Posted on 12/09/2010 7:56:44 AM PST by spirited irish
Knowing how to split the atom doesn't tell you that incinerating thousands of people in nuclear fire is a good thing or a bad thing.
Understanding how gravity moves and forms stars and planets doesn't mean that the heavens are not moving according to God's will and were formed by God, if you indeed believe the heavens move according to the will of God and that they were created by God.
An argument with appeal to consequences like “if you believe in evolution you will think human life has no value” doesn't engage at all if the theory is right or wrong, but only the consequences that will arise (supposedly) if you ascribe to the theory. That is what I have also previously pointed out.
The secular materialistic humanistic moral relativist philosophy, and IF it has anything at all to do with evolutionary theory, or ANY scientific theory - is what I am discussing. Not arguing its merits or detriments, I am rejecting the premise that to accept evolutionary biology one must be a moral relativist.
To wit.....
If I am a supposed moral relativist for accepting evolution, is the Pope similarly a moral relativist for exactly the same reason - (for indeed he accepts biological evolution as a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being”)?
Do you now understand the relevance of the question?
ahem....
“reality that we must see which enriches our understanding of life and being”
Yes it is - and serves as an important document in support of Igor Shafarevich’s and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s profound realization that the roots of the cult of the man as god leads to moral relativism leads to nihilism leads to eternal death.
This would be the work of a watchmaker, not a creator. Species is an intellectual construct having no bearing on individuals or their offspring. Coral studies of genetically identical animals ranging from Australia to Indonesia no morphological similarity given adequate distance. They cannot be classified as species in which there is a normative character.
The notion of adaptation is a similar construct that bears no application to individuals. They either survive or they do not, given changing circumstances. They demonstrate no intrinsic ability to change their nature acording to circumstances.
Your reliance upon intellectual constructs to divine the nature of reality is limited by the tools you use.
Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post!
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Again, the data is there, but there’s really a matter of how you apply it. Natural Selection does not teach morality, or set a standard to live by morally. Nature is cruel, when you don’t have intelligent human intervention to tame it.
Very true.
And thank-you as well!!!
Bump.
In a previous post to you (allmendream)I addressed the consequences of conforming the Genesis account to evolutionary theory, which of course includes natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest.
Theistic evolution (a permutation of spiritual evolution, ie., ancient Mystery Religions, Eastern pantheist mysticism and Telhardism, all with foundations of godlessness) is the idea that God the Father used evolution as his creation process. But in reality, evolution dangerously distorts the entire Gospel message.
Jesus Christ refers to the Genesis account of creation, quotes directly from it, and thus places His stamp of approval on its authenticity (ie.,Tim. 2:13, 14; 1 Cor. 15:22,45). Paul says that it was through Adam that sin entered the world, and death by sin.
If however, Adam and Eve descended from ancestors who had lived and died over the course of millions and billions of years of prehuman evolution, then death would have entered the world long before Adam and Eve.
Clearly, such a contradiction would make God the Father the cause of sin and death, would make Jesus Christ a liar, would make the Devil just another evolved being, would fictionalize sin, and utterly destroy the reason for Jesus Christ’s earthly mission.
Even The American Atheist knows this to be true:
“...if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Savior...Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason (for) Jesus’ earthly life...If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” (The American Atheist as quoted by Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion, p. 35)
Two more observations:
1. Theistic evolution’s conception of God the Father as not just inept but the cause of evil, is clearly a Gnostic conception. This is a God who men seek salvation ‘from.”
2. Dostoevsky perceptively noted that man’s God-given free will has one ultimate purpose: to choose Good (Jesus Christ) so that you may have eternal life. Theistic evolution turns all of this upside-down, for it implies that free-will is a God-given endowment by which man must reject God, for He is a God of death.
As Richard Weaver astutely observed, “ideas have consequences.” Ideas are not the same, some are evil, even if at first their evil is not apparent.
Popes are like all men, that is, they are mixtures of strengths and weaknesses, good and yes...evil. They are fallible, not infallible; flawed, not flawless; imperfect, not perfect. For this reason, they can fall into intellectual error.
God the Father asked Job, “Were you there?” And a chastened Job had to respond, “No.”
ping to post 113
Ping!
Death entered the world through sin as spiritual death, bereavement from God.
I asked you that if you deem me a moral relativist because I accept evolution if you feel that the Pope is also a moral relativist for the exact same reason.
I notice that you once again refrain from calling one of the great moral teachers extant in our fallen world a moral relativist. Do you lack the courage of your convictions THAT much?
Amusing that your axiom that acceptance of evolution makes one a moral relativist comes to a screeching halt at that point.
amd: Amusing that your axiom that acceptance of evolution makes one a moral relativist comes to a screeching halt at that point.
Spirited: Just as possession is a work in progress, so too is what we commonly think of as “falling.” It does not happen all at once but slowly, incrementally. When one can no longer discern between truth and lie, and good and evil, that downward spiraling stage called moral relativism has been reached. The Pope is nowhere near that threshhold. You on the other hand are.
Case in point: Every time you accuse creationists of being liars and ignorant rubes you demonstrate to everyone reading this board that you are an anger-filled individual who suffers both cognitive dissonance and moral insanity. In other words, you can clearly see that creationists responding to this thread are intelligent, articulate, well-informed, reasonable, and moral. Yet seeing the truth you nevertheless mindlessly insist on labeling them liars, backwards, unintelligent, etc.
In short amd, it is you who have the spiritual ulcer, and you are projecting it upon creationists.
The more educated someone is the less likely they are to be a creationist. Creationist sources rely upon this to peddle disinformation and historic inaccuracies.
And yet if I point out where this article is absolutely 100% in error in calling Communists who rejected Darwin utterly and sent you to prison or executed you for teaching or accepting his theory, I am full of hate?
Yes, OK. Sorry for correcting your beloved creationist lies. Apparently you would prefer to be left alone in your ignorance of actual history.
Carry on!
“The Original Lie” of the West may have started long before this article says, according to our Father among the Saints, Justin of Celije (to whom I pray every day):
http://josephpatterson.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/archimandrite-fr-justin-popovich/
And we all know that institutions of higher learning are filled with letfists, atheists, wymmin’s studies teachers, Darwininisst, communists, affirmative action hires, homosexuals, and the like, who instill their beliefs in their students.
Sheesh.
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.