide and political purges were around well before Darwin. It seems that there is nothing too evil to attribute to Darwin, and nothing bad that has happen that can't be blamed on ToE and that accusation expected to be accepted without question.
Bad things did happen before the theory of evolution. But note, I never said they didn't. That's just an unfounded assumption that you are illogically attributing to my argument (again, the problem you seem to have with assuming things, and then attributing your assumptions to others). My argument is that evolutionism (the philosophy, not the pseudo-scientific mechanics of the theory in the natural realm) served as a philosophical foundation for certain very specific evils that plagued the world over the past couple of centuries - Communism, Nazism, and eugenicism. Please try to confine you rebuttals to those things that I've actually said.
Oh no, you did NOT just say that word....
You fault evolutionary theory because it doesn't address the metaphysical, and maintain that this "dispossesses man of soul, reason, mind, personhood, memory,free will, conscience, Laws of Logic". Why do you not reject the metaphysical because it doesn't deal with the material, and therefore must deny the obvious fact that we are corporeal?
No, I typed it.
Can you point me to a standard reference on philosophy that lays out the tenants of this philosophy of evolutionism, just so I know exactly what you mean when you use the term?
This secular humanistic machinery is designed to and now produces a pop culture of sexual perversion, socialism, hypermaterialism, radical egalitarianism, Bible rejection and spontaneous generation.
Instead of reflecting a love of God and country, the far left now uses the public schools as a powerful tool that echoes the anti-Christian bigotry, immorality and politics of the far left.
The theory of evolution is so popular with the far left because it allows them to attack the Bible for reasons of politics and immorality while pretending that science (what a hoot) is their real motivation.
This is why someone like Hillary Clinton, a Bible rejecting Marxist could even be remotely considered for any public office in America. Unfortunately the left has made great gains in their goal of destroying our historical, fundamental acceptance of the Bible as the rock of our foundational worldview. They have replaced it (through dishonest, illegal and unethical means) with a worldview of 'fundamentalist secular humanism' so their radical politics and perverted personal choices would no longer be in the closet.
What is your definition of a "standard" reference? And does your definition coincide with the definition that others might give as to what is a "standard" reference on the subject? And of course, your question is somewhat dishonest, since my arguments are "non-standard" (meaning, they won't be featured in your typical and supportive reference works about evolution), since I am presenting original argumentation to support my contentions. Besides, since you're so good at divining meaning from what people haven't said, why don't you take a crack at reading what they have said, and criticially think about what you've read?
For everyone following the thread - evolution-friendly source work, accessible to all with internet access - The Journal of Evolutionary Philsophy Just to show I'm fair.
So, I'm being "dishonest" by assuming that the terms you're using have the commonly understood and accepted meanings, when you're actually making up new definitions as you go?
"We can still be in awe of the Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill while attributing this wisdom not to a single Creator, but distributing it over billions of years in trillions of lineages of replicators, trying their luck in the great tournament of life, mindlessly discovering and rediscovering the brilliant design principles that constitute the diversity of life. (emphasis mine)
Let's see his silly equation amounts to:
mindless luck + billions of years = wisdom and creative skill
That is the secular humanistic god, "Time and chance"
...and they exhaustively shout this nonsensical religious point of view to students everyday at taxpayer expense, helping to create good little liberal humanists.
There is no philosophy of evolution, except some boogieman that Christian fundamentalists like to concoct. The "philosophy" of Christianity posits that slavery is acceptable, that it's okay to slaughter infants and toddlers of your enemies, rape the wives and daughters of your enemies, kill the first born of every parent in an area, rip open the wombs of the pregnant women of your enemies, drown everyone, and stone people for things as ridiculous as gathering wood on a supposed holy day. That's just for starters. Christianity isn't particularly righteous. You're lying to yourself if you imagine it is.
All of these things (Communism, Nazism, eugenicism, Islam, Christianity, etc.) have one thing in common-- authoritarianism (the people subject to the rules don't have any say in the rulemaking). Don't try a holier than thou argument, because it doesn't ring true.
tacticalogic—Why do you not reject the metaphysical because it doesn’t deal with the material, and therefore must deny the obvious fact that we are corporeal?
Let’s rephrase your question thusly:
“Why do you not reject the soul, mind, free will, conscience, Laws of Logic, memory, personhood, and conscience because they are not material, and therefore must deny the obvious fact that we are corporeal?”
