Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
Read Matthew 7:21-23.
So could you explain how Genesis 2:21-23 fits in with your belief in the theory of evolution?
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
So could you explain how Genesis 2:21-23 fits in with your belief in the theory of evolution?
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
Uh...OK.
“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
to you is consistent with millions of years of evolution.
and
“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”
to you is consistent with God can do anything.
Interesting hermeneutics.
I asked for a time frame as to when mainstream Christianity dropped its anti-semitism. I did not see that addressed in #328.
There, we agree. It wasn't that difficult.
It was only difficult because you made a false inference about my argument. You should have had the common courtesy to ask for a clarification. I made the point numerous times that Hitler twisted both Christianity and Darwin to his own ends. An honest reading should have told you that I was not equating Hitler's morality to Christian teaching.
If the darwinists are right that morality has a natural source, then morality is not objective or absolute. For if there is no God and humans have evolved from a primordial soup we have no standard to follow and if we have no standard to follow, then we follow any impulse, because those impulses are naturally assummed.
Hogwash. What evidence do you have that those who believe in the TOE are more prone to such behavior?
Acts such as murder, rape, theft, etc. have been punished in just about every culture that I'm aware of, and have been so throughout history and under various relgions. The origin of this moral code - whether from our genes or from God - is irrelevant as far as how people behave, IMO.
The implications of this have not been lost on darwinists and their followers.
Hitler's followers were no more true Darwinists than they were true Christians.
In fact, Hitler applied Darwins theory as a philosophical justification for the Holocaust. I again repeat Hitlers words from Mein Kampf,:
Yes, he took a scientific theory and distorted its message, just as he did with Christianity.
Now, you say he just as much assummed Christian philosophy to bring his horror (I paraphrase your words for brevity's sake).
I said he used Christianity like he used Darwin. I've been very clear that he TWISTED both for his own ends. I said this multiple times, so please keep that in mind in any future responses on this thread.
I simply ask, Were Hitler's acts consistent with what I quoted from his own book, or were those acts consistent with the heart of Christs' teachings?
They were consistent with your quotes from Mein Kampf. Note, however, that Hitler did not include the following from Charles Darwin (as quoted by ResonseAbility in post #295):
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
As you can see, Hitler twisted Darwins writings just as he did Christianity.
If I understand your postition you see no differentiation in the two worldviews as Hitlers horrors were visited upon the world.
Where are you getting that I made any comparison in world views between Darwin and Christianity? I was simply making the point that it is sophistry to blame Christianity or Darwin for genocide or anti-semitism, both of which predate both world views. Again, I would ask that you keep this in mind in any future responses, and not read things into my words that are not there.
[snip] But their misdeads were not because they acted in concert with the teachings of Christ. [referring to Augustine, Calvin etc.]
Agreed, and I never said otherwise. I would think it must follow, then, that most of the Ecclesiastical bodies throughout most of Christian history were in scriptural error with regard to the Jews. Fair statement?
You have insisted in denying this differentiation regarding Hitler's application of Darwinism.
What differentiation have I denied? Hitler twisted both philosophies for his evil ends. How many times must I write this?
We have agreed that genocide predates Darwin. You might have an arguable case if genocide began after Darwin. It didn't, so you have a very tenuous argument at best.
I simply disagree with you. I don't want to disagree in a disagreeable manner.
I don't much care about disagreeability. What I am concerned with is that falsehoods not be made about what I write. Keep it honest, and we'll have no problem.
21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Also note this verse:
Rom.1:20
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
It doesn't matter what “belief” is - no mere mortal has an excuse NOT to believe. The beauty of it all is that SCIENCE supports “intelligent Design” - God. Would anyone expect less from the ultimate Genesis, God? I wouldn't. Ignorant atheists and those that claim belief obviously don't believe God or want to accept scientific evidence that supports Him.
The FACTS are that darwinism, which is based on inference and emotion, not fact, has NOT been proven; in fact, there IS no proof of Darwinism.
Natural selection within a species is real, but I do not consider this "evolution". To say every living being of any possible type "evolved" from a single cell (the origin of which no darwinist can describe), is magnificent bull manure!
There is a massive amount of scientific data to show darwinism is nothing more than an incomplete, hole-ridden theory; there is a massive amount of scientific analysis which really points to intelligent design, and the movie didn't say it had to be "God" - it could have been any intelligent race which decided to "seed" Earth.
