Posted on 09/18/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
The worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (or scientific naturalism) has two central components. The first is metaphysical; the second epistemological. Metaphysically, Evolutionary Humanism infers that the natural or material realm either self-created or has existed eternally. This doctrine is known as scientism. In addition, this worldview teaches us to believe that everything---including life and intelligence---came about through unseen (immaterial) processes of motion called evolution. Epistemologically, it demands that sensory knowledge (empiricism) be the only authoritative source of knowledge.
In the words of the Humanist Manifesto II: “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis…science is the best method for determining this knowledge…” This principle is a universal limitation on knowledge requiring that knowledge be restricted to only that which can be empirically determined (sensed). In short, if it can’t be touched, seen under a microscope, measured, counted, weighed, or otherwise sensed, then it doesn’t exist, meaning that the immaterial or metaphysical realm does not exist.
This worldview’s two-part metaphysical creation story revolves around the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary theory. According to the former, all chemical change is the result of the rearrangement of unseen (immaterial) tiny parts---protons, neutrons, and electrons. By authority of the latter (evolutionary theory), we are expected to believe that random mutations or incremental changes (rearrangement of tiny unseen parts) over time are mostly responsible for causing macro-changes. In other words, this unseen process of change miraculously caused bacteria to change into fish which in turn changed into lizards which then changed into proto-apes which then changed into man. Through this same process, dinosaurs changed into hummingbirds, chickadees, flamingos, and such. Because all life forms emerged out of the same primordial bacterial stew, bacteria are the common ancestors of all life forms. By extension, all life forms share the same genetic material; therefore the idea of species distinctions is a fiction. This makes man a Heinz 57 mutt whose material brain possesses genetic material from bacteria, lizards, fish, and apes. In the words of John Darnton in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005:
“We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass…equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” (Quote from, “Human Beings Deserve the Right to Life Because They Are Human,” Wesley J. Smith, Life News, 8/27/07)
With profound faith in the humanist worldview, evolutionists and fellow travelers view themselves as thoroughly ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ and ‘intellectually enlightened.’ From their lofty perches they look down their noses in utter contempt and disdain upon the unwashed masses (defenders of God and America’s founding Judao-Christian worldview) for continuing to believe the unenlightened view that man is created in God’s image rather than accepting the ‘enlightened’ superstition that mans’ common ancestor is mindless bacteria. Believing they have arisen to spectacular intellectual heights, in reality the so-called ‘enlightened ones’ have fallen into the abyss of the most absurdly stupid and dangerously delusional belief system the world has yet witnessed. How can this be? Briefly, the entirety of their worldview (including its evolutionary creation story) is not itself scientifically testable. By failing to meet its own empirical requirements, it refutes itself. Yes, here we come to now understand why the emperor has no clothes.
This embarrassingly insurmountable intellectual problem occurs precisely because of humanism’s anti-God and metaphysical bias. Rejecting God and metaphysics is destructive of reason and science. In short, it’s not just anti-intellectual it’s also an insanity inducing deception.
Metaphysics
The word metaphysics is based on the compound of two Greek words meta (after, beyond) and physika (physics, nature). It literally means beyond the physical or knowledge that exists beyond the physical world of sensory perception. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of reality, that is to say, it encompasses both natural and supernatural realms in its investigation of the origin, structure, and nature of what is real.
Greg L. Bahnsen tells us that worldviews are networks of metaphysical presuppositions and principles “regarding reality (metaphysics), knowing (epistemology), and conduct (ethics) in terms of which every element of human experience is related and interpreted.”(Pushing the Antithesis, p. 280)
Presuppositions provide both foundation and framework for worldviews. Crucial to the process of reason, presuppositions provide starting points and standards of authority by which truth and error are evaluated, the real and unreal can be identified, and the possible and impossible are determined. For instance, “In the beginning, Nothing---then a spark--- then Matter…” (spontaneous generation or something from nothing) is the foundational metaphysical presupposition by which evolutionary humanists determined through a peculiar reasoning process that only the sensory realm exists.
