Posted on 04/25/2014 8:30:14 AM PDT by fishtank
Americans Question the Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A new poll revealed that 51 percent of Americans question the Big Bang theory, and 54 percent of Americans believe that the universe is so complex that there must have been a designer.1 Mainstream scientists are not happy about it.
The Associated Press-GfK poll queried Americans' confidence in a number of other issues—the genetic code's link to inherited traits, smoking's link to lung cancer—and the respondents expressed more confidence in these issues than they did in the Big Bang. According to AP, "Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts."2
But the Big Bang theory asks us to believe the incredible—that randomized forms of matter and energy coming from an unknown source self-organized into stars, galaxies, planets, life and ultimately people.
...more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
You must have been reading someone else. I've never made such a claim.
The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called “ethical principles.” The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
- Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist.
2) No life after death exists.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5) Human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)
Personally, I do not see how anyone can live in harmony with these beliefs. I would agree with Sir Arthur Balfour and William J Murray:
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
- William J Murray
There is no evidence, nor can any rational explanation be made, in support of a universal morality outside of the realm of homo sapiens. No morality exists on the moons of Jupiter, until a live human being sets foot there. Morality is a way for human beings to associate with one another and the outside world.
Since you've cut and pasted here again, we'll just go down the list on the second quote, since argumentative ventriloquy seems to be your preferred method of communication:
1) No gods worth having exist. - Subjective, "worth having"
2) No life after death exists. - I would say there's no evidence for it, and science points against mind/body dualism. We don't have enough information.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists. - Disagree, in the sense that there is a foundation for determining health and well being, the minimization of suffering, and the social constructiveness of families.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists. - Objection, subjective and non-cognitive.
5) Human free will is nonexistent. - This is a deterministic argument, which is philosophy, not science.
Interesting… The US Constitution assumed all human rights were bestowed to us by our Creator through Natural Law . Where do you believe our rights come from? Beyond this, where do mathematical concepts and ideas exist? They are objective, not physical, nor do they necessarily describe anything physical.
It's funny that no one bothers to ask the same questions about physical health. If someone tries to say that it's healthy to vomit 24 hours a day, we have an objective basis to say that they're wrong. No one stands around and says, "Yeah, it might not be healthy to vomit all day, but where does your health 'come from'"?
From where?
So we have an objective basis for morality also?
Jefferson appealed to pantheism, I'm sure you believe your rights came from the God of Abraham.
If I asked you to give me a reason not to murder someone, could you do it without appealing to religion or the supernatural?
Again, purely naturalistic beliefs have consequences - if we are merely animals - I can not give a reason not to murder - it happens throughout the animal kingdom and is part of natural selection - lions kill the cubs of other males and then mate with the female to continue the gene pool - we do not hold animals morally responsible for their actions - why are we morally responsible? It seems morality for humans does not help evolution - we save the weak and allow them to reproduce. How does morality only help humanity and not any other animal if evolution is merely about reproduction?
So, to answer your question, without objective morality there is no basis to not murder. It happens in North Korea, happened in communist Russia, happens in China, and eugenics happened here in the US.
Again, where do they ultimately come from?
And where do you get this objective morality?
Something inherent by nature doesn’t come from anywhere; that’s why it’s called inherent.
Greek philosophers called it the Prime Mover -our nation's founders were deists, and Christians.
Where does your morality come from?
So you're admitting that there are multiple objective moralities...
Also, where is the central objective medium that deists obtain objective morality? Where are the rules of morality written for them?
...Right are inherent... Something inherent by nature doesn’t come from anywhere; that’s why it’s called inherent.
I admit it cannot come from naturalism.
Ask our founders and quit acting like it is a crazy idea...
Inherent rights are natural; they are a part of you. They can’t be taken away, only infringed upon, and are not dependent on governments, laws, religious beliefs, or incantations.
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.