This may be one of the crazier objections to evolution. (But then, are there any sane ones?)
Even without evolution, everyone knows that if we trace our ancestors back far enough we find some bad people. Maybe a criminal here and there, perhaps a wanton woman, a slave or two, that sort of thing. Go back further, and our ancestors were all pagans. Further back, they were barbarians, and before that they were savages, perhaps cannibals. We know this is our ancestry, even if evolution were never dreamed of.
But so what? Does anyone, knowing that, decide to be a savage, or a criminal? Or a pagan? The morality, or lack thereof, of our distant ancestors is meaningless regarding the kind of people we choose to be. So what difference could it make if, hundreds of millions of years ago, our ancestors weren't even human?
... an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.
This may be one of the crazier objections to evolution. (But then, are there any sane ones?)"
I think you slipped over this one. I believe the implication is that evolutionists are atheists and therefore cannot be moral. Of course, most evolutionists are not atheists and an atheist can certainly be moral. So, more gibberish from the lunatic center of fundamentalist conservatism. Can't call them a fringe - there seems to be a lot of them. New ones on every crevo thread.
I believe in evolution, but I'd also like a little more education on it. It seems that all animal life is divided into two classes, cold-blooded and warm-blooded. Did the warm-blooded evolve from the cold-blooded? It is hard for me not to believe in a God, because it is depressing to think that life has no purpose behind it. So if there is no outside source, that which creates purpose would be the God of its own world. Decisions mankind makes now do effect the entire future. This is evolution, but is it random?
Meaningless to you, we all agree on that, at least - and at least you are transparent about that.
But, I'm thinking I shouldn't be surprised that your following question is even asked; as if you didn't already know the answer, even though it has been presented on these evo threads dozens of times.
But, I'll pretend you haven't heard it before; and even that you are more 'honest', as you claim, than the creationists who engage you and your fellow en-lightened travelers.
So here's the difference it makes: if I can trace my ancestors all the way back through man, and unbroken, through animals, and unbroken, through little critters .... then all of a sudden, you as an evo fellow have in one nice move, refuted the entire creation story of Adam. There is always a 'creature' that preceded Adam, not dirt.
But, there was no man or critter that was Adam's ancestor, for he was made from dirt. Adam, re-fined dirt, and with him Eve, re-fined Man, introduced sin.
Christ was, and is, the solution for sin - as long as we believe it. But, in its effect, no sin can possibly ever be introduced if the Orthodox ToE, as propagandized, is absoutely correct. For by definition, Adam and Eve can not be the 'first' ancestors of all mankind.
ToE folks work just as hard to make sure it's believable as fact, not theory. To them people are never born 'bad'. To an evolutionist some people are born, and made bad and do bad things. Sort of like Shelly's animated man, who was made, and started out good, by the good scientist. But the world mistreated him, and thus victimized him into his monsterdom. (And Frankenstein and his monster discussed Jesus how often? And the book is accurately made into a movie how often?)
So, if ToE priests succeed in their efforts, Christ becomes just a nice jewish man of the Essenics group, and he was unlucky enough to be credited w/ founding a horrible world wide cult.
PH, you and your fellow travelers are agents engaged in the active destruction of the purpose of Christ, as taught to Christians. You all, at best, don't care to recognize this. You and your fellow agents, at best, merely ignore this charge.
But, here, you and your fellow are agents are very consistent in one thing: completely avoiding discussions of why good, decent, morals are needed regarding sexual behavior among people.
In fairness, not all of us are as kind as we ought to be. But, many of you chortle, and quote the movie Dr. Strangelove at length, and report that the movie is required viewing in order for anyone to be properly accultured in America!
If you so dearly cared, as indicated by the statements by many of you earlier in this thread, about the success of the agenda of Bush, esp the judges, the very, very last thing you all would do is goad and ridicule the Christians who were essential to his re-election.
Ideally, you'd all figure out that what you must address are the moral issues which concern bible thumpers. And it would be manifestly evident to you that they be addressed every bit as effectively and scientifically as the issues associated w/ preserving the validity of what ToE discusses.
But that doesn't happen - your conclusions about why it shouldn't happen are not open to re-evaluation; and you call us bible thumpers bigoted!? The fight to boost ToE is exclusive, and claims your energies exclusively. And then you, seem to anyway, struggle in attempting to understand why we are so animated.
From a reasonable point of view, it appears that this observation can lead to conclusions about whether or not this entire conflict is 'random'.
I wonder .... but, from my perspective, the wonderment is over.