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
I think the Nazi’s tried this already.
Empiricism is not inherently contradictory. Practicing 'empiricists' (scientists as opposed to philosophers) by and large do not understand empiricism. Scientists tend to believe that they can know with certitude certain things through scientific observation. However, empiricism only goes so far as to say that all we can know is what we obtain through our senses. Empricism goes on to say that because all we know is what we get through our senses, and since our senses are necessarily limited and imperfect our knowledge can never be certain.
Empiricism may not be your cup of tea, but it is a logically coherent position. It may be what God is referring to when he says that now "we see through a glass darkly". Our human limitations prevent us from experiencing the full glory of God's creation. However, what we can experience and observe carefully has allowed us with His help to advance our forever limited knowledge of His creation.
Because of the above glaring errors I am not certain if the biographical/philosophical information on Popper is correct. I do know that he was one of the founders of logical positivism. I believe that he was one of the philosophers that came up with the 'falsifiability theory', i.e. that a scientific/philosophical theory is only good if it is falsifiable. He may have thought that Darwinian evolution theory is not falsifiable because it only describes what happened in the past and does not allow scientists to construct experiments that could falsify it. However, evolutionary theory has advanced since his time. It is argued by some in the field that evolution has actually been shown to have occured in some instances. Also, it is possible to advance hypotheses and test them against the archaeological and geological data we have collected over the years. There are some that would claim that evolution is indeed falsifiable and is thus no less a scientific theory than the theory of relativity.
Logical positivism is no longer a going concern in philosophical circles. The falsifiability theory is itself not falsifiable. So logical positivism is in a way self-contradictory. Popper's prestige has taken a hit because of this, so he might end up being something of a strawman in this argument. It is not too hard to argue against a philosopher whose philosophical position was shown to be faulty more than 50 years ago.
” But what do the Founding Fathers have to do with this?”
Observe that the author spoke of the “founding generation,” the population at large rather than the much smaller group, the Founding Fathers, of whom some were deists, others nominal Christians, and yet others faithful Christians.
It is never a good philosophical move to quote from a dictionary. Philosophical discussion advances when terms are correctly, exactly, and unique defined.
Dictionary definitions are not about trying to uniquely define certain terms so that everyone discussing them knows what they are talking about. Dictionary definitions are about listing all of the uses of particular words. This can often lead to equivocation when a word is used to mean one thing in one part of an argument and another thing in a different part of the argument.
If you want to look like a fool in court, bring a copy of a dictionary (especially one printed in 1828) and quote from it to the judge. I have seen it done before and it is never pretty.
“Why is it that you DOUBT that a human and chimp are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla?”
Spirited: The more interesting question is: “What possesses you that you yearn to be a monkey?”
And it is the carnal mind that insists that what looks random is not God’s purpose. allmendream reminds us of the comment on the relationship between “random chance” and the will of God found in Proverbs 16:33: “Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.”
As I say, it is a poor view of God’s sovereignty that regards “random chance” as somehow beyond His All-Holy will.
Still, there is something in what you say, as atheist polemicists, plainly having no regard for God, or His sovereignty, somehow fancy that “randomness” as part of a causal model is contrary to purpose (which my example from metallurgy shows is a false premise), and seek to lead people astray by insisting that the technical narrow notion biologists really invoke, which I would prefer to call “anoracular” rather than “random”, is in fact randomness in the mathematical sense, which they then fancy is equivalent to randomness in the philosophical sense (which by definition is contrary to purpose).
During Webster’s day, truth was sought rather than evaded, as it is now. That being the case, Webster’s dictionary was hailed as a book in which words were “correctly, exactly, and unique defined.”
Today however, nihilistic barbarism is the “norm,” which means that “If you want to look like a fool” in a court run by nihilists, “ bring a copy of a dictionary (especially one printed in 1828) and quote from it to the judge” who believes in nothing but self.
” But what do the Founding Fathers have to do with this?”
Observe that the author spoke of the “founding generation,” the population at large rather than the much smaller group, the Founding Fathers, of whom some were deists, others nominal Christians, and yet others faithful Christians.
I don't think you understand my point. We don't need the permission of the founding fathers, founding generation, or anyone else in order to obey the King of the Universe. G-d's laws apply to everyone regardless of nation or culture and they apply because of His Divine Authority, not because of who founded the country.
It is very difficult to make sense of this sentence. 'Empiricism' in this author's mind is not equivalent to 'observationalism'. However because empiricism and observationalism disagree this somehow causes empiricism to contradict itself.
I did some research on observationalism. Evidently it is a very old philosophical position that was put in disrepute over a hundred years ago. Why anyone would bother to argue against it is curious to me. Why anyone would conflate a respectable philosophical position with an out-dated and disreputable one is also curious to me.
There is at least one thing that both ill-informed evolutionary scientists and creationists agree on. This is the faulty philosophical notion of 'naive realism', i.e. the unsubstantiated belief that what we see is what we get.
