Posted on 09/27/2005 9:10:31 AM PDT by Crackingham
Did you notice them queuing up to applaud the guy who equated evolution with immorality?
Yeah, prety soon we'll be stoning witches to death and killing people who differ from us on minor doctrinal issues. Oh wait, no, that was what our 'culture founded on morality which stems from universal religious principles' did.
So you're saying we'll do worse than you did over the last 20 centuries? Wow. Frankly, I doubt I can live up to the high standards of mayhem you've set for me.
nice one!
Very easy to do. A prime example; human language. You cannot explain its supposed evolution and existence in any coherent, knowledgeable way, yet you believe it must have evolved because evolution is true.
Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the gaps are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.
Chomsky, N., Language and the Mind, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, pp. 67-68, 1972.
Cordially,
"Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the gaps are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking."
Interesting that you quote Chomsky from 1972, 33 years ago. You'd have gotten a very different response from him in more recent years. We've discovered that a wide range of animals use language. They're not as good at it as we are, of course, but use it they do. I suspect Chomsky would have been very interested in that research.
You see, that's the problem with using old quotes. They're out of date.
you are citing CHOMSKY?!?!?
ok.
let's start with the basics: do you know what language IS?
Do you agree with Chomsky on Iraq, American Foreign Policy, and economics too? I mean, as a linguist, if he's an authority on biology, why not on politics?
For God that's not a problem; for YOU it is...
I missed this one the first time through the thread.
You must not do much reading in science. Where do you think all the out-of-context quotes from scientists come from -- the ones that get posted on creationist web sites -- if they don't come from scientists criticizing their own and other's work?
The leading edge of science is always a battleground, and everyone would love to shoot down some cherished theory.
So you're saying you lack the self-control necessary to restrain yourself. Would you accept the proposition that there are others, more mature than you, that do exercise self control without recourse to external restraint?
In Dover Trial, ACLUs Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
"When's the last time you saw a pregnant catfish give birth to some freak-like amphibian with feet?!
It will never happen. Evolution does not say it will happen, in fact says that it would not happen.
The time humans have been studying evolution gives us the same view of the change from one taxon to another as viewing one frame of a movie reel. By looking at that one frame we will never be able to watch the movie change from the beginning to the end, just as we cannot watch the change in species result in a change in higher taxa. However if we instead of viewing the entire movie, happen upon individual frames of the movie in the form of photos stacked up on a desk in chronological order, we can easily determine what the plot is by examining each photo in order. The beginning of the movie is one species and the end of the movie is another species from some other higher taxon.
Think of evolution as an IQ test, where we need to link a number of snapshots to recreate the correct story.
So what about the passage that God made man in his image and likeness?? Doesn't that contradict mere chance creation of some creature which could appreciate Him?
Well, of course it all depends on how literally you want to go in reading the Bible. Miller, Being Catholic, has no problem using his judgement in determining which passages can be literal & which ones only make sense as allegorical or poetic.
And what about the immortal soul? If the latter was the case, did the soul as well as the body evolve, or is the soul somthing God created just for man?
Well, I've never heard anybody say that souls mate & have little baby souls, so I don't see how evolution could work in Heaven. (Nor for that matter, how whether our souls go on living after we die could possibly influence evolution. How could there be any natural selection pressure for or against what happens to our souls after we die?)
Then, do animals have immortal souls?? Perhaps they do, but just like intelligence, they are qualitatively different from the soul of man.
Personally I think the concept of a "soul" is a combination of reification/anthropomorphization and wishful thinking, so I have no such conundrum to grapple with. :-) I do, however, think that animals have consciousness, which is what the "soul" is an analogy for, IMO. But of course they have definite limitations, even though they do have personalities & identities of their own.
Now, if humans have souls & the whole Christian framework is true, then how perfect is heaven if I get there only to find that Lightbulb (RIP) was prohibited from getting there too?
Logically, the evolutionist/theist can still jettison their theism for the underline evolutionary justification at any time. The creationist has no such recourse.
On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.
The logical implications of evolution on both science and morality are evident when you look at the mechanisms chosen. In this case, the mechanisms are death. Moses, said "Choose Life". So the question of which you choose is logical.
Here's what Chomsky wrote in 1995, somewhat later than your earlier quote. You'll need to read this closely. Chomsky is an obtuse sort of writer:
Your quoting Chomsky? Wow. Do you know who he is?
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.