Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[betty boop]

The problem is that the abusers of science — those who do theology and philosophy under the color of science — hold positions of great power and influence.... The potential consequence in political terms can be visualized as bodies stacked liked cordwood in the Nazi and Marxist genocides and presently in the slaughter of the unborn.

Magnificently put, dearest sister in Christ!

I've been away from the forum the past 2 days or so — out bopping about with my dear Mom (who will celebrate her 96th birthday two weeks from today!). I'm just getting back, and am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of discussion that went on here while I was absent.

Where to begin? It seems that what C. S. Lewis thought about Darwin's theory, and whether or not he was misquoted, was vigorously debated. So I'll begin there.

I thought BroJoeK's remark — "This concatenation of views is clearly intended to suggest that Lewis agreed with Clarke" — was astute, not to mention just. (I wondered about the same thing myself. Not having seen the actual source, I don't think I have enough evidence to draw a conclusion yet.)

Dearest sister in Christ, I think that C. S. Lewis would have put Pinker, Lewontin, Dawkins, Singer, et al., into the category of "the Conditioners." And clearly, they are all metaphysical naturalists. I consulted his The Abolition of Man for further information.

Here is a "random selection" :^) from that work that reveals Lewis' thinking about the "scientific method" and how it deals with Nature. Presently, there are two modes: metaphysical naturalism, a/k/a "philosophy conducted under the guise of science"; and methodological naturalism, which our dear brothers BroJoeK, tacticalogic, R7 Rocket, et al., find so reasonable and for which it is so much to be admired. We're "jumping in mid-stream" here:

...When all that says 'it is good" has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains.... My point is that those who stand outside all judgements of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.

We may legitimately hope that among the impulses which arise in minds thus emptied of all 'rational' or 'spiritual' motives, some will be benevolent. I am very doubtful myself whether the benevolent impulses, stripped of that preference and encouragement which the Tao teaches us to give them and left to their merely natural strength and frequency as psychological events, will have much influence. I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently. I am inclined to think that the Conditioners will hate the conditioned.... [O]ur hope even of a 'conditioned' happiness rests on what is ordinarily called 'chance'.... And Chance here means Nature....

My point may be clearer to some if it is put in a different form. Nature is a word of varying meanings, which can best be understood if we consider its various opposites. The Natural is the opposite of the Artificial, the Civil, the Human, the Spiritual, and the Supernatural. The Artificial does not now concern us. If we take the rest of the list of opposites, however, I think we can get a rough idea of what men have meant by Nature and what it is they oppose to her. Nature seems to be the spatial and temporal, as distinct from what is less fully so or not so at all. She seems to be a world of quantity, as against the world of quality; of objects against consciousness; of the bound, as against the wholly or partially autonomous; of that which knows no values as against that which both has and perceives value; of efficient causes (or, in some modern systems, of no causality at all) as against final causes. Now I take it that when we understand a thing analytically and then dominate and use it for our own convenience, we reduce it to the level of 'Nature' in the sense that we suspend our judgements of value about it, ignore its final cause (if any), and treat it in terms of quantity. This repression of elements in what would otherwise be our total reaction to it is sometimes very noticeable and even painful: something has to be overcome before we can cut up a dead man or a live animal in a dissecting room. These objects resist the movement of the mind whereby we thrust them into the world of mere Nature....

It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.

And thus to my way of thinking, we find in the conduct of even methodological naturalist science — leaving out of consideration here the egregious abuse of science typified by the metaphysical naturalists — an outstanding example of A. N. Whitehead's Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: First we remove various aspects or sectors of reality that characterize Nature in its fullness to the human mind and experience, but which are superfluous to our scientific method. The result is the creation of an abstraction from Nature; and then we use this abstraction as a proxy for Nature. Nature is not only "shrunk" to the size of our method as a result; it is fundamentally falsified by this transformation.

The modern scientific method dates back to Sir Francis Bacon, who famously wanted to banish all "metaphysics" from science, in order to place science on a firm empirical basis based on direct observation and meticulous measurement. That was pretty revolutionary!

It seems today that, for many people, Bacon's method was a rebuke to all of philosophy as a legitimate means of accessing truthful knowledge.

