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
What you’re ignoring. Discrediting the Bible because it was written by a *bunch of bronze age goat herders* (which by the way is not true) and then basing a whole theory on the writings of one man is inconsistent. If the Bible lacks credibility because it was authored by men, then anything else authored by men deserves the same consideration.
BTW, you should check up on who it was that wrote the books of the Bible. Perhaps you could then identify for us the goat-herders who wrote it because I’m coming up short on goat herder authors.
You can't very well maintain that the philosophy "gave them their basis for existence", while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
-- that guy you're talking about (who also lauded Martin Luther as a great German for having translated the Bible)
Don't try to tie him to us. He's one of your'n.
Guess you’ve never heard of “metaphor”, hunh?
They put their faith in a science that demonstrates that spontaneous generation is impossible and yet expect us to believe that somehow life came into existence out of some chemical soup, in defiance of spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is impossible but life came from non-life.
That takes faith as well, to believe that something happened in direct contradiction to what evidence the scientific method provides and they teach.
And when did I claim either of those things?
So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
Do you believe (or expect me to believe) that saying the philosophy is their basis for existence doesn't imply that they would not have existed without it?
The "abyss of naturalism" is the hole that eventually swallows science itself.
I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.
Evolutionists, for instance, will point to genetics, and say, "There ya go", as if the mere existence of genetics was, in and of itself, proof of evolution. But it's not. Genetics is merely the empirical observation that organisms pass on heredity to their descendants, and the subsequent determination through empirical experimentation of the mechanism by which this takes place. However, the fact of heredity and intraspeciation is not, itself, proof for macroevolution, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame that relies on speculations not supported by either laboratory experimentation, nor from substantiating evidences from other fields (i.e. no fossil intermediates, no increase in information-carrying capacity through mutation, etc.)
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.
Look, show me where I said anything about them not existing without the philosophy of evolutionism in the first place. You can answer a simple question, right?
Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.
Quote of the week (at least)!
You claim it is their "basis for existence". How would they exist without it? You didn't say so explicitly, but it is a logical consequence of what you did say. If your statements will not bear examination of their logical consequences, what good are they?
Dunno, But it sure sounds impressive.
V..Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
As the essay reveals, there is NO SOURCE within evolutionism for absolutes. Yet your statement is a ‘declarative’ or absolute in that: Here is how it happened.
By it’s own Laws of Logic-—for which evolution has no source either, since by its nature evolution is anti-intellectual (no mind, no reason, etc)-—theories must be based on something which is testable. Since NO ONE has ever seen bacteria evolve into fish, or fish into proto-apes, the theory of evolution is based on wishful thinking.
Modern studies of DNA have shown that it is entirely consistent with a common descent for almost all life on earth, a prediction of evolutionary theory made before we even knew about genes and DNA. If every major “kind” of animal was a unique creation, why should this be? Why should humans share genetic material with earthworms? Oh, I know, I know, God’s ways are mysterious and beyond our understanding, and He could do things whatever way he desired. But that’s the kind of hand-waving explanation that can be used to explain away anything.
Have you taken a look at Congress and the Courts recently?
Imagine. All those meteorologists with their preconcieved bias towards the water cycle. All those biologists with their preconceived notions about what happens to fish when you pollute all the worlds fresh water with salt. All those geologists with their preconceived notions on what it took to create the Grand Canyon. All living a lie.
Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!
gracesdad: 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?
Irish: Tell me, exactly whose ‘social instincts” (impulses, etc) shall morality be based upon? Already millions of people have suffered and died in regimes where the “social instincts” of Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc have served as the ‘standard.” The Marquis de Sade had his own version of ‘social instincts’ as did Jeffrey Dahmer, the Columbine killers, etc.
How about we're all carbon based life forms living in the same environment, breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating each other?
If DNA controls certain functions and describes certain physical characteristics, then it would make sense to use it in all species, much like certain code is used in computer programming. You don't make up new code for each program, you can use the same basic code and rearrange it to make it do what you wish.
It also makes sense that if organisms devour each other, they need to be similar enough so that the components can be metabolized. What good would it be if everything was so different that nothing could eat each other, but might even be poisonous?
Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).
YYZ..Note that Darwins theory was about Natural Selection, and theres 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.