If what scientists tell us is actually true then we seldom see the world as it is. When we look at a table do we see that the vast majority of it is empty space between microscopic particles? Do we see the probablistic quantum blur?
What we see is an illusion. We see solid wood which really isn't solid at all. When we act as if the table is solid and stand on it, we don't prove that the table is solid. All that we prove is that it is reasonable to stand on top of particular tables.
The original essay is severely flawed. The comments in this thread are by and large much more understandable, defensible, and logical regardless if they are pro-evolution or pro-creationism.
SPIRITUAL, a.
1. Consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal; as a spiritual substance or being. The soul of man is spiritual.
2. Mental; intellectual; as spiritual armor.
3. Not gross; refined from external things; not sensual; relative to mind only; as a spiritual and refined religion.
4. Not lay or temporal; relating to sacred things; ecclesiastical; as the spiritual functions of the clergy; the lords spiritual and temporal; a spiritual corporation.
5. Pertaining to spirit or to the affections; pure; holy.
Gods law is spiritual; it is a transcript of the divine nature, and extends its authority to the acts of the soul of man.
6. Pertaining to the renewed nature of man; as spiritual life.
7. Not fleshly; not material; as spiritual sacrifices. 1 Peter 2.
8. Pertaining to divine things; as spiritual songs. Ephesians 5.
Spiritual court, an ecclesiastical court; a court held by a bishop or other ecclesiastic.
===========
As you can see there is more than one definition. These definitions do not contradict one another, but they are not identical.
When making a philosophical argument it is best to define each one of your terms very carefully. If you are going to use 'spiritual' in a philosophical argument then it is best to state exactly what you mean by it so that no one will assume a different definition. Nowhere does the essayist make it clear upon what definition of 'spiritual' she is basing her argument.
A number of reasonable sounding philosophical arguments have been found to be flawed because the same word was used in different parts of the argument each with a different definition (which went unstated.)
The 1828 version of Noah Webster's dictionary may very well be the best dictionary that was ever published in the history of the world. However, philosophers that depend on it are still susceptible to the problem of equivocation if they don't make sure that every time they use a particular word they always intend the same definition.
I also noticed that nowhere is 'spiritual' equated with 'metaphysical' in Webster's dictionary. So the essayist is not using this great dictionary to bolster her argument, but is using some inferior document. Funk and Wagnalls, perhaps?
Can you prove this statement?
1. The results of the scientific method are hypotheses usually stated in the form of equations such as E=mC^2.
2. For that statement to be true it would have to be true over all time and space.
3. We are unable to validate that statement over all time and space.
4. For any hypothesis you can imagine, whether stated as an equation or as a sentence, there is no way to validate it over all time and space.
5. Therefore, none of the results of the scientific method (hypotheses) can ever be 'proved', i.e. shown to be true over all time and space.
Presupposing natural causes to explain natural phenomena leads to further discovery and a greater ability to explain and predict the natural world.
Presupposing supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena has a long history, and in all that time has done nothing to advance our ability to explain or predict the natural world.
Absolutely no use.That word 'absolute' seems unmovable and authoratative. Have you examined each and every occurance of how a person who is a creationist has dealt with nature and phenomena? If not, you need to answer to David Hume.
Using your presuppositions of naturalism, please explain the moment just prior to the Big Bang, purely from a naturalistic worldview.
Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Hubble, Eddington, and even Einstein (though a pantheist) all believed in God and some might say these guys held a theistic worldview which, according to their own testimony, said God was the cause of any understanding which they imparted to the understanding of the universe (I paraphrase, of course).
As you bring up presuppositions, which we all hold, could you please explain the metaphysical naturalism as it explains logic, rational thought, reason, sentience, mind or any mental event (as distinuished from a neurological event), or numbers. Do these things exist in a naturalist, darwinists worldview and, if so, please explain the ontology and epistemology of these abstract, invarient, entities. If there is no naturalistic, darwinist explaination, does it then not exist....sort of a reverse theodicy question.
You get an ‘A’. Thank you.
Hope your daughter is doing well.
I like the two posts which I graded an 'A'. Have not read many of his posts. He seems informed. I hope to learn from him.
I suspect that those capable of learning something new are not those who think they know it all already.
Just because something looks to be true but isn't doesn't make The LORD a liar. People once believed the world was flat because to the unknowlegeable view point it looks flat. We later learned that it is actually shaped more like a ball. Does that make The LORD a liar because ignorant man thought the world was flat and from his limited knowledge and viewpoint it certainly seemed so?
Because things appear a certain way to you but it is not as they truly are does in no way cause The LORD to be a liar. Your first duty is to realize this and search for the truth based upon what The LORD has said and allowed to be written in His Word. If you do this you will have great success and clouds of doubt and confusion will disappear.
I didn’t call the Lord a liar. Catch up.
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.