But I would like to know how science can even function without philosophy. Science's main operational premises rest on the philosophical insights of such great philosophers as Plato and Aristotle. It was Plato who first "isolated" the human psyche and nous — reason — rendering them proper objects of study and analysis. Aristotle systematized logic; he sought to find the causes of natural things as located in the natural things themselves (unlike Plato, who, like Max Tegmark, located formal cause in a transcendent realm "beyond" Nature); and developed universal laws of causation that operate in Nature. For these reasons, Aristotle is widely considered the father of science itself.

Not to mention that the doctrine of materialism is first and foremost a philosophical doctrine of very ancient lineage. It is very popular nowadays; though likely few people would recognize it as "philosophy." It's just "the way things are."

But it seems to me that all you have to do to falsify, to "denature Nature," is to say that physical and moral law are somehow mutually exclusive. Which to me is a ludicrous proposition: They are, rather, complementarities (in the epistemological sense articulated by Niels Bohr), in constant dynamic relation....

IMHO, one of C. S. Lewis' most striking observations was that bodies do not "have" souls; rather, souls "have" bodies. That is, "soul" has primacy with respect to the body; body is secondary; it is the temporal materialization of the soul, considered as eternal. It is "epiphenomenal" to the phenomenon, soul....

I'll just leave it there for now.

Dearest sister in Christ, thank you oh so very much for your splendid, lapidary observations in this magnificent essay/post!

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish: "Evolution, according to Lewis, is a lie of the greatest magnitude.
It is a Big Lie, not a small fib, but a Big Lie."

Except, of course, that it's not.
Basic evolution is a simple scientific theory built on two confirmed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
So, it's inconceivable to me that this simple theory is what CS Lewis meant by "evolution" when calling it a "radical and central lie".
I would have to presume Lewis was referring to something quite different, and indeed, he immediately tells us exactly what that is (your post #183):

"...it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."

Please, please note that what offended Lewis so greatly as to use such strong language is not evolution theory itself, but rather the fanatical attitudes of it defenders.
Indeed, if we remember that at the time, 1951, the whole world was still in shock and horror over the deaths of tens of millions murdered in the name of a Darwinian "super-race".
So Lewis was not writing theoretically, or esthetically, or even logically, but overwhelmingly emotionally in horror at what "fanatical attitudes" had just done.

That's why I think, were Lewis alive today, he might listen to all the arguments and facts and decide as I believe that evolution is a confirmed theory which represents just one tool in our Creator G*d's creation tool box.

spirited irish: "Lurking behind ‘scientific’ evolutionary religion is neo- Gnostic hatred of Yahweh, the evil demiurge and inept creator of bad matter."

Sorry, but I can't even translate that sentence into normal English, and so it must surely be rubbish of the worst sort.
The real truth of the matter is that nothing "lurks behind" any scientific theory except the original Thomasian distinction between theology derived from the Bible and natural-philosophy derived from our senses.

If anybody injects their own personal religious ideas into science, that is only them speaking, not science itself.
Tell me, please, why is that so hard for you to grasp?

spirited irish: "Modern Gnostic pantheist religion is a syncretic, dualistic, evolutionary religion holding that divine sparks..."

I'll take your word for it, but none of that has anything to do with science.
Again, I'll recommend, if you wish to clear your mind of endless rubbish and nonsense, start with St. Thomas Aquinas:

Shorter Summa

spirited irish: "To modern evolutionary theists it also means that if true then Yahweh is not responsible for death, suffering and other evils but rather the devil and fallen men are."

I think the theological answer may relate to the fact that life without a God-given soul is unaware of its own future death...
But here we simply must confront the fact that the fossil record is just that: a record of life and death dating back hundreds of millions of years.
To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of all reason, so let me gladly give the last, very famous, words to another great Doctor of the Church, St. Augistine of Hippo, writing circa 420 AD:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men....
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)"

[tacticalogic]

It seems today that, for many people, Bacon's method was a rebuke to all of philosophy as a legitimate means of accessing truthful knowledge.

I don't think it was intended as that at all. I believe Bacon simply recognized that the pursuit of science is best done in a collaborative environment, that is as inclusive as possible.