Irish...Naturalism, which is what evolutionism is a revamped version of, has ALWAYS been about eugenics, population control, aristocracy, state control of the means of wealth, slavery, etc. Why? Because if mankind is the creature of ‘nature’ (matter) then he must be in submission to his creator: nature (matter). Further, he has no more worth than any other animal, and when man’s worth is measured against other creatures, man comes out the loser.
A quagmire of sophistry.
“Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).”
No, but to my mind, and those of many people who have studied this subject much more than I have, a common descent is a much simpler explanation. And, as I have said, it is a prediction made by evolutionary theory before we even knew there were such things as genes or DNA, nevermind exactly how much of it was common between organisms.
Also, if God was being a good “coder” and re-used things so dilligently, why would He choose to implement the exact same functions in multiple different ways in different species? No, if God was our “designer”, then he gives every appearance of having been a rather poor and sloppy one.
That presumes on the part of the person sitting in judgment of the designer that they know better and more about how the object should have been designed just by looking at it than the designer did knowing vastly more.
Have we reached the place in knowledge of genetics that we can with certainty that we know all the possible functions of every last bit if genetic material that exists? We may have some grasp of what genes control physical features but what controls emotions, thought, will, decision making?
Defining the physical features and breaking it down to simply the mechanical only tells us about the physical mechanical part of the entity. It doesn't tell us what it really is and there's no way that I know of yet for scientists to say for certain that they plummed the depths of genetics and know all every possible function of eery bit of DNA in every creature.
Tell me then, what's the difference between a living body and a dead one? What makes a body suddenly cease functioning when it's structurally identical to the one minutes before it expired? And I'm not talking about long enough for decay to set in, that argument has been used before. I'm talking about a body that's alive one minute and dead the next.
America has little tradition of Evolutionary Humanism. As such, it is going to continue to be a hard sell, especially while the salesmen of Evolutionary Humansim seem so odd to Americans. If they were more like real people they might make some progress, but that would mean selling out their Evolutionary Humanism program.
Could you explain what you mean by ‘transcendant absolutes’ please. Perhaps an example would help to clarify it for me. Thanx
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
If you can't be forthright about what you're actual qualm is, why should I take it seriously?
That being said, I would indeed say that, without evolutionary philosophy, much of modern Communism and Nazism wouldn't have been possible, at least not in the forms they took. Marxism relies upon the assumption that "progressive scientism" will bring about the "inevitable" establishment of a classless society, once the dialectical middleman is gotten through. This is viewed as being more or less the natural order of things, hence the aura of inevitability that shrouded foundational Marxist thought. Anything that hinders the establishment of this end result, at least in revolutionary Communism, is fair game for being eliminated as unfit, regressive, and retrograde. The philosophy that begat all this, and the resultant attempts to eliminate millions of kulaks, capitalists, and other reactionaries, is the notion that the world is constantly evolving, progressing upward, that change is inevitable, and that those who are unfit deserve to be removed from the equation by the "New Men" who are better fitted for the glorious classless society of the future. Hence, yes, there is an underlying evolutionary aspect to Marxist thought that in many ways mirrors the evolutionary theory of the natural world which later inspired Darwin to refine the theory in his On the Origin of Species, and it is doubtful that Marxism would have had this aspect in its dialectic had there not been intellectual injection from the evolutionary philosophy sweeping Europe at the time.
Likewise, it is doubtful that Nazism would have gotten the idea of exterminating "inferior" groups as unfit, or the rest of its overall eugenic programme, had not the idea appeared to be completely natural and wholesome per naturalistic evolution.
Uh, because they are all made from the same "stuff"?
What differentiates man from animal is the thinking, reasoning, rational soul, not the body. Both animals and humans have physical existence, so it is quite reasonable to surmise that a Creator would make both of them using the same genetic materials.
Nope, indeed, at every point in history except for the one-year period posited for the Flood, the water cycle has functioned exactly as we see it function now - something that the Bible alludes to itself in a number of places. Again, the existence of a water cycle does not preclude a solitary PAST event from having happened.
All those biologists with their preconceived notions about what happens to fish when you pollute all the worlds fresh water with salt.
Except that in the flood event, the waters being added by the rains and the opening up of the fountains of the deep would have themselves been fresh water, and this fresh water would have remained near the top in a deluged world due to the density differences between fresh and salt water and the relative difficult of obtaining verticle miscibility, thus maintaining a decent segregation between the fresh and salt waters.
All those geologists with their preconceived notions on what it took to create the Grand Canyon. All living a lie.