Universals are truths of an immaterial or non-sensory nature and are crucial to the understanding, organizing, and interpreting of particular truths within the context of the material world. Universals are metaphysical constructs such as concepts (i.e., inalienable rights), standards, principles (i.e., our founding principles), moral values, laws, and categorical statements. The Laws of Logic, so vitally important to the practice of science, reason, and coherent communication, are universals.
Metaphysical presuppositions and universals can’t be seen under a microscope, held in the hand, measured, weighed, or otherwise detected by the five senses yet they do exist. They exist within the supernatural or immaterial realm and are absolutely essential to the process of reason and the practice of science.
Additionally, scientists constantly deal with the unseen or immaterial realm in the form of subatomic particles, gravity, numbers, natural laws, laws of thought, causation, and memory (vital to scientific experimentation).
The whole theory of evolution, which drives and authenticates modern materialist presuppositions and assumptions, is a non-sensory (metaphysical) theoretical projection back into time. Yet despite that no scientist was there to witness it nor has anyone ever observed the creation of other universes or witnessed one kind of life change into a different kind, the theory of evolution is nevertheless proclaimed by many to be an empirically determined fact.
In principle, evolutionary humanists cannot even count, weigh, or measure (all of which are essential to the practice of science) because these acts involve an immaterial concept of law (a universal). Additionally, the postulation of universal order, a view necessary to making counting, weighing, and measuring intelligible, contradicts the materialist (metaphysical) proposition that the universe is a random or chance material realm. Furthermore, counting, weighing, and measuring call for immaterial entities which are uniform, orderly, and predictable. This once again contradicts the materialist proposition of continuous and random change over time.
Within the anti-intellectual straitjacket of the sensory realm, reason and science are destroyed. Empirical learning, reason, and intellectual inquiry are impossible without metaphysical presuppositions, universals, and assumptions.
As it is, evolutionary humanists do in fact reason, theorize, propose, presuppose, assume, hypothesize, count, weigh, measure, and practice science. They simply cannot give a philosophically principled account of how they “know” to do these things. All of which highlights the glaring dialectical tensions (i.e., hypocrisy, revisionism, deceptions, self-delusions, outright lying, mysticism) which of necessity are endemic to the humanist worldview.
Yet despite its colossal intellectual and moral failings, Evolutionary Humanism is now the dominant worldview in our secularized schools, colleges, universities, and government at every level. Additionally, it has made inroads into Christian schools, seminaries, and churches.
Regarding education in America, its’ direction can be seen as a downward spiral from Jonathan Edwards (1750) and the Christian influence, down to Horace Mann (1842) and the Unitarian influence, and yet further down to John Dewey (1933) and the evolutionary humanist take-over of our education institutions.
In the words of Charles F. Potter, signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, 1933,
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?”
Today, our classrooms are but transmission belts for the weird moral fetishes of humanist indoctrination; a mind-befogging and immorality-inducing process that leads to the adoption of atheism, materialism, politically correct ‘new morality,’ inhumanity, evolutionism, Cultural Marxism, New World Orderism, multiculturalism, sexual egalitarianism (hedonism/androgyny), cruelty, and other destructive anti-traditional views. As a consequence, Americans (and Christians) are walking away from America’s founding worldview---as well as God and their inalienable rights---due to the teaching of Evolutionary Humanism. After being befuddled, filled with unreasoning hatred and paranoid fear of God, Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and traditional-values America, Americans’ become their own worst enemies. For as they mindlessly destroy traditional-values America in pursuit of universal peace, tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, they are unknowingly setting the stage for their own eventual enslavement and perhaps even death, as Evolutionary Humanism has a proven track-record of mass murder (genocide).
A brief comparison of our founding worldview versus Evolutionary Humanism’s three major permutations---Secular Humanism, Leninism-Marxism, and Post Modernism, will show us why this is occurring.