Empiricism is not a philosophy that you must assume in order to pursue scientific research. It is a protocol you follow in order to collaborate with other scientists. Admittedly it has it's limitations, but any protocol does, and it seems to provide a framework that allows research data and theories to be engaged by the widest possible pool of participants.

[R7 Rocket]

The Ancient and Medieval Church made sure that the best educated men were the priests and the bishops, not some random semiliterate from the mountains.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your wonderfully informative essay-post, dearest sister in Christ, and for all your encouragements!

And a very Happy Birthday to your beloved mom!

Indeed, the quote from C.S. Lewis aligns very nicely with several of Rosen's insights in Life Itself. Interesting that a mathematician/biologist would independently find himself in agreement with points Lewis made decades earlier. I'm sure if Rosen had relied on any of Lewis' insights, he would have credited him as he faithfully did so many others.

It also brings to mind the point you often raise in these debates, namely the enormous difference between saying what a thing looks like versus what it "is."

Biologists of course rely on observation and measurement and rarely even mention the "what it is" issue - though it is of great importance to the physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, etc.

[spirited irish]

There are some who desire truth above all else and those who don’t. The entirety of your response is a reaction against truth that arrogantly dresses itself up in the words of St. Augustine and Aquinas. What do these faithful believers who loved truth have to do with hatred of truth? Nothing. And if they were alive now, what would these two faithful believers have to do with the apostasy of evolutionary pantheist religionists? Other than strongly rebuking it they would have nothing to do with
it, for what has the Temple of the living, personal God to do with idols (evolutionary pantheism)? 2 Cor.6:16

Years ago, long-time Vatican observer Malachi Martin (1921-1999) described a situation in which the Curia is divided between ‘progressive’ (evolutionary pantheists) and ‘traditionalists;’ between adherents of evolutionary conceptions such as Teilhard de Chardin’s Hermetic, quasi-Hindu idea, abortion, women and ‘gay’ priests, and openness to non-Christian nature religions and philosophies and those who oppose such an agenda. According to Martin, ‘progressives’ hold all the important positions of power, and so are able to bring about a major revolution that if unchecked will constitute,

“....one of the most spectacular expressions of apostasy in the modern era, dressed up in all the traditional robes and much of the terminology of Christianity but denying its essence.” (ibid, Jesus and the Den of Thieves, SCP Journal, Jones, p. 17)

With every word you have written you declare your unity with apostasy disguised as ‘science’ and dressed up in the traditional robes and terminology of Christianity but denying the living, personal Holy God in three persons in favor of evolutionary conceptions speaking of a pantheist entity in process of becoming.

[betty boop]

Empiricism is not a philosophy that you must assume in order to pursue scientific research. It is a protocol you follow in order to collaborate with other scientists. Admittedly it has it's limitations, but any protocol does, and it seems to provide a framework that allows research data and theories to be engaged by the widest possible pool of participants.

Which is why the physical sciences produce theories that are capable of mathematical expression. Mathematics is the universal language. All the great scientific theories can be expressed in terms of mathematical notation.

Except Darwin's theory. It seems irreducible to mathematical formulae. In just this sense it appears "unscientific" in a key respect.

I don't agree with your suggestion that Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was primarily interested in extending the community of scientific discourse, to make the conduct of science a more "collaborative" and "inclusive" process.

Rather, I believe that he wanted to put "the final nail in the coffin" of scholasticism and Aristotelianism. He found both to be relentlessly deductive in their methods. What Bacon was looking for was an inductive method:

Now what the sciences most stand in need of is a form of induction which shall analyze experience and take it to pieces, and by a due process of exclusion and rejection lead to an inevitable conclusion. — The Great Instauration

Good luck, Francis. (Bacon never heard of the observer problem — which didn't become topical before Einstein and Bohr, some four hundred years after his death.)

In Novum Organum, he tells us the following about "natural philosophy" — which is what "science" used to be called, right up through Darwin's time — and how he feels it should be conducted:

Aphorism XCV — Those who have handled sciences have been either men of experiment, or men of dogmas. The men of experiment are like the ant; they only collect and use: the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle course, it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of philosophy: for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay it up in the memory whole, as it finds it; but lays it up in the understanding altered and digested. Therefore from a closer and purer league between these two faculties, the experimental and the rational (such as has never yet been made) much may be hoped.