The very fact that you have freely chosen (free will) to make this inquiry, which makes use of your immaterial (spiritual) abilities, completely disproves your belief that you are something on the order of a block of wood.
You’re very welcome! And I’m glad to see your participation, which is always thought provoking.
Let's not. Let's answer the question as asked, explaining why one standard is applied to the physical, while the metaphysical is held to the exact opposite.
Biosemiotics-—another way of saying: matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic the dialectical materialists attribution of dialectic to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones. (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)
In other words: Matter thinks, it’s Divine!
Evolutionary Humanism is simply going full circle back to hylozoism.
And when we’ve figured out why we’re applying one standard to the physical and another to the metaphysical, we can explore why trying to hold them to the same standard - that each deals with only that in it’s own realm and can’t be faulted for not addressing things outside that realm - is “hypocrisy”.
You forgot the barf alert.
Tactic-—Can you point me to a standard reference on philosophy that lays out the tenants of this philosophy of evolutionism, just so I know exactly what you mean when you use the term?
Irish-—Well here’s the problem, Tactical. Materialism is all about the ‘material’ world, or sensism. What cannot be ‘sensed,’ cannot exist. Therefore, even though materialism clearly has a cosmology, philosophy, ideology, upside-down morality, etc., technically, none of these things exist, despite the fact that materialists continually resort to their use. Materialism is anti-idea, anti-intellectual, and therefore, pro-stupidity.
IOW, you don't have an answer, so you're resorting to BS and insults.
tactic-—And when weve figured out why were applying one standard to the physical and another to the metaphysical, we can explore why trying to hold them to the same standard - that each deals with only that in its own realm and cant be faulted for not addressing things outside that realm - is hypocrisy.
Irish-—In other words, you believe that you’re just an animal with an animals instincts. Thus if, let’s say, you’re a dog, then you ought not be held accountable for ‘doing what dogs do” because you’re just a dog and can’t help doing what dogs do. Of course, dogs can be trained by a superior life form, and that’s exactly the view held by Laventi Beria (Psychopolitics), Lenin, etc. This encapsulates your dreadful worldview,
Now if God created you, then you are both corporeal (material) and incorporeal (spiritual). In this view, you come fully equipped with free will, mind, soul, individuality, conscience, memory, etc. And because you’re made in the image of He who created the universe, you also possess innate dignity, worth, meaning, purpose, and so on. Our founders summarized this view thusly: “that all men are CREATED equal and endowed by the CREATOR with certain unalienable (means not from man but from God) rights...”
Your Creator gave you the ability to choose either Him or man, and being viewd as a dumb animal. Man takes away your choice.
Are you submitting that is a necessary consequence of being corporeal? That is the context of what you're replying to.
That's not free will. Not even close. Judgement and choice is the department two doors down the hall.
OOOOPS! Jeffrey Dahmer's father, Lionel, was (is?) a CREATIONIST activist and speaker, who taught little Jeffrey creationism, and morality, and how to interpret the Bible. AiG even lists him among some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation.
Hardly. The Nazis believed the human races were primeval, NOT evolved, and that each race was originally CREATED with it's distinctive features, or "race soul" as the Nazi's premier philosopher of race, Alfred Rosenberg, put it.
From Wikipedia's entry on Rosenberg's book (emphasis added):
Rosenberg was inspired by Meister Eckhart, the racist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Richard Wagner's romanticism and also by Aryanism. He believed that God created man as separate races, not as individuals or mankind as a whole, and that only the race has a soul. [Rosenberg's] The Myth of the Twentieth Century was conceived of as a sequel to Chamberlain's The Foundation of the Nineteenth Century (Yahil, 1991, p. 41).
The Nazis' eugenics campaign was not about creating a new superior race, but rather about recovering the blood purity of the ancient Aryan race. They were by no means attempting to advance evolution, but rather to reverse it: To restore the original CREATED order which had been marred by "race mixing".
Judging by the responses, it appears that the question cannot be answered because it was blasphemy to ask in the first place.
Of course there is. Or, rather, there is no science of evolution, there is only the philosophy of evolution.
