Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Become a Monthly Donor
To End the FReepathons
Sponsoring donors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
You are apparently confused. Evolution is a change in the inheritable characteristics of a population - it is a fact as there is no possibility that a population of living things will remain unchanged - not if they are using DNA as their heritable material, because DNA is mutable and there is no way to reproduce it with 100% accuracy.
The theory of natural selection of genetic variation explains the fact of evolution.
Speciation - the transformation from one species to another - is a different thing than evolution - although it is dependent upon evolution.
By way of example - all valley formation requires erosion - not all erosion causes valley formation. Similarly - all speciation requires evolution - not all evolution causes speciation.
If you believe all present day species that exist upon the Earth are descended from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years - you believe in evolution, speciation, and the (semi) common descent of species at a speed and power well beyond that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.
Why, do you think speciation is not going to happen? What is going to stop a (for example) 2% difference in genetic DNA from accumulating in two populations kept apart from each other over some six or seven million years?
Indeed. Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Though I wouldn’t correlate brain size with intelligence, even within a single species,
there is a lot of evidence that ancient man had a lot more going on, and that our present level of genetic hardiness is inferior to those of the past. This is consistent with the biblical account of history, that we were created genetically “perfect” and drifted away from that generation by generation after the fall.
Since we were made in His image
Is he telling us that God has two legs, two arms and a head?
His source is from history itself: The soviets rejected Darwin’s theory and implemented Lamarckianism instead, with Lysenko at the helm. The results were unbelievably disastrous.
What an asanine thing to say. Simply because we disagree on this subject in no way gives you justification for such a ludicrous statement. Because you fail to understand the salient point is far more telling that your theory is unsound. We as humans were created in Gods image, not that God has a physical form (which the Father and Holy Spirit do not) but that we were designed and that design incorporates emotion, rational thought, compassion, intelligence, the ability to aspire, etc. My theology is not fragile it is built upon the rock of revalation. You are attempting to secularize what is entirely spiritual and that is near to blasphemy. I have long considered other interpretations and found them lacking if not laughable. For many years I was an evolutionist and pretended that God was merely some unattainable force that haunted little childrens dreams, but His truth was inescapable and now I see clearly the dangerous fantasy that is evolution. Any attempt to align Gods design with such a repugnant concept is beyond contempt of the Holy One.
Macroevolution:
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups.
Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.
Microevolution:
Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species.
I don't doubt that microevolution, or adaptation, occurs. I have an issue with the proof of macroevolution, or "big-E" Evolution, which is what most people think of when the word is used. The argument is again speculative: you have to postulate millions and millions of years of micro occurring for big-E to occur, and then you assume that millions and millions of years have past, since big-E must have occurred.
The big issue is in the interpretation of the historical data, and the assumption of regularity in natural processes. There is simply no way to prove or disprove that regularity has occurred for millions of years, and therefore, any conjecture that relies on this regularity cannot rise to the theory level, since there is no way to prove it false (in fairness, this is also true for creationism).
I hear this chain of consequences all the time from Creationists. If God didn’t literally pick up mud, mold it into a human shape, and breath into his nostrils then a, then b, then c, then we don’t need a savior.
Do you? The Bible is entirely clear that God the Father is without physical form. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then no, God the Father does not have two legs, two arms and a head. Would you like to get into word games? This is elementary level and I have gone over it hundreds of times. You seem ripe for an education in biblical apologetics.
“I think the core issue of this debate is if man is fallible in his interpretation of the Bible, but not in his observations, assumptions, and interpretations of the universe around him.”
Spirited: Agreed. The hypocrisy is there for all to see.
"Without God, all things are permissible."
Who's "right" is right?
Poor argument. The chain of events was laid out in the Bible therefore is the established sequence of creation. The need for a saviour happened when Satan fell and took a third of the heavenly host with him, mans fall was a consequence of that and required divine intervention to reconcile. To suggest another interpretation is to discount the biblical account and supplant your own. Care to give walking on water a try?
Evolution, as defined, is a fact.
The theory of natural selection of genetic variation explains that fact.
If you believe that all species that currently exist derived from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions then you accept evolution, speciation and the (semi) common descent of species. Thus your quibble comes down to just how common IS the common descent of species.
What mechanism would you use to explain HOW these modern species came about from those few species that could fit on a boat?
Do you think you don't need an actual explanation for how such things could happen?
I accept all the miracles in the Gospels as fact.
“Without God, all things are permissible.”
Who’s “right” is right?
Spirited: Augustine was of the same opinion. In the city of man said Augustine, libido dominandi makes for right. And then there was John of Damascene who described the pre-flood world as barbarism. Barbarism because “right and wrong” was nothing more than the wicked desires of men whose wills were entirely evil.
Spoken like a true evo.
What mechanism would you use to explain HOW these modern species came about from those few species that could fit on a boat?
Perhaps a better question is: how does the word "kind" relate to "species"? For instance, would all big cats be considered a "kind" in relation to the Hebrew language used in the Bible? Does "kind" allow for significant variations such that over even short period of time, interbreeding between isolated groups cannot occur? Did these changes in "kind" occur naturally, or by Divine intervention?
It’s interesting to watch those who say everyone is wrong but them.
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.