Aphorism XCVI — We have as yet no natural philosophy that is pure; all is tainted and corrupted: in Aristotle's school by logic; in Plato's by natural theology; in the second school of Platonists, such as Proclus and others, by mathematics, which ought only to give definiteness to natural philosophy, not to generate or give it birth. From a natural philosophy pure and unmixed, better things are to be expected.

That was Bacon's mission: To found a natural philosophy "pure and unmixed," founded on induction.

The problem seems to be that modern science does believe that if you break things down to their parts — as Bacon recommends — and then study the parts, once you know everything about the parts, you then have complete knowledge of the whole. But if you do this sort of thing to a biological system, you kill the whole. It is then completely irrecoverable.

As the poet put it: We murder to dissect.

What modern physics and information science is discovering is that the whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

Just some stray thoughts today, dear tacticalogic. BTW, Bacon is a great read, whether or not one agrees with everything he says.

Thank you so much for writing!

[tacticalogic]

Except Darwin's theory. It seems irreducible to mathematical formulae. In just this sense it appears "unscientific" in a key respect.

That's not unique to Darwin's theory.

"Hard" sciences like physics lend themselves easily to mathematical abstraction.

"Softer" sciences like biology do not. They deal in physical attributes and develop taxonomies rather than units of measure, but they must deal in attributes that can be observed and described.

The complaint may be worth consideration, but if we're going to talk about changing it there are going to be consequences far beyond just calling one theory into dispute.

[betty boop]

It also brings to mind the point you often raise in these debates, namely the enormous difference between saying what a thing looks like versus what it "is."

LOL dearest sister in Christ! I was on the verge of mentioning that difference, but then realized I had already gone on at such length that it was time to give the reader a break.

But since you mention the issue, these are my thoughts about it.

Kant drew the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. A phenomenon is something susceptible of sense perception. For instance, sight — what the eye registers, and the optic nerve and relevant brain functions process, is simply the pattern of light reflected by an object of perception. That's it. And of course, that reflection can only be of the surface properties of the object, which we call its appearance, or "what it looks like." But the underlying reality of which the phenomenon is the outward appearance is simply not something that can be discovered on the basis of sense perception, of direct observation. What Kant called the noumenon is the thing as it is in and for itself that remains forever concealed from sense perception.

Phenomenon v. noumenon is the basic distinction between what a thing appears to be, and what it actually is. The latter is not available to us via simple sense perception.

It is clear to me that Darwin's theory is more interested in what things "look like" than it is in what things actually are. If it was interested in the latter, it would have to take questions of origin — of the origin of Life — much more seriously than it does.

FWIW.

And yes, it is striking that C. S. Lewis and Robert Rosen "align very nicely" — one a professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance literature, a world-class literary artist, and a great Christian evangelist; and the other a mathematical genius and biological theorist whose religious attitude, if any, is unknown.

I guess that just goes to show the unity of Truth, even though the One Truth is mediated through different perspectives....

Thank you so much for your birthday wishes for my Mom! She is truly an amazing woman, spirited and strong!

And thank you for your kind words of encouragement and support, dearest sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

"Hard" sciences like physics lend themselves easily to mathematical abstraction. "Softer" sciences like biology do not. They deal in physical attributes and develop taxonomies rather than units of measure, but they must deal in attributes that can be observed and described.

As for problems associated with what can be "observed and described," I think I may have anticipated your point and tried to answer it here, at post #249.

Why does biology have to be a "'softer' science?" Supposedly biology deals with the biggest questions that can possibly be asked; and you are suggesting that as a scientific discipline, it cannot become more rigorous? If so, why not?

[hosepipe]

It is clear to me that Darwin's theory is more interested in what things "look like" than it is in what things actually are......

If it was interested in the latter, it would have to take questions of origin — of the origin of Life — much more seriously than it does. ---------------------------------------------------------------

Boopy you've done it again.. you've "Booped" me..

That was BRILLIANT!.. you've got "know stuff" to make complicated matters Simple..

[Alamo-Girl]

Very informative as always, dearest sister in Christ, thank you so much for all of your insightx!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Which is why the physical sciences produce theories that are capable of mathematical expression. Mathematics is the universal language. All the great scientific theories can be expressed in terms of mathematical notation.
Except Darwin's theory. It seems irreducible to mathematical formulae.