America’s Founding Judao-Christian Worldview 1. Theology: biblical theism 2. Philosophy: God/supernaturalism/metaphysics 3. Ethics: moral absolutes/Ten Commandments/sanctity of life 4. Biology: Creation 5. Psychology: mind/body dualism 6. Sociology: traditional family, church, state 7. Law: Divine/Natural Law 8. Politics: inalienable rights, individual freedom, justice, order 9. Economics: stewardship of property (private property), free markets
Secular Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, Post Modernism 1. Theology: atheism, atheism, atheism 2. Philosophy: naturalism, dialectical materialism, anti-realism 3. Ethics: moral relativism, proletariat morality, moral and cultural relativism 4. Biology: neo-Darwinism, punctuated evolution, punctuated evolution 5. Psychology: monism (self-actualization), monism (behaviorism), monism (socially constructed selves) 6. Sociology: alternative lifestyles and State control of children, classless society and State control of children, sexual egalitarianism and State control of children 7. Law: positive law, proletariat law, critical legal studies 8. Politics: secular world government, communist world government, secular world government 9. Economics: state control of resources, scientific socialism, state control of resources
As can be seen by this brief comparison, Evolutionary Humanism is not just the antithesis of our founding worldview it is completely destructive of it as well.
Observes William F. Buckley on the disintegration of traditional-values America,
“The most influential educators of our time---John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, George Counts, Harold Rugg, and the lot---are out to build a New Social Order. There is not enough room…for…religion (Christianity). It clearly won’t do…to foster within some schools a respect for an absolute, intractable God, a divine intelligence who is utterly unconcerned with other people’s versions of truth…It won’t do to tolerate a competitor for the allegiance of man. The State prefers a secure monopoly for itself…Religion (Christianity), then, must go…The fight is being won. Academic freedom is entrenched. Religion (Christianity) is outlawed in public schools. The New Social Order is larruping along.” (“Let Us Talk of Many Things,” p. 9-10)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 PatriotsandLiberty http://patriotsandliberty.com/
Linda is the author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview. Her writings are published both nationally and internationally. Linda is a member of MoveOff.net/
Sources: Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen Understanding the Times, David Noebel What is Scientific Naturalism? J.P. Moreland
Related Articles Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism? Cultural Marxism
It’s a yes or no question, unless you need some kind of clarification.
But not all scientists are metaphysical naturalists. Thank God!!!
Creation would be unintelligible per se if this were not so.
A Name of God is Logos which is translated as Word and sometimes as Logic.
Science never gives up searching for truth, since it never claims to have achieved it. It is civilizing because it puts truth ahead of all else, including personal interests. These are grand claims, but so is the enterprise in which scientists share. How do we encourage the civilizing effects of science? First, we have to understand science.
Scientia is knowledge. It is only in the popular mind that it is equated with facts. That is of course flattering, since facts are incontrovertible. But it is also demeaning, since facts are meaningless. They contain no narrative.
Science, by contrast, is story-telling. This is evident in the way we use our primary scientific instrument, the eye. The eye searches for shapes. It searches for a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Plato was a great story teller.
Chaitin is a great story teller as is Wolfram and Hawking and Vafa and Penrose and Wesson and so on.
Darwin was a great story teller, too.
C.S. Lewis was a great story teller.
Rightwhale - who is a physicist - is fixing to tell us a story – and I expect it to be particularly engaging.
hosepipe and MHGinTN also have a story to tell.
The stories betty boop and I have to tell - like Voegelin’s and Pannenburg’s and Pattee’s - do not have any artificial boundaries such as “methodological naturalism” which some story tellers treat as if an ancient map: “here there be dragons.”
Moreover our primary instrument is not the physical eye.
Then again, it was not the physical eye to Martyr, Einstein, Reimann, Plato, etc. either...
Moreover our primary instrument is not the physical eye.
***My primary instrument is still the physical eye. Here’s an example:
Romans 16:23
...
Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings.
There is an archaeological find where an inscription says:
“Erastus, commissioner of public works [aedile], laid this pavement at his own expense.”
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/erastus.php
One can go and physically touch that piece of evidence and examine it with his own eye. The same is true of dozens of other pieces of new testament evidence. The historicity behind the documents in the new testament is very solid. When they say things that are non-controversial, they get the facts right. That’s an indicator that the documents are historically accurate.
