Posted on 05/05/2020 11:07:50 AM PDT by fishtank
The deep inconsistency of evolutionism, revealed amid the COVID-19 crisis
by Paul Price
Published: 5 May 2020 (GMT+10)
As of the time of writing, we are in the midst of a global viral outbreak (a pandemic) known as COVID-19 (the “coronavirus”). The majority of us are being confined to our homes in an attempt to mitigate the spread of the disease (“shelter in place”), the goal of which being to save human lives, and protect the most vulnerable in our communities such as the elderly or immunocompromised people.
Commenting on this situation, the New York Times featured an article called:
Does the Pandemic Have a Purpose? Only if we give it one. The coronavirus is neither good nor bad. It wants only to reproduce.
Yes, that is a lengthy title. This is an opinion piece by Mr. Stephen Asma, a professor of philosophy. Obviously an attempt to capture an uplifting tone in the midst of this crisis, Mr. Asma’s opening line is, “Nature doesn’t care about you.” 1
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The human race is an evolutionary dead end, because we figured out how to mess with natural selection.
“That’s just ad hominem name calling, not an argument.”
—
Nope, no name calling at all. You got a correct and concise fact; “Darwin Christians” and “Gay Christian” have equal status - they’re both oxymorons. Like “Atheist Christian” or “Rapist Christian” - you can come up with as many prefixes as to try to feel less guilty about wrongdoing, but it doesn’t change the reality.
Specifically, what element of ToE do you take issue with?
What an incredibly incorrect, offensive, and un-Christian comment!
+1
Viruses and other malignancies are, in essence, self-worshippers/self-perpetuators in the extreme.
They will do whatever it takes to live forever.
But this still doesn’t go far enough, because nature doesn’t care about anything at all! Nature is not a sentient individual that thinks. It is just an abstraction, which means this is a fallacy of reification (acting as if something abstract is something concrete).I think the Lord has something to say about this,
Romans 8:18-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
Also
Luke 19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)38 shouting: “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” 39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” 40 But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”
“Specifically, what element of ToE do you take issue with?”
—
The question/topic at hand, that I’m addressing, is if someone can serve both Darwin and Christ, not what you’re asking about there. (By the way, the answer to the topic is - “No, they cannot”.)
What do you mean by “Serve Darwin?” If you believe in relativity, do you “Serve Einstein?”
If you believe in relativity, do you “Serve Einstein?”
—
If Einstein or his theories on Genenal and Special Relativity (Einstein preferred “invariance theory”) conflict with Jesus Christ and his teachings - and if you were to take Albert’s word over Jesus’ - then you would have chosen Albert as your Lord and Master.
But, as far as I know, Jesus didn’t make many points on time dilation at C or the like, so it should be okay.
However the main problem on this is not the belief in Darwin, but the “belief” (so to speak) in Jeusus. If you believe him to be some Jewish carpenter social worker who went and got hisself kilt afore he could finish his work of teaching philosophy & community organizing, then yeah - Darwin, Jesus, whatever, they’re interchangeable in your mind.
But Christians have a very different view of Jesus - and it’s not the hyphenated version.
"Hedonism, in this case, would be on the side of sheltering in place to avoid the virus for our own self benefit. But, shouldn’t some simply have to die in the struggle with nature? "
This passage shows that the author doesn't grasp Asma's point at all - evolutionary theory is descriptive of nature, not prescriptive.
There's no "should" involved.
You are not a Christian until you repent and believe on and receive Christ in your heart by faith
Are you familiar with the logical dodge called “begging the question?” You should look it up.
My question was, paraphrased, what part of the ToE do you take issue with? You then said that the problem is with Darwin. You believe that one can’t believe in both Darwin and the divinity of Jesus.
I’ll ask again: What part of the ToE do you object to? There is absolutely no reason to brand it Un-Christian.
What does that mean?
“What part of the ToE do you object to? There is absolutely no reason to brand it Un-Christian.”
—
It isn’t - any more than believing in a flat earth or preferring a movie sequel to the original is “Un-Christian”. Two totally different animals. Like saying there’s no reason to brand green shoelaces as “Un-Buddhist”. Apples and oranges. No reason for a pecan pie to be branded as “Un-Cloudy”. Absolutely goofy to even try to link such things.
Where something is to be rejected out of hand is if it refutes God, Jesus and/or his teachings, as Darwinism does. In disagreeing with Jesus it just picked the wrong guy to pick a bone with.
You can’t logically say that, paraphrasing that one can’t pick a bone with Jesus, and yet say that ToE is un-Christian. Do you not see the contradiction?
It would advance the discussion if you would point to the part of the ToE that you find un-Christian.
To get to the basic point - do you believe God created all things as clearly recorded in Genesis in detail? If not, why not?
You’ve stumbled into the answer that I expected. You assume that ToE addresses the origin of life. It does not.
“You assume that ToE addresses the origin of life.”
—
Nope, I assume nothing, but you just did. Re-read what I asked, it’s a biblical question.
You continue to dodge. You asked if I believe that God created all things as described in Genesis. I believe the former, but not the latter in its entirety. The bible is not a science text. You believe that ToE addresses origins. It does not.
“You believe that ToE addresses origins.”
—
No, that’s just your feelings about what others “believe”. I made no statement of any beliefs, you’re building strawmen out of assumptions there.
“You asked if I believe that God created all things as described in Genesis. I believe the former, but not the latter in its entirety. The bible is not a science text.”
—
You don’t believe the latter - that God created things as stated in Genesis? If that’s correct, I still have the same question for you - why not believe it? Because it doesn’t match up with what science says can happen?
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.