Perhaps we just don't have the mathematics for it yet, or we do but nobody's successfully derived the formulae yet. It seems to me that if, as we were discussing before, evolution is a probabilistic phenomenon, we'd need the mathematical equivalent of fuzzy logic to reduce the theory to mathematical notation. I see in brief research that evolutionary algorithms are, in fact, used to create fuzzy logic system controllers, I guess by exploring what seems to be called the "truth value."

It is clear to me that Darwin's theory is more interested in what things "look like" than it is in what things actually are.

I realize you're talking about something deeper than simply something's outward appearance. But I still don't think that's really fair to say a theory that asserts that this

and these

share a common ancestor is only concerned with how things look.

[BroJoeK]

Alamo-Girl: "The problem is that the abusers of science – those who do theology and philosophy under the color of science – hold positions of great power and influence."

Might I suggest, a simple "inoculation" against such philosophizing in the name of science is to do what I've been saying all along: teach the strict definition of the word "science" as: natural explanations for natural processes.

Make certain that people (especially children) understand that whenever a scientist (or teacher, professor, etc.) begins to talk about his/her theological beliefs -- or non-beliefs -- that's not "science" and doesn't belong in science classes.

Alamo-Girl: "The potential consequence in political terms can be visualized as bodies stacked liked cordwood in the Nazi and Marxist genocides and presently in the slaughter of the unborn."

Sadly, throughout history human beings have practiced mass murders and exterminations under any number of flags, banners and ideologies.
Some are even recorded in the Bible, and others in the name of Christian orthodoxy (Cathars come to mind, and 30 Years War).
So, I don't blame the Bible or Christianity for mass exterminations committed by their followers, nor do I blame Darwin for Nazi insanities.

Alamo-Girl: "Truly, the statement that “things change over time” is just as obvious and trivial as the intelligent design hypothesis which simply states:

[implied word: "only"] "Certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”

It's not clear to me where that leads you, but allow me to state strongly: as a believer, I take total offense and "condemn" anybody who asserts that there is even a single atom, a single sub-atomic particle or multi-dimensional "string" vibrating anywhere in the Universe which was not first "intelligently designed" by our Creator, and second put where it is when it is to do what it is the Creator intends.

No, I'm not talking about "predestination", since the Universe is chock full of unpredictable, apparently random, seemingly chaotic features, which allow huge numbers of choices for the human soul.
I'm simply saying that G*d designed the Universe with His purposes in mind, and in the end, G*d's will, will be done.

Is that not clear?

Alamo-Girl: "So far, scientists can only offer explanation for the present earth or universe by moving the goalpost to prior universes or life forms.
For instance, both Dawkins and Crick accept panspermia as a possible explanation of the origin of life on earth though they can neither explain the rise of life in the universe."

Again and again I'm telling you: do not fantasize that science can answer every question.
It can only provide natural explanations for natural processes.
The moment, the instant, you leave the natural realm, it ain't science anymore.

So as of today, scientist have no theories -- zero, zip, nada -- about how life on earth began.
All they have is many different hypotheses, among which are abiogenesis and panspermia, but no confirming evidence for any of them.

Sure, maybe someday they'll find life on some comet which originated "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...".
Or maybe somebody will eventually work out the hundred (or 10,000) critical steps by which "interesting organic chemistry" slowly became "primitive life-like forms" on earth.
But all any of that does is confirm the belief that G*d created the Universe with life and us in His plan.

Alamo-Girl: "Remember how easily the Germans bought into the term untermenschen and thereby could slaughter Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs and Russians as not actually being human..."

Some people have argued that historical precedents for mass exterminations in Germany, and ideological groundwork for excluding Jews from the family of mankind, were both actually set in the Middle Ages' burnings of heretics and Reformation religious wars of depopulation.
They also say that we Americans set precedents in our treatment of Native Americans over several centuries.

I would say: all those accusations are no more accurate than blaming Darwin for the Holocaust.

Alamo-Girl: "We will continue to engage in this debate, wrestling the dictionary away from the abusers and pursuing clarity because God’s Name is I AM."

Amen.