Darwinists are so hung up on denying the existence of a god of ANY kind that they automatically assume anyone who dares to question darwinism MUST be a religious fanatic. They could not be more in error......oops, they are already in error just being darwinists.
Sad, no?
coy·o·te [kahy-oh-tee, kahy-oht] –noun, plural -tes, (especially collectively) -te.
1. Also called prairie wolf. a buffy-gray, wolflike canid, Canis latrans, of North America, distinguished from the wolf by its relatively small size and its slender build, large ears, and narrow muzzle.
2. Slang. a contemptible person, esp. an avaricious or dishonest one.
You’ve met him too, eh?
>>To say that the nonmaterial evolved from matter requires a materialistic explaination which I have not yet heard. If you can please explain.<<
I can speak only for myself. I believe that physical things are real, and are related to some forms of life in some way that humans are incapable of understanding, at least with their present brains and senses. I say "some forms of life" because there could exist forms of life that do not need what we call a "body."
I don't believe that life evolves from, or can be created by, a clever arrangement of organic chemicals. I think that life can manifest itself in "bodies," but bodies are not the living beings. I don't see why bodies can't "evolve" to allow a different form of life (sometimes a higher form, sometimes lower, sometimes just different) to manifest itself somehow in the evolved body. Whether the life form evolved into a different lifeform before the matter evolved, or the pre-existing life form which has always existed, manifested itself in the evolved body, who knows? In neither case, according to what I believe, would life evolve from matter.
Here I can just hear the gears turning in a materialist mind. "Why all this speculation? The theory that life began from a certain arrangement of matter would work just as well, and is much simpler." One answer is, call it intuition. I just think it's appallingly arrogant to think that life is that simple. A theory that God created everything would be even simpler.
I think science may be correct about many aspects of evolution, but I think it's likely that science will have a different view of evolution, and many other things, a thousand years from now. And I hope that some day science will have a humbler view of its own capabilities, and perhaps "evolve" into something that has a greater respect for life. Some scientists do believe in God, and have that humility I am speaking of.
I could say that materialists do not have that humility I mentioned, but I suppose it's possible that some know that there is a lot we do not understand about life, but believe that the things we don't know could be defined as "physical." For example, could there be a materialist who believed that God or angels are composed of something physical, even if that substance is not known to current science?
Hitlers own writings and his actions...I gave them to you.
The origin of this moral code - whether from our genes or from God - is irrelevant as far as how people behave, IMO.If there is no moral standard, then the opinion of the strong man rules. There is no anchor.
Hitler's followers were no more true Darwinists than they were true ChristiansHere we go again with your moral equivalence. I don't see any other way to read it. If so please clarify.
Yes, he took a scientific theory and distorted its message, just as he did with Christianity.
Same response as prior.
I said he used Christianity like he used Darwin. I've been very clear that he TWISTED both for his own ends. I said this multiple times, so please keep that in mind in any future responses on this thread.What part of Christs teachings did he actually follow? What part of darwins theory did he actually put into practice?
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Is the above statement by Darwin consistent with the naturalist materialist, law of tooth and fang, natural selection which is put forth as Darwinian Evolution? Or have contemporary darwinists "deteriorated in the noblest part of our nature?"
What is the noblest part of our nature? What was the noblest part of Hitler's nature? Is nobility selected for? Is there a noble gene?
I would think it must follow, then, that most of the Ecclesiastical bodies throughout most of Christian history were in scriptural error with regard to the Jews. Fair statement?
Any ecclesiastical body or person whether Christian or Jew or otherwise who holds in contempt the Jew, or Israel, or is antisemetic has been wrong to do so.
We have agreed that genocide predates Darwin. You might have an arguable case if genocide began after Darwin. It didn't, so you have a very tenuous argument at best.
I may be wrong, but I know of no other nation or national leader who committed genocide in order that it may select for "an Aryian Nation of Supermen". Most have been political events or usurpation of power as a cause, or resources. Hitler wanted to create (evolve)(engineer) a nation of supermen. But doubtless there have been a history full of genocidal maniacs, none of which were in response to the teachings of Biblical Christianity.
I don't much care about disagreeability
I believe you don't.
You may not, but the naturalist materialist believes that life evolved from matter ordered by natural laws and nothing else. If matter gives rise to nonmatter please explain how this happens. What is the matter which makes up the theory referred to as evolution,.. or thought...what type of matter is thought made of?
