Oedipus Tex!
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?
Obviously, yes, Catholics, Episcopalians, and others manage to balance their faith commitments with actual "science." There is no theological reason why some form of evolution could not have been used by the Christian God in His providential design for the created order of reality. That point is valid and you will find a wide diversity of opinion among theologians. Some "scientists" do enter into social and political realms not mandated by their empirical findings and ... proliferate goofy science --- in the form of an ideology of scientism - everything real can be explained in terms of scientific materialism. The current eugenic, cloning, and stem-cell debates are cases in point where moral decisions are being driven by scientism and technocracy. Certain interpretations of "Evolution" have inspired non-empirical ideologies such as Social Darwinism. The question of where the matter of the human body came from cannot be answered by modern science, so "Evolution" cannot really address the issues surrounding Creatio ex nihilo. Science can only offer theoretical speculations about semi-mythical points in time when "life began." I think one would have to recognize that, among those who accept scientific materialism, there is a tendency to create the impression that "Evolution" contradicts the Judaeo-Christian mythology of human origins (Genesis) and in some way weakens the credibility of Christianity as a whole. The ontology of scientific materialism, which accompanies much evolutionary jabber, cannot be established empirically. I think even Whitehead was able to realize that the conceptual motifs of blind chance were quasi-mythological.
17 Posted on 08/08/2001 11:19:32 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
(Obviously, I'm willing to be pummeled by those who rank Stravinsky higher than Prokofiev or Shostakovich, and those who think Copland was better than Rachmaninov. All I can say is, when I want to do a bit of 'Air Piano', I put on R's Piano Concerto No. 3. )
It doesn't, and if you think that is what this is about, the entire conversation has gone right by you. Christian moral principles are simply rationally-derived and because they are rational they have survived this long (people have a tendency to chuck that which makes no sense). However, these same "Christian" principles were derived independently by other cultures, in many cases long before Christ came into this world.
There is nothing inherently evil about a rationally-derived morality. If the morality promotes survival, the morality will survive. If it does not, it will not. The Golden Rule promotes survival.
They do to Mr. Magoo. :^)
People, unfortunately, have to be taught how to play nicely, and when to stop closing.
this is not true of inventions in general, so why is it logical that it should be true here?
The intent may well have been humorous. My point was that, arguably, huge sectors of the public today wouldn't necessarily view this as a tongue-in-cheek remark. They would view it as a simple statement of fact, and be awed by it.
Yeah, and that's just the practical offspring. Just wait to see what it may likely do for advancing a theory of consciousness....
I suppose, that could be a compliment, to fundamentalists, if you think about it. If it keeps me from being lumped in with Bud Lite, I'll take it as such
I initially was going to publicly post it. But then I read it and thought that with the attempts at reconciliation I should reply privately. I hit the back button a few times. Thought I hit the private reply. A few more steps and voila! An egg beauty mask.
The spooky thing is that you've never been wrong. Ever! In years and years of posting! It's uncanny!
But then, gore3000 had never been wrong, either, until last month when someone thought of asking him in private about a mistake.
That is why out-of-context quotes do not advance debates. You have to be willing to dig into the author's dominant themes to find out what was meant.
Particulary when you are quoting from a transcript of an off-the-cuff remark.
We're not talking about an automobile here. We're talking about morality. How can your moral preferences logically be truer than mine without the existence of a universal moral standard? They can't. By extension, then, good and evil become preferences as well.
Ditto. I tried to get them all on CD in the 90's but just pooped out after half a dozen.
I did see "The Abduction of Figaro" a couple of decades back, maybe it'll be out on DVD before I kick the bucket.
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.