Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
I never was one for fitting nicely into everyone else thinktank. FWIW, I'm still reading up on the info you shared with me....(and not about the dirt).
I'm not offended. Amused, perhaps.
This is private isn't it?
Music was used as a propaganda tool. The more beautiful music was ever more effective. The Nazi era (and shortly after) produced some of the most beautiful performances and recordings of Beethoven, Schubert, Bach and Mozart that are still enjoyed today. Just listen to a era recording from Kurtwangler.
Isn't there an underlying assumption here of "do no harm"? Why is it wrong to do harm? Who says?
Until I actually see some Christian behavior from these folks, I will stand by my views of them.
You may not find this a religious venue, but many disagree. I have interest in this topic from a Christian perspective and until JR tell me otherwise, I will continue to share, read and learn.
I too was born and raised Catholic. I am not clueless (maybe I need to brush up on what I was taught back then).., but I don't recall having a "Catholic heaven". Heaven is Heaven.
I was baptized Catholic, made all of my Sacraments up to Confirmation. I spent half of my high school years in Catholic HS. I was an Atheist from age 17-23. I then found Christ in non-denominational, fundamentalist Christianity. I was also a Liberal Democrat until 1995. I mention this because I have understanding for various spectrums of faith/non-faith and politics....hence my interest in all the above. This is why I'm here.
The "theory of Creationism"? I don't think I touched on that. The *theological* notion that the universe and humanity were "created" by an omnipotent God cannot be "disproven" by any form of empirical "science." That's ridiculous.The Christian "Creatio ex nihilo" by definition is, in real theology, beyond human cognition. It is a revealed "mystery" if you want to get theologically technical about it.There is no form of empirical or laboratory science which can "prove" that the universe was *not* created by a loving God. That's absurd in the extreme. That's why ... atheistic scientism --- is epistemologically dubious. There are no "scientific" data which in any way "prove" Christian theology to be "wrong" about anything. The existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the drama of redemption, and the divinity of Christ, for instance, are not within the realm of the physical sciences. It's fine to adhere to the various "theories" of evolution if that proves entertaining. "Evolution" does not present propositions or evidence which alter Christianity. That's expecting science to provide a metaphysics, a total view of reality.
78 Posted on 08/08/2001 17:39:24 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
That's expecting science to provide a metaphysics, a total view of reality.
Then Ayn Rand says. What about people who don't buy into Ayn's morality? Is her morality any truer or better than another person who may enjoy sadistic pleasures, say, like Marquis de Sade? In relativism, it's all equal - that's my point. In relativism, cruelty and non-cruelty are equal. The only way around that conclusion is to claim that moral absolutes exist independent of human preference. In the absence of that claim, morality is just preference and nothing more, and there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor.
This only speaks to the pragmatic practicality of morality not the truth of morality. But even this doesn't work because you can't predict the long run.
Yes, basically the narrative of scientism, loosely allied with the theory of progress, has a mythological structure and is enmeshed in mythological imagery. Just look at the pictures - the idealized image of modern man "ascending" from the darker, hairier, more bestial ape-like hominids. What is denied, the spiritual and moral nature of man, is considered unreal. Evolutionary scientism cannot explain the meaning and significance of man. There is no empirical basis for concluding that man is merely a material and organic being, without a spiritual purpose, and therefore, a suitable subject for experimentation and social engineering. And that is what the popular, vulgar notion of "Evolution" is about - a gnostic ideology intened to replace, to nullify, the Christian understanding of human nature. No one can claim that the agnostic and atheist scientific materialists get so emotional and upset about imposing "Evolution" in public education because they merely want to exhibit possible "theories" of interpretation of the fossil record of monkey bones! They want to be God. And they want to ... drive a weird social agenda --- into Brave New Frankensteinism. There's no empirical evidence which mandates such power maneuvers. It's in the realm of the non-rational. The epistemological errors are performed by the followers of the gurus of scientism.
20 Posted on 08/08/2001 13:43:43 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
They want to be God. And they want to drive a weird social agenda into Brave New Frankensteinism.
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.