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.
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.