Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
For your answer you will have to petition the Lord with prayer.
There are some conflicts between man’s current interpretation of the world and what Moses wrote that you can’t explain with your assertion that it was just a matter of being able to express himself in understandable terms.
That’s the problem. Logical, rational thought does not often enter into screeching pronouncements of thoughtlessly held beliefs.
I always read through these threads, but they devolve pretty quickly for the most part.
How so? Since the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how could He lie? I agree that there are aspects of the Bible that are intended to be poetic and Christ Himself used hyperbole, but to claim that Genesis cannot be taken literally is problematic. Which aspect of Genesis do you take umbrage with?
You misread my post, too, if you think I suggested that God is not omniscient, since I clearly implied quite the opposite: that God is infinite.
Your previous post was an elaborate non-sequitur.
Now you’ll have to excuse me but I see no point in discussing this any further with you. Have a blessed day!
My apologies then. Your post reads quite the opposite.
May the Lord bless you also!
I see such a lack of faith in that position. Pull one thread and your whole belief edifice crumbles to ashes.
My faith is much stronger than that. It consisted of a finely woven cloth of belief. Tease out one thread and it is still a strong whole.
Getting Genesis right isn’t going to save me. Getting it wrong isn’t going to condemn me. I was saved when Jesus gave up the Ghost 2000 years ago.
Indeed they do. Passion can win over when it comes to politics, religion and who makes the best hamburger!
I don’t “take umbrage” with any of it.
Interesting. If the literal interpretation of the special revelation (the Bible) is "wrong", that implies that if fails to match or meet some absolute standard that you hold above this interpretation.
And that absolute standard which if fails to meet is MAN'S INTERPRETATION of general revelation. Think about what you're holding up as a standard above all else. That should give you pause.
You must since you believe it is wrong to take Genesis literally.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
In the beginning God created evolution.........
We can both hold Genesis as the Inspired Living Word of God and have different interpretations of it.
rjsimon: " Do you understand how oxymoronic that statement happens to be? How can a designer allow something to happen by random chance? It is a self-defeating argument."
“I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true.” ~ C. S. Lewis
<>
And which theory of evolution are we talking about?
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are _incompatible with the truth about man_. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
- John Paul II October 22, 1996 Excerpted from: Theories of Evolution
<>
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.
Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.
One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."
<>
Why Darwinists Reject Evolution
<>
The Fractured Fairy Tale of ___Darwinian___ Evolution
<>
The Darwinian Tower of Monkey Babble
We left off [on 8/18/2010 - see above] with Ridley's observation that "there appeared on earth a new kind of hominid, one that refused to play by the rules. Without any change in its body, without any succession of species, it just kept changing its habits. For the first time, its technology changed faster than its anatomy. There was an evolutionary novelty, and you are it." Some of you anyway.
Now, this is not supposed to happen under the iron hand of natural selection. But as Ridley properly notes, our species was born in rebellion. It simply "refused to play by the rules," rules that are only invented a posteriori anyway by scientists looking through the rearview mirror with 20/20 hindsight. ...."
One would be well served, I believe, by believing the Word, as written, before trying to interpret what could be misleading in the world.
In the beginning God created evolution.....
Certain aspects, probably, but the truths contained therein are not up for negotiation. That God created the world in 6 days is not up for interpretation. If you choose to believe that a 'day' is as a thousand 'days' then you are free to do so, I do not believe it effects your salvation. To say that God did not create the world strips Him of omnipotence which is fundamental. So again I ask, which parts do you take umbrage with?
Biology is an emerging science. Still lots of basic research going on in the subject. Our understanding of it is too sketchy to be held as an absolute standard.
The old Earth theory is much more solid. There is voluminous data that supports it and no evidence to date that invalidates it. The testimony of God’s creation tells us that from our perspective it is very very old.
I am a Christian. I believe God did His entire creation in 6 days, with a rest on the seventh. As for any other theories, “let God be true and every man a liar”.
Any further thought on the matter is unacceptable.
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.