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
Does consensus in history count in your scenario? If you follow the discussion between myself and JS, he seems to be calling some very authoritative historians “psychotic”.
Sigh, I am having to recover the same ground. You are simply asserting something I have already demonstrated to be fallacious.
Alas, how were you able to confirm that there is never such a reliable method? Is the technique you used more reliable in nature then that used in philosophy?
Realistically any doctrine in theology or idea in philosophy needs to conform to "common sense", or it is in danger of being overturned, in time. The very reliability of science is based soley on "common sense", and the ongoing effective application of science as well.
If all of philosophy can produce nothing reliable, then we must reject science as well, for it came from philosophy.
Trying to equate the two different approaches as both using "common sense" makes no sense to me.
Doctrine in theology, such as the "global flood" about 4350 years ago, absolutely fails the "common sense" test, and even the early creationist geologists had given up on documenting the flood by about 1831.
The overwhelming body of science from multiple fields shows that there was no such flood; only religious doctrine argues for it. In this case, "common sense" has to rule out such or flood unless you have changed its meaning entirely. But I don't see many believers willing to do that.
How then do you propose to use "common sense" while supporting the exact opposite?
Probably why not all theologians accept that the flood happened as described in the Bible.
The overwhelming body of science from multiple fields shows that there was no such flood; only religious doctrine argues for it.
I would agree that the evidence makes the described flood seem quite unlikely. It doesn't even seem plausible to me with all the animals and what not. Maybe it happened, but I don't see how.
In this case, "common sense" has to rule out such or flood unless you have changed its meaning entirely.
This particular doctrine does indeed seem to be conflict with common sense. It makes me dubious about it.
...but I don't see many believers willing to do that.
I would guess you are right, but I would also guess not all of them have considered all the evidence. I do think theology without considering physical evidence is more likely to go astray then that which doesn't. Perhaps you would be surprised that C.S. Lewis (someone I have quite a respect for) was also dubious of many of the reported Old Testament miracles.
How then do you propose to use "common sense" while supporting the exact opposite?
I don't propose to do so at all.
Originally this discussion centered on a common sense based argument against a naturalistic view of the cosmos. The argument was disregarded by some on the basis that it did not use science, and that theology and philosophy were not reliable.
Up until your entry, the arguments against the validity of all of "philosophy" and "theology" were ironically, entirely philosophic and/or theological. Albeit they were really poor arguments, but still they were certainly not "science". So no category was left but sort of a dumbed down philosophy and/or theology.
You are the first to allude to some specific body of scientific evidence, which I give you credit for, although obviously the argument around this allusion is by necessity philosophic and/or theological. So your attempt to descredit philosophy and theology is only mostly absurd instead of entirely absurd.
As an amateur theologian, you are alluding to some evidence found by science in your formation of a doctrine against accepting the flood of the Bible at face value. Thus, demonstrating that either theology is not categorically invalid, or that your argument, being theological, is invalid.
Sorry, I haven't been following along. If you think you already addressed my point elsewhere, you can just link to it.
Alas, how were you able to confirm that there is never such a reliable method?
What do you mean "is never?" I don't understand that construction. If you mean "can never be," then I made no such claim. I only say there isn't one now.
Is the technique you used more reliable in nature then that used in philosophy?
You're joking, right? As you typed that question into your computer that converted it to electrical impulses and possibly light and sent the information hundreds or maybe thousands of miles away to another computer which then decoded and stored it as minute magnetic undulations on a disk spinning thousands of revolutions per second, you were joking about the relative reliability of scientific theories and philosophies, right?
Well, maybe not so I will answer unambiguously yes. The techniques used by scientists are reliable and produce reliable knowledge about the world. In contrast, philosophers are basically content with an intuitive internal consistency.