[tacticalogic]

Why does biology have to be a "'softer' science?" Supposedly biology deals with the biggest questions that can possibly be asked; and you are suggesting that as a scientific discipline, it cannot become more rigorous? If so, why not?

I suggested that it cannot be simplified and abstracted as pure mathematics. I imagine it would be nice if we could. We could do things like predict all the effects of new drugs, just by running them through an equation. But it cannot be that "rigorous", because we don't know nearly enough to make it so. If you have any concrete suggestions on how to change it all so that we do, I'm sure that would be a very intersting discussion.

[BroJoeK]

hosepipe: "A KNOWN democrat appeaser(collaborator) was chosen in the republican primary's OVER several well known and respected conservative candidates.. AND ALL conservative candidates were REJECTED... some very harshly.."

Sorry, but there were no serious conservative candidates in 2012.

Of course, if you think Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were "conservative", then have I got a bridge for you in NY!
And if you think Michele Backmann or Ron Paul were "serious", then... well, welcome to the real world, FRiend.

2014 & 2016 may be quite different.
Today we seem to have more than one conservative watch-dog willing to do more than just roll over so Democrats can scratch their tummies. ;-)

What? A conservative with teeth?
Speaking of natural selection and evolution...

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "Why do you continue to tell me what you already know I know?"

Yes, I "get it" that agreeing with me irks you beyond all human endurance, and to be reminded of such agreements is an insult no human should have to endure.
Nevertheless, it's still a free country -- at least on Free Republic -- where I can express my considered opinions, even when, G*d forbid, they agree with YHAOS.

;-)

YHAOS: "...the fog of disinformation you mix with your attempts at a/disa greements"

No "disinformation" from here -- just straight facts and reason, to the best of my ability.
And I deeply apologize for the insult of sometimes agreeing with you!

;-)

YHAOS: "Aside from your exception, how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”?
(And that, boys & girls, is how it’s done.
That is how one says “yes” by saying “no”) "

In fact, the phrase "vicious predatory animal" is loaded with multiple ambiguous word-meanings, which you can easily discern yourself.
To begin with, the term "vicious predatory animal" is a modern pejorative used in reference to our worst criminals -- murderers, rapists, etc.
That's a simple fact.

But if you strip away the pejorative meaning, and simply ask: is man an animal?
Well, we're not potted plants -- at least most of us.

Is man a predator?
Well, certainly all our pre-civilized ancestors hunted animals for food -- which matches one definition of "predator" (today many hunt for sport, not the same).

Is man vicious?
The word vicious means: violent, cruel and dangerous.
That might describe our hunter-ancestors from their prey's point of view, or from their enemies' view during times of warfare.

In short: the answer depends on what, exactly, you mean by the phrase: "vicious predatory animal."

YHAOS: "In post #200, this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?, FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less).
Prove what you allege."

In fact, four years (February 2009) is the only reference you gave for those 27 alleged "insults" against Christians.
I merely noted that FOUR YEARS is a pretty long time to keep records, and harbor grudges, against people who may or may not have seriously intended to "insult" your POV.

Now, if you wish to assert that some of your alleged quotes are more recent that FOUR YEARS, I'll cheerfully accept that.
Of course, if you, yourself, YHAOS were to provide source data for your own grudge-list, including the full contexts of those exchanges, then (and only then) I might take them a bit more seriously.

But why bother, since your "point" is pointless regardless, FRiend?

[BroJoeK]

betty boop: "It seems that what C. S. Lewis thought about Darwin's theory, and whether or not he was misquoted, was vigorously debated."

In an effort to learn a bit more about CS Lewis' views on evolution, I stumbled across this YouTube video:

C.S. Lewis on Evolution

I highly recommend it to everyone, with the note that I agree with almost everything reported about Lewis' outlook.
Please listen to it carefully, and indeed go back and listen again if you miss something.
One key point in Lewis' objections to evolution is the same point often stressed on this and other threads: evolution cannot have been truly "random".

I would say there is nothing truly "random" in nature -- unpredictable, certainly, and often seemingly chaotic, but those are only because we humans often just cannot grasp either G*d's methods or His purposes.

The video also emphasizes Lewis' abhorrence for atheistic-Darwinism as exemplified, we would say, by international, national and even democratic socialism.