When even enemies acknowledge the facts, that’s when you know you’re on solid ground. Jesus’s enemies, friends, indifferent souls, all agree that Jesus was put to death for blasphemy before the Sanhedrin, claiming equality with God. No miracle here, just pure history.
I have come to a rational conclusion that Jesus was telling the truth when he was under oath. Antichristian bigots often try to paint our viewpoint as irrational, but that doesn’t jibe with the facts that even the enemies at the time admit.
I have seen unbelievers deny the historicity of Julius Caesar, Christopher Columbus, John Adams being 2nd president of the U.S. and several other historically accepted personages, all in their quest to deny Christ. Now, THAT’s irrational.
I have come to a rational conclusion that Jesus was telling the truth when he was under oath. Antichristian bigots often try to paint our viewpoint as irrational, but that doesn’t jibe with the facts that even the enemies at the time admit.
What a beautifully clear, solidly rational statement, Kevmo!
This is the meaning intended in Plato's Apology: Socrates wasn't sorry about anything!
Not even of the fact that, in the end, he was convicted by a 500-member jury of his "peers" (whattajoke -- Socrates was virtually peerless) by a slender plurality of some 27 votes. And given the choice of permanent exile from his beloved Athens, or death, he chose the latter. He was fearless, for he had seen Living Truth, the Logos.... And he knew -- at the very basis of his life -- that was all that sustained him as a man. And moreover, he knew that man's soul is immortal....
In like manner, Christians do not "apologize" -- in the sense of "I'm sorry" -- for anything that God has willed or does.
Thank you so very much, Kevmo, for your beautiful essay/post!
Coyote..Examine post #175, above, as a further example. That is not what most folks would consider to be science.
Irish...Correction: it’s not what the Imperial Empiricists have declared the new definition of science to be. Of course, without the metaphysical, this neo-science or scientism is nothing but an Engerizer Bunny sans his power-pack.
We need more birds and fewer frogs ... don’tchaknow!
Your #185 is a most beautiful essay/post, dear Kevmo. Thank you so very much, from my heart!
What a magnificent essay/post, my dearest sister in Christ!
It is mainly through story telling that humans acquire knowledge, historically speaking. We call this the transmission of culture....
But there are stories; and then there are stories. The best, most reliable story is what Plato called alethines logos -- the "likely story." Human experience plus accumulated special (as in species and cultural) knowledge is the cutting edge between the likely and the unlikely story.... Man must judge, as he himself is to be judged in the endtime.
Such a beautiful post, my dearest sister in Christ! Thank you ever so much!
Is there a role for science in here somewhere, or is it all mysticism, revelation, theology, and other such subjects?
I have been trying to follow your posts for several years now, and I don't see a role for science at all.
What I see you promoting is science being necessarily subservient to various forms of religion, superstition, and mysticism. You may not agree with this assessment, but when you start accepting divine revelation as the highest form of knowledge, you leave science, and the scientific method, far behind.
Again, you may not agree, but I see little difference between your approach and the practice of a tribal shaman tens of thousands of years ago.
"The word "apology" comes from the Greek "Apo", which means Clear, and "Logos", which means Word. So it is Apo + Logos, A Clear Word, an explanation with solid rationality."
"What a beautifully clear, solidly rational statement, Kevmo!...Thank you so very much, Kevmo, for your beautiful essay/post!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaApologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack.
[edit] Colloquial usage
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones **, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.
[edit] Technical usages
The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In the Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defense.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's Letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (Acts 1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Romans 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητοι (anapologētoi) (without excuse, defense, or apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation.
The legal nuance of apologetics was reframed in a more specific sense to refer to the study of the defense of a doctrine or belief. In this context it most commonly refers to philosophical reconciliation. Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.
In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame. It is occasionally used to refer to a speech or writing that defends the author's position.
Kevmo, it seems you are a bit off in your translation.