Realistically any doctrine in theology or idea in philosophy needs to conform to "common sense",
True, and at one time conformance to common sense might have been a good standard, But today we know that common sense is not a good guide to reliable knowledge. Common sense told men for millenia that space is Euclidean - there was no conceivable alternative, it had to be true. But we know today that's false. Today we know that memory can be very unreliable. We know that people behave irrationally, that it's just human nature. No, common sense is not an acceptable guide.
The very reliability of science is based soley on "common sense"
No, it is based on empirical results. Einstein's proposal that spacetime is curved was most certainly not common sensical. Instead it was (and is) accepted because predictions were made and verified. Quantum physics is similar. Just about every major scientitific theory we have went against the common sense of it's day.
If all of philosophy can produce nothing reliable, then we must reject science as well, for it came from philosophy.
Fallacious.
No, the argument is entirely based on science. The question of a global flood 4350 years ago can be directly tested by science with no help from theology or philosophy. The scientific evidence comes from such diverse fields as archaeology, genetics, sedimentology, geology, and many of the life sciences. There is either evidence to support such a claim, or there is not. In the case of this particular claim, there is not.
So your attempt to descredit philosophy and theology is only mostly absurd instead of entirely absurd.
Sorry, no attempt was made to discredit either field. The example I gave dealt with an approach, using "common sense," which you brought up. I pointed out a case of what I, as a scientist, thought common sense would do if applied to the claim of a global flood 4350 years ago. You apparently agreed with my assessment.
As an amateur theologian, you are alluding to some evidence found by science in your formation of a doctrine against accepting the flood of the Bible at face value.
I am not a theologian of any kind, nor do I play one on TV. But I do archaeology and I have yet to see evidence of a flood in the areas where I have worked that parallels the requisites of a global flood 4350 years ago. Rather, I have seen overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To me, "common sense" (this is where we started) suggests that there was no such flood.
Thus, demonstrating that either theology is not categorically invalid, or that your argument, being theological, is invalid.
You jumped the shark with that one. Is that philosophy or theology or one of those squishy fields?
I assume you mean consensus amongst historians. I've never investigated how historians do their thing. How do they assess the reliability of their ideas? It would not surprise me they don't. I can see how it would be hard.
Really, let me be more precise:
Premise A: everything X produces is unreliable.
Premise B: X produced Y.
Conclusion: Y is unreliable.
Where X is philosophy and Y is science.
Do you disagree with one of the two premises or with the deduction from them?
Myself I disagree with premise A, and also disagree with the conclusion -- that being my point.
Sorry then, I thought you were indeed trying to discredit the entire fields of philosophy and theology. I took your point in the context that you were reading along the debate I was having with others, who were attempting to discredit the entire fields in order to discredit a particular argument.
I am not a theologian of any kind, nor do I play one on TV.
I am greatly relieved. Then you didn't meant that heretical doctrine about some magical first coyote creating the very first bear seriously. Its so obvious that the noble bear came first among all the animals ;-)
Bear? HA!
Here's how it was. You see a bear in there anywhere?
When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.
California Indian creation story
if that's your standard then scientology is a true religion, because it is formed and growing. LDS is obviously true, and so is Islam. In fact all revelations must be true, if they form the basis of a successful religion.
bttt
How do [historians] assess the reliability of their ideas?
***Tough question. When I google “Tests of Historicity” I get a whole bunch of items related to biblical history, I suppose that’s because its historicity has been subject to so much inquisitiveness. I certainly had my doubts, which is why I spent so much time investigating the legitimate historicity behind Jesus.
Several lines of evidence converge to establish the historical reality of the founder of the Christian religion: (1) the New Testament documents; (2) ancient Jewish sources; (3) Roman writings; (4) early antagonists of Christianity; (5) the testimony of the patristic writers; (6) the art of the Roman catacombs; and (7) the impact of Christianity in history.
The New Testament has become all the more reliable as a result of these rigorous explorations by so many. The same could not be said of the book of Mormon, the Hindu character Ram, and even Marco Polo’s journeys to China.