For, whatever be the ultimate verdict of posterity upon this or that opinion which Mr. Darwin has propounded; whatever adumbrations or anticipations of his doctrines may be found in the writings of his predecessors; the broad fact remains that, since the publication and by reason of the publication, of "The Origin of Species" the fundamental conceptions and the aims of the students of living Nature have been completely changed... But the impulse thus given to scientific thought rapidly spread beyond the ordinarily recognised limits of biology. Psychology, Ethics, Cosmology were stirred to their foundations, and the "Origin of Species" proved itself to be the fixed point which the general doctrine of evolution needed in order to move the world. - T.H. Huxley, Darwin Memorial Essay, 1885.
In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind the Catholic Church. - T.H. Huxley, Darwin's Critics, 1871.
I don't know if you just don't think before you type (we all make this mistake at times), or you are ignorant of the facts, or if you were intentionally dishonest because you saw this as a way to take a cheap shot at creationists and you just could not restrain yourself. (Afterall, there is no God watching you anyway?)
While Jeffrey Dahmer's father Lionel is a creationist, the creationist father is not the one who is guilty of murder, instead he is a fine man from all accounts.
The homosexual EVOLUTIONIST Jeffery Dahmer rejected the Creator God of his father and instead Jeffrey Dahmer embraced the philosophy of godless EVOLUTION.
So as you can clearly see the only murderer here is the homosexual EVOLUTIONIST Jeffrey Dahmer.
While you intended to blame the creationism of Lionel Dahmer for Jeffrey Dahmer's sins, the fact is if there is a philosophy to blame it would be that of godless EVOLUTION which little Jeffrey embraced in place of the belief in a Creator God that his father taught him.
Instead of listening to his father, Jeffrey Dahmer listened to the anti-Christian humanists whose propaganda has poisoned the culture and undermined belief in the Creator.
Jeffrey Dahmer is ultimately responsible for his own sins, however, those who helped remove Dahmer's belief in a righteous God who says murder is absolutely wrong will be held responsible for their part on judgement day.
Since you obviously do not have the facts, let me sum it up for you.
Jeffrey Dahmer basically felt this way, according to his own father -- "If you - if a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then - then what's - what's the point of - of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?"
Here is Dahmer's own confession not long before he died: " That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we - when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing....."
You got it backwards Stultis,------- can you say OOOOPS?
Some maniacal killers and/or despots have been atheists. Some maniacal killers and/or despots have been theists. Some maniacal killers and/or despots have thought their dog was giving instructions. Who cares? What does that have to do with whether there is a God, and if so, what is the “true” religion?
Religion is not simply a strong belief in something or anything. Religion is a belief in a supernatural creator who interacts with this physical reality, demands worship from humans, and metes out rewards and punishments to our “souls” which survive death. Evolution does not take a position on whether there is a supernatural creator or being. It simply says that organisms evolve. It is not a religion. It is not a philosophy. It is a scientific theory, and a damn good one at that.
You're awfully willing to grant Huxley absolute authority in the matter.
But both that belief -- that if evolution is true there is no God -- and what follows from that belief -- that if there is no God then there is no basis for morality and anything goes -- those are both CREATIONIST beliefs, not "evolutionist" ones. They were likely taught to Jeffrey by his father, and are frequently asserted by creationists in these threads.
His father must have had some impact, since Jeffrey became a Christian in jail after reviewing creationist material from the ICR. (Which, btw, given the nature of such material, could explain his blaming his crimes on evolution.)
Why on earth do you suppose the Islamofascists are "creationists?" Where is your evidence for this?
It seems you regard "creationist" and "creationism" as terms of opprobrium that can be applied willy-nilly to people you dislike. For the record, the creator God of the creationists, and the "god" called Allah, are virtually polar opposites. The former is a God of love, life, light, human flourishing and human freedom; the latter, a god of vengeance who demands nothing from human beings but submission to his murderous, bloody-minded will. Man must surrender his freedom to be in good graces with this ersatz god.
The so-called "religion of peace" espouses the same kind of "peace" that the former Soviet Union did, as denoted by the Russian word, mir: Peace is defined as what follows from the utter subjection or annihilation of all "enemies." As long as there are "enemies," there can be no peace.
In expansion of your argument, betty, not only is our Creator all of those things withwhich you pointed out, but He created this world for those whom He made in His image. Therefore, mankind is the apex of the universe and endowed with God-given rights.