Dictionary dot com wrote:apo-
a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Greek, where it was joined to verbs, deverbal forms, and other parts of speech. Among its functions in Greek, apo- has the spatial sense "away, off, apart" (apogee; apocope; apostasy; apostrophe); it occurs with deverbals that denote a response or defense (apodosis; apology) and is found on verbs having perfective force relative to a corresponding simple verb (apoplexy; aposiopesis). In modern scientific coinages in English and other languages, apo- marks things that are detached, separate, or derivative (apocarpous; apoenzyme).Also, especially before a vowel, ap-.
[Origin: < Gk, prefixal use of; akin to off, Skt apa, L ab]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,© Random House, Inc. 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary
apo- or ap- pref.
Away from; off: aphelion.
Separate: apocarpous.
Without; not: apogamy.
Related to; derived from: apomorphine.
Metasomatic: apophyllite.[Greek, from apo, away from; see apo- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Etymology Dictionary
apo-prefix meaning "from, away from, separate," from Gk. apo, from PIE base *apo- "off, away" (cf. Skt. apa "away from," Avestan apa "away from," L. ab "away from, from," Goth. af, O.E. of "away from").
Online Etymology Dictionary,© 2001 Douglas Harper
** It's nice that you want to portray the term 'apologetics' in as nice a light as possible but it seems in doing so you have become an apologist for the word.
Thank you to Virginia-American and longshadow, brothers in pondscum at Darwin Central for doing the research and bringing this to my attention.
Where did you get the idea that anybody believes the word apologetics has anything to do with saying you’re sorry?
***I get it all the time, and, if you read the post you’ll see that it was my own misconception of the word that caused me to disregard that line of inquiry for several years. Thanks a bundle for your clear correction when I parroted the term “apo” to mean “clear” because that is how I heard it and read it several times. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I’ve read it in this improper sense. I do know that I’ve heard at least 2 pastors use the same definition. Since I do not know greek, I’m willing to accept that I forwarded the wrong interpretation. Sorry about that.
The word “apologetic” is becoming as useless as the word “gentleman”. A gentleman used to be a specific term which had its connotations in being a land-owning man, but its connotation has shifted to “being a nice guy”. The word “apologetic” is drifting across the map from a person who is apologizing (saying Sorry) to your quoted connotation of ‘deceptive, or ‘whitewashing’ their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones”.
That was one reason why I asked Coyoteman a specific yes-or-no question which substituted his own words for that term: “
Then can we surmise that your post to Alamo Girl was basically saying, “You seem to be doing pure ‘defense of religious beliefs.’” ?
Here are some google results for the term apo + Logos + apologetics
An apology means saying you’re sorry. This seems straightforward enough until you poke at the scar tissue of history. Sometimes, etymology offers insights. It was not until the 18th century that “apologise” seriously took on the meaning of “a frank expression of regret for wrong done”. Before that, its meaning was closer to the Latin and the original Greek, apologia, where apo (from, off) and logos (speech) combine to produce an account mounted in defence or justification. In modern terms, think of the closing argument of the defence lawyer.
English retains this original sense in its “apologist”, though this too has been tainted by negativity. Alleged apologists usually deny that they are. The pseudo-historian David Irving denies being an apologist for Hitler even while uttering his absurd claims that openly seek to exonerate or explain away or diminish the monstrosity of Nazism.
If you key “apologetics” into case-non-sensitive Google, you get almost a million hits. These are mostly (big-A) Apologetics - a Christian term for the practice of defending the Christian faith against those who raise objections to its validity. This usage more closely resembles the original Greek sense.