I came up with my own criteria of historicity I call COIN: Concurring sources, Opposing sources, Indifferent sources, and No (or very little — COIL) Evidence Against. If an event in history can satisfy this criteria, I accept it. But it doesn’t really work on an individual basis, because there could be a lot of evidence against something that I might not be aware of; that’s how so many mormons get hoodwinked, by blinding themselves to the evidence.
There was a time on this forum when I had a bunch of fighter pilots pissed at me
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342535/posts
because I was building a case that the Harrier was a good dogfighter. It has something like 60-0 in combat Air-Air engagements, from 6:1 to 15:1 kill ratio in some air exercises, but that didn’t matter because of the consensus of experts. So, the rule of COIN needs to be something that is to be applied on a collective basis, not necessarily ONLY an individual one.
Until Proven, A Myth: Historians
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897101/posts
The Telegraph (India) ^ | 9-12-2007 | CHARU SUDAN KASTURI & SUDESHNA BANERJEE
“A textual reference necessarily needs to be corroborated by inscriptions engraved in stone or other long-lasting material or by archaeological evidence,” said Nayanjot Lahiri, professor of ancient history at Delhi University.
Did Marco Polo really make it to China?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/marco.htm
Here are some quotes from some “psychotic” historians about the historicity of Christ:
“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”~F.F. Bruce.
Historian Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.”
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Christian authors wrote about Jesus soon after the events. By way of contrast, Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, considered trustworthy by historians, was written more than four centuries after his death. Charlesworth has written that “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that “We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.” On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: “It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world.” [Harv.JesC, 11]
Second, I did not say "everything [philosophy] produces is unreliable" but rather there is no good procedure or technique for assessing reliability of a philosophy or a theology. I will thank you in future to not put words in my mouth.
if that’s your standard then scientology is a true religion, because it is formed and growing. LDS is obviously true, and so is Islam. In fact all revelations must be true, if they form the basis of a successful religion.
***You’re putting words in his mouth, straw argumentation. Nowhere did he say it was a “true” religion or that they must be true, just that there’s strong evidence to support that a religion WAS formed, in contrast to your contention that “the evidence doesn’t support the founding of a religion. “
Bunny-—That’s just weird.
Irish....Agreed. But then ‘weird moral fetishes’ and utterly bizarre beliefs are the logical outflow of your metaphysical belief system, which disguises itself as empirical science.
The ultimate test of a worldview is in how well it allows you to navigate life on a day-to-day basis. One that steers you into dead-ends and toward insurrmountable intellectual chasms gives evidence of its abject failure.
Evolutionary Humanism is an abject failure.
atlaw: by which I suppose you mean that not only evolutionary biology but indeed all of science is in Marxist cahoots to obliterate western culture and eradicate historical memory
Irish...Your very long exposition can be boiled down to the above complaint, that complaint being that you don’t want to believe that evolution is tied in any way to Marxism and variants. Marxism offends you, as it ought.
Just the thought of evolution and Marxism united causes you and the other evolutionists on this board to experience cognitive dissonance.
However, it is certainly true that evolution is the creation story for Marxism, Nazism, socialism, Secular Humanism, Post Modernism, modern liberalism (socialism), Progressivism (socialism), and Cosmic Humanism (New Age, Gaia, etc).
Your understanding of evolution is rather shallow. You can regurgitate theories, names, etc. but know nothing of its most foundational philosophical presuppositions and their historic antecedents. History awaits you atlaw. Go forth and research; discover for yourself the truth.
What in the world are you talking about? You have no idea what my belief system is. You’re just setting up imaginary straw-men and knocking them down in your mind.
Perhaps I should have said "justify" rather than "support."
Religions appear to be started by charismatic leaders rather than by the availability of evidence.
But my main point at present is that it is ridiculous to assert that the life of Jesus is as well documented as the life of John Adams. This is simply stupid.
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.