Preconceived notions which actually are spectacularly anti-uniformitarian in their assumptions. If the Colorado River really cut the Grand Canyon over millions of years, why hasn't ever other major river done the same in the same amount of time? And why so cleanly, with not nearly so much erosion as would be expected for millions of years of exposure to the elements?
The first sentence is incorrect and the whole article is a strawman.
No mention of Modern Synthesis?
You're on your own with this one.
“What makes a body suddenly cease functioning when it’s structurally identical to the one minutes before it expired?”
I’m not a doctor or biologist, but I’ll take a stab at this. The heart stops pumping blood, which means that cells stop receiving the oxygen they need to live. Then the cells start to die. That’s why we can keep people “alive” with machines after their brains have largely stopped working, even to the point of not keeping normally autonomic functions like breathing and the heartbeat, operating on their own.
I wasn't aware the I had to explain the obvious logical implications of your own arguments to you first. My mistake.
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.
>>What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.
Most Christians who take the Bible literally are also evangelicals and believe in a personal experience with God - its really God who gets the faith - at least that’s the way its supposed to work.
As for Darwin - his work was 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory didn’t even start until 1930. Darwinism is a philosophy and nobody really has faith in it. Scientists have faith in the exploration and fact checking of the scientific method, not Darwin. Nobody would look to a doctor or astronomer from 150 years ago for answers.
Even then this is two different types of faith.
One is faith in something we know cannot be proved and the other is faith in process of proving what we can and continuing to search. Very different uses of the same word.
The real conundrum for secularists: is there another evolutionary step past evolutionism?
>>In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory<<
In the first sentence the author shows they have no idea what they are talking about. No scientist equates Darwinism with evolutionary theory - One is a philosophy from the 1800 and the other is modern science.
When you see someone talking about Darwinism as a current day thing you can bet they don’t know science.
You're welcome, no charge. (honesty is the best policy)
Eugenics follows from Darwinism. Darwin thought anything and everything is germinal. So do the eugenists. For more info see my FR page.
Humanism is just another word for eugenics.
yes, and if the church would start to teach people to be patient and forgiving they would have Christ’s strength to deal with the onslaught of humanism. But it is not doing that...just basically teaching a whole lot of history which is not all that helpfull in dealing with the temptations of everyday life. I have found a very good christian teacher at fhu.com where a simple biblical be still exercise is actually helping many people to be free of the darkside that attacks us everyday in our doubts.
Yes, and when Hitler was Chancellor of Germany he implemented a wide ranging highway project--the Autobahn. Clearly, if you support similar projects like the Interstate Highway System then you support the murder of Jews. Do you support the Interstate Highway System?
The crackpot ideology of transhumanism is far more dangerous than old-time humanism ever was. Christian humanism is possible, Christian transhumanism is not.
Transhumanism is yet another word for eugenics. It was coined by Julian Huxley.
The doctrines of Humanist Manifesto I are almost exactly like those of Ernst Haeckel's Monistenbund (basically a mystical German-style raving atheism, with a lot of Darwinism and a little Goethe thrown in.) Haeckel's Monism influenced many scientists including Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein.
Really? See my FR page.
Was the purpose of the Autobahn and the Interstate Highway System
to deny the existance of a Creator?
Your analogy fails.
tactical—A quagmire of sophistry.
Irish—If you knew history and the genesis of present day evolutionary materialism, you’d know how amusing your response is. It was in fact, the Greek Sophists (Atominists)-—among other ancient Greek Atomists-—who were among the architects of what you believe to be ‘truth.’
Be that as it may, you’re attempting to refute by way of snide put-down. Shallow, shallow, shallow!
Considering that evolutionary materialism dispossesses man of soul, reason, mind, personhood, memory,free will, conscience, Laws of Logic (all of these things belong in the metaphysical realm), you display the gross hypocrisy and blatant stupidity of evolutionary materialism by your response. It’s because these things are not within the sense realm that EO Wilson bases his hilarious claim that if an individual believes he senses personhood or believes he has actually had an independant thought, the poor sap has actually experienced an epiphenomenon...or an illusion caused by the firing of synapses and ongoing chemical changes taking place within his cranium.
Because by the free will you supposedly do not possess, and by which you chose nevertheless to embrace an anti-intellectual (stupidity-inducing) worldview that you find yourself without a leg to stand on.