I don't follow most of your other musings, but, but I will respond to your comment regarding science by saying, that most of scientific inquiry is done honestly and with a desire to discover an order imposed upon this universe. There are agendas, however, which are observed and need to be addressed, and materialist evolutionary theory is one that needs to be held accountable to the truth. Mr.Stein was only asking questions, mostly regarding academic freedom, and the responses he got, along with many who were the victim of the wall of scientific political correctness deserve an answer in a constitutional republic which hold certain truths to be self evident. Following the evidence and analysis, even if it results in the wrong conclusions is the methodology which has favored the assent of scientific understanding since its beginning. That certain power players demand conformity to their world view has nothing to do with science and everything to do with secular proselyzation.
It should have been clear from my statements in bold that I do not agree that matter gives rise to nonmatter, or that thought is matter, or anything of the sort. (Ordinary matter is somehow realted to life in a way which I don't understand. I can take ibuprofen if I have a backache, but I don't pretend to understand what really happens WRT pain.)
The only way a materialist could try to justify his position would be to claim that
1) things that were beyond his understanding are matter, but he doesn't know what they are (and I certainly would not know), or
2) He simply claims that life is composed of the same stuff that ordinary nonliving things are made of. That position seems both counterintuitive and intellectually lazy to me.
realted->related
Tecxs Songwriter? You aren’t Billy Joe Shaver are you? :)
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the source of the moral standard. A moral code seems inherent in humans, IMO. It's there whether it came from God or our genes. You're surely not saying that if science proves that it's encoded in the genes, then - POOF! - all morality gone?
______________________
Ken H: Hitler's followers were no more true Darwinists than they were true Christians.
Texas Songwriter: Here we go again with your moral equivalence. I don't see any other way to read it. If so please clarify.
I have no idea how you can read a moral equivalence into my statement. I could have said that Hitler was no more a true Muslim than he was a true Buddhist. Would you read into that a moral equivalence between Islam and Buddhism?
_____________________
KH: Yes, he took a scientific theory and distorted its message, just as he did with Christianity.
TS: Same response as prior.
Again, I cannot understand how you take from that, that I am making any moral comparison at all between the TOE and Christianity. I call your attention to this exchange between you and another poster, who was making the same point I was making:
I note that you did not comment on that statement in your reply. I wonder why you failed to call him on it.
What part of Christs teachings did he actually follow? What part of darwins theory did he actually put into practice?
None and none. I'll say again, genocide and anti-semitism predated Darwin. It is sophistry to say he put the TOE into practice, just as it is sophistry to say he put Matt. 10 into practice. As the above poster said, he use whatever tools he could find.
Is the above statement by Darwin consistent with the naturalist materialist, law of tooth and fang, natural selection which is put forth as Darwinian Evolution?
Yes. The TOE is simply an explanation for the variety of species observed on Earth. It says nothing at all about what is moral or how humans should behave. Darwin was expressing his own moral view, which seems more in line with Christian teaching than Naziism.
Any ecclesiastical body or person whether Christian or Jew or otherwise who holds in contempt the Jew, or Israel, or is antisemetic has been wrong to do so.
Agreed, but that is not what I asked. I asked whether or not it was fair to say that "most of the Ecclesiastical bodies throughout most of Christian history were in scriptural error with regard to the Jews." Is it accurate to make such a claim?
I may be wrong, but I know of no other nation or national leader who committed genocide in order that it may select for "an Aryian Nation of Supermen".
They all had their various twisted rationales for their evil, did they not?
Pay attention Soliton, this is what I’ve been trying to get across to you for days!
It’s called freedom!
SO WHAT if people want their kids to learn about ID in science class, that’s their right! You don’t get to decide for people, or have somehow been put in charge to dictate what is or isn’t science, and if they’re “wrong” (about a theory for cryin’ out loud!), SO WHAT?
It’s not like someone’s kids learning through intelligence about intelligent design AND evolution is somehow gonna make or FORCE someone else’s kids to do so!
I just don’t get your insecurity!
Or is it really that you’re just angry with God?
No it's not. Please review Edwards vs. Aquillard SCOTUS decision. Teaching ID (creationism)in public schools is against the Constitution of the United States.
Hitler attempted this through breeding. This was based on the work of Gregor Mendel, a Christian Priest.
Soooooo you support the liberals squashing ID? I bet you’re also for having Christmas removed from schools cause it’s too offensive?
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.