Evolutionary Humanism (naturalism)is not only antithetical to all of this, but downright hostile. For just as pre-Biblical pagans believed that man was created by the creation and must therefore live in submission to it, so too does todays neo-pagan Evolutionary Humanism conform to this belief. Seen in the context of history, the communist project is simply a way of forcing man-—who is viewed as an aggressive parasite-— to live in submission and correct conformity to his ‘creator.’ Within this worldview,population control in its many manifestations such as abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc., are viewed as morally correct things to do.
Didn’t God create Muslims? Knowing how they were going to worship and what they were going to do? Likewise for Christians, Hindus and all others? Doesn’t God know why, when and where or even if, His creations are going to peaceful or not?
While the diety inivolved may not be the same, the belief that He created man as he is today, as opposed to the idea that he is the product of a process of evolution is that same. Objectively, Islamic beliefs fit that description. We can arbitrarily declare that only Christians can properly be considered creationist, but that's a tacit admission that we have no intention of having or allowing objectivity in the debate.
Because they believe their god made the universe in a miraculous fashion.
the latter, a god of vengeance who demands nothing from human beings but submission to his murderous, bloody-minded will. Man must surrender his freedom to be in good graces with this ersatz god.
Gee, it sounds almost Old Testament!
Not only Christians have a reverence for life. But clearly, Islamists do not. There's a difference here, though it might not be politically correct to draw attention to it.
Creation is a loving act. Beheading people is not. You cannot hide behind an argument of "moral equivalency," or of groundless personal bias here; i.e., my supposed lack of "objectivity." The distinctions I draw are perfectly "objective." Just open your eyes and look at what's going on. Then if you report back and say there's no difference among religious believers, I'd have to conclude that you are the one who is biased, who lacks objectivity.
"Moral equivalency" is based on entirely subjective arguments. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Show me a definition of "creationism" from a standard reference that backs up your argument.
According to Darwinian and Dawkinian logic humans evolved to believe in GOD(seek their source).. No other animal/insect/plant does that.. Salmon do on another level..
That's ood. I was told on this same thread that evolution doesn't address the spiritual (metaphysical) aspects of man at all (and that in doing so denies that they exist at all).
You're kidding, right?
Nope. The statement -- "Islamofascists are 'creationists'" -- is completely nonsensical to me.
You miss the ironic humor of the comment... Oh! well..
Actually man does evolve when he is born again into another "creature".. You know, evolving from a primate to a spirit..
I don't have personal knowledge of the beliefs of any particular Islamofacists, but I assume they would mirror the teachings of Islamic scholars. There are dozens of Islamic websites devoted to creationism. I am not aware of a single Islamic teacher who argues for evolution or for the legitimacy of science as a way of acquiring knowledge. If you are interested in the subject you could start here.
Wikipedia: Islamic creationism
Check out some of the links to Islamic creationism/antievolution sites. Much of the material is virtually identical to the output of American creationist orgs like the ICR. Islamic and Christian antievolution orgs have cooperated in conferences and the like.
The wiki article notes some differences in emphasis and flavor, and that Islam has liberals who accept evolution just like Christianity does, but to say you can't even imagine fundamentalist Muslims being creationists...
You're really not putting us on?
Actually I got it, and replied more or less in kind.
"The sky is purple with pink polka dots," declared Free Republic poster Amelia.
(i.e., just because someone says it, doesn't make it so.)
You don't have to know the specific content of their belief; one has only to look at what they do. That speaks volumes. Unless one is deaf.
Islamic teachers drill the Q'uran by rote. That is considered to be the only knowledge a man needs to have. Not for nothing did Pope Benedict XVI aver that what is lacking in Islamic belief is reason, or any appreciation for the intellect, or the life of the mind. Don't forget, all that is required of a faithful Muslim believer is submission to Allah. That's it. The mind turns out to be quite a useless thing, on that philosophy.
But you are right, there is that rare Muslim scholar who will attack evolution theory. Notably, a Turk whose name now escapes me, but who's got a dandy website: darwinism refuted. The scholarship behind the work you'll find there seems unimpeachable.
Once upon a time, the Arabs/Muslims were among the leading scholars and scientists on the planet. Alas, Wahhabism took care of that. Nowadays "Arab scholar" or "Muslim scholar" are virually oxymorons....
p.s.: The Turk I mentioned is Harun Yahya, a pen name used by Adnan Oktar, “a prominent Turkish intellectual.”
Very well then, show me a definition of "creationism" that defines it in terms of personal behaviour, without any reference to religious beliefs.
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.