Posted on 11/12/2008 8:37:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Chesterton: ‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.
‘If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a stepmother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.’...
ping!
Thanks for the ping!
The Darwinians voted for the false Messiah, Obama...
[...however, there may be a few, in disguise, among the Republicans, too.]
I’m reading “Heretics” now. I love Chesterton!
ping for later. Great post,thanks !
Please don’t flame, but there is a presupposition in the following statement that favors creationism:
“A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that.”
The presupposition is that a winged bat is inherently more ordered than, say, a six-legged bat or a four-assed monkey. Is it the order we perceive or our perception that creates order?
I won’t have time to debate in this thread, but I’ll try to read any responses.
Also - please bear in mind that I’m not arguing for or against creationism with this comment. Just making an observation the logic presented here is inherently flawed.
Thanks for great post!
Excellent post, thanks. Chesterton is the best, what a mind!
Elections are over! Back to the CrEvo Wars!
And now we have produced a generation that cannot even read and comprehend even these excerpted kernels produced by a great mind. It is a foreign language to them. No, giberish.
And if nothing else, the election proved for once and all the truth of Creationism!
Yep, they come out of the woodwork on a regular basis to defend Darwin’s fanciful creation myth right here on FR. Indeed, I never ping them to these articles, but they always seem to find them. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say they are actively looking for them. LOL
This animal has wings. That’s proof of the Theory of Evolution.
This animal doesn’t have wings. That’s proof of the Theory of Evolution.
This glacier is smaller. That’s proof of Global Warming.
This glacier is larger. That’s proof of Global Warming.
heyyyyyyyy.... i sense you are onto something... it may not be scientific but I FEEL you are correct
More nonsense, eh?
Chesterton’s argument has nothing to do with how many legs a bat has. He’s saying that a belief in a special providence that watches over creation is a far more realistic notion than the idea that every living creature is the product of millions upon millions of lucky modifications.
Whether you agree or disagree - wonderful use of words and images.
G.K. Chesterton is a "charlatan?" Is that you, Bill Ayers?
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.