Bottom line: Lewis was not opposed to the idea of common descent, but did reject the idea of randomness in evolution's progress.
That is also my opinion.

[BroJoeK]

spirited irish: "The entirety of your response is a reaction against truth that arrogantly dresses itself up in the words of St. Augustine and Aquinas.
What do these faithful believers who loved truth have to do with hatred of truth? Nothing."

I am sorry to tell you, but Sts. Augustine and Aquinas said what they said, and if their truths hurt you, then you might just stop and minute and ask yourself why?

Aquinas (†1274) clearly recognized the difference between theology based on the Bible, and natural-philosophy (aka "science") derived from our senses.
Aquinas did not expect they would conflict, but ever since his time, example after example has arisen where they seem to.

However, as early as St. Augustine of Hippo (†430 AD) the Church clearly recognized it is entirely possible for people to quote the Bible exactly, while drawing from it the wrong lessons, indeed lessons which "bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren..."

I think the lessons from both are: 1) science and theology are separate fields, and 2) just because somebody can quote you chapter and verse from the Bible, doesn't make their understanding necessarily correct.

spirited irish: "if they were alive now, what would these two faithful believers have to do with the apostasy of evolutionary pantheist religionists?
Other than strongly rebuking it they would have nothing to do with it."

But nobody here is advocating "evolutionary pantheist religion".
What we are defending is science itself, against the assaults of anti-science anti-evolutionists.

spirited irish: "Years ago, long-time Vatican observer Malachi Martin (1921-1999) described a situation in which the Curia is divided between ‘progressive’ (evolutionary pantheists) and ‘traditionalists;’ between adherents of evolutionary conceptions such as Teilhard de Chardin’s Hermetic, quasi-Hindu idea, abortion, women and ‘gay’ priests, and openness to non-Christian nature religions and philosophies and those who oppose such an agenda.

"According to Martin, ‘progressives’ hold all the important positions of power."

FRiend, spirited irish, does it not give you even a moment's pause to be accusing your entire church hierarchy, including two soon-to-be-named saints (John XXIII & John Paull II) of a heresy fundamentally opposed to basic Catholic teachings?
Of course, my Mennonite ancestors, who opposed the whole idea of hierarchy, and suffered persecution from both Catholic and Protestant churches, they would not be so surprised at your accusations.
But I've seen no evidence to support your claims, and I think the two Popes fully deserve whatever recognition the Church can give them.

spirited irish: "With every word you have written you declare your unity with apostasy disguised as ‘science’ and dressed up in the traditional robes and terminology of Christianity but denying the living, personal Holy God in three persons in favor of evolutionary conceptions speaking of a pantheist entity in process of becoming."

Sorry, but that is false to the core, and you should be ashamed of yourself for so eagerly bearing false witness against me.
Of course, I would forgive you, since you obviously know not what you're saying.
But there is a sterner Judge you must eventually face, FRiend.
So don't be so quick to condemn what you obviously don't understand.

[MHGinTN]

Here's a really radical idea, and I must take the blame for it nearly in its entirety:

In the beginning, The Creator had the full image of The Word and not as we saw Jesus before the resurrection but as Jesus phase shifted with the manifestation of faith cum reality as He entered into His Glory with resurrection and ascension. [Think blueprints to an architect.]

From our perspective it has taken around fifteen billion years to reach this reality and be passed on to the rest of God's Creation made in His image. From God's perspective the creating has taken roughly six and one half doublings of the Creation in which God is bringing forth His Glory.

When I first read Gerald Schroeder's explanation of this duality I was struck by the beauty of it, since it fit with one of my starting axioms, that God will not lie to us with the Bible, that we just do not comprehend how things reach entire truth expressed.

Put another way, God had in the beginning a being through Whom He would be manifested in the Creation He Creates, and a simple tweaking of the materials brings this being Whom God indwells into being in the Creation. With a bow to Alamo_Girl, God supplies the message and as Creator Sovereign has every right to tweak the message along the way, so that the creation brings forth what He, The Creator, intends and 'had' with Him in the Beginning.

I suppose it could be called 'guided evolution' ... but without a real analogy since even a sculptor must have materials from which to sculpt his works.