Apologetics. A Biblical study of defending the Christian faith.APOLOGETICS. I. Biblical words. A. Greek root words: apo = “from”; logos = word, ... E. English words “apology” and “apologize” often convey idea of “making ...
www.christinyou.net/pages/apologetics.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Apologetics: LogosAnswer, apologia, is a combination of two Greek words: apo meaning ‘of’ or ‘from’ and logia (logos) meaning reason. Thus, the verse instructs us to give an ...
www.christiantreasury.com/Apologetics/Apologetic_Logos.htm - 120k -
Dean’s World - ApologiesIt’s a compound of two words, apo meaning “from” and logos, meaning reason. Which is why I find it amusing that some people say it’s not a real apology if ...
www.deanesmay.com/posts/1115208207.shtml - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
Retracing the Platonic Text By John Russon, John Sallis
http://books.google.com/books?id=DVpl1Jjzk5wC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=apo+logos+apology+apologetics&source=web&ots=m9UkiCjkwy&sig=lL4HYluprac9cR8AUrLd5EQbUMI#PPA5,M1
It is as if the apologia of LOGOS would be of LOGOS in an essential way, as if it would stem from (apo, indeed) LOGOS and interpret (that is reveal) logos in one of its most essential modes.
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1115308865.shtml
What is apologetics?
by Donald
I was inspired by a footnote by Dean Esmay:
(* “Apologetics” is not a bad word. See this definition.)
Apologetics is, in fact, a very good word, it’s just that we’ve forgotten where it came from. So, first to the dictionary, where Dean points, which says:
The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
In everyday usage, an apology is when you say you’re sorry for doing wrong. This is actually a corruption of the original usage. Apology is from the Greek word apologia, which is a “verbal defense” or “explanation.” It’s a compound of two Greek words, apo meaning “from” and logos meaning “reason.” (Logos, incidentally, is one of those Greek words with a rich and textured set of meanings, but we’re sticking with “reason” here.) The instruction to be prepared for a verbal defense of the faith comes from Peter:
But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always {being} ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.
(1 Peter 3:5, NAS)
Where the word translated “defense” is apologia.
So where does the modern usage of apology comes from? Well, I don’t know the specifics, but it’s easy to guess. Where originally it might have meant a strong defense against all accusation of wrongdoing, it began to include the explanation of mitigating circumstances as part of a confession of wrongdoing, then over time took on the presumption of guilt, until you have the meaning today, which is equivalent to saying you’re sorry.
The ironic thing is that today, people often say that it’s not a real apology if the apologizer makes any attempt to explain or defend his actions. Whereas, going by the original definition, it’s not a real apology unless the apologizer makes some attempt to explain or defend his actions.
Glossary of TermsThe Greek root of both words was apologesthai (to speak in one’s defense), formed from the prefix apo- (away, off) and logos (speech). ...
www.angelfire.com/az/experiment/gloss.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
http://www.mail-archive.com/word@tlk-lists.com/msg00164.html
An apologia is a formal defense or justification of one’s opinions,
position, or actions, almost always written. Example: “After
stepping down as CEO of the company, Mr. Green circulated a lengthy
apologia in which he explained his reasons for resigning.”
An apologia is not the same as an apology, although the words are
closely related. The Greek root of both words was apologesthai (to
speak in one’s defense), formed from the prefix apo- (away, off) and
logos (speech).
The word passed into Latin and French, then into English as apology,
whose meaning changed in the sixteenth century to include a sense of
regret and an admission of fault.
Apologia came directly from Latin in the 18th century with its modern
meaning. A related word is apologetics [n. uh-POL-uh-JET-iks], the
formal defense of a position or doctrine, especially a religion or
tradition.
http://www.jcrt.org/archives/03.3/putt.shtml
The priestly philosopher of religion, then, must always be ready to send a word (logos) away from (apo) the tradition that will justify it, protect it, and, perhaps, persuade others to embrace it.Tradition gives the gift of voice, of a language given to express the community’s inherited patterns of reality and to respond to other voices calling those patterns into question.Given the plurivocity of these finite patterns and the conflict that ensues from their inevitable competition, some form of “priestly” apologetics is a necessity for every particular tradition.
CESNUR 2004 - 50 Years of Unification? Conflicts, Responsibilities ...The word ‘apology’ literally means putting in a word (logos) ‘away from’ (apo) an opponent. Historically, the term ‘apology’ was used by early Christian ...
www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_chryssides.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.
***Note that I immediately presented how and why my approach was rational, so yes, what I was doing would fall within that part of the definition you offer. But I cannot speak for Alamo Girl or Betty Boop, for whom I have a lot of respect.
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.