Liberty Is an Anti-Darwinian Concept

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | The Fourth of July, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

[fishtank]

Liberty Is an Anti-Darwinian Concept

David F. Coppedge

July 4, 2018

The Darwinian worldview that allegedly freed people from ‘religion’ actually enslaves them to the worst kind of tyranny.

In the United States today, Americans will celebrate Independence Day with parties, barbecues, and fireworks. Hopefully mixed in with the fun is some appreciation for the founding principles of America:

* All men are created equal

* Human rights

* Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

* Liberty and justice for all

* E pluribus unum (out of many, one)

* In God we trust

* The American dream

All of these ideals are profoundly anti-Darwinian. The secular worldview in vogue today, resting on Darwin’s advocacy of nature run by unguided natural processes, cannot derive any of these. In fact, the opposite is true: secularism undermines every one of these, and historically, has fought against them.

[reasonisfaith]

Fine.

If that’s the case, then it should be taught in schools as you describe it.

[Kommodor]

Uh, okay. Whatever.

I would rather think that _true_ liberty would rather encourage the survival and thriving of the ‘fittest’, etc. vs. socialism, which as we can see is devouring societies and civilizations who are busily removing themselves from the gene pool.

(i.e. Japan, Western Europe, etc.)

[reasonisfaith]

If not taught that way in schools, then the logical conclusion is people are just particles and as such have no more worth than a pool of “primordial soup.”

[freedumb2003]

>>If that’s the case, then it should be taught in schools as you describe it.<<

The problem there is introducing a specific religious perspective.

Science and theology are different domains and should not overlap.

TToE is sound science irrespective of its moral context. Just like Geology. We don’t ask for a moral context for the latter (nor do we demand it explain abiogenesis) so it is unnecessary for the former.

[reasonisfaith]

Let’s face it, evolution is not taught as a creation of God, which is why we have the problem the author describes.

[freedumb2003]

>>Maybe those who disagree with these ideas are able to articulate an ontological explanation that includes both unguided evolution theory and intrinsic human value.

But I’ve never heard or seen it.<<

I have never seen anyone who could reconcile Relational 3VL vs. 2VL and the theoretical basis for yeast in bread.

[reasonisfaith]

But the belief that God doesn’t exist is taught more pervasively, although often in a subtle or passive-aggressive manner, than evolution in public schools.

[editor-surveyor]

.
What’s even better is that we can get your ‘creator’ in a pack of bubblegum for free!
.

[freedumb2003]

>>You can be the first person ever to explain where the mutating replicator came from if life began from random processes.

No biologist or anyone else, anywhere in academia, has ever provided the answer.<<

Your very sophomoric attempt to pull random terms from the air (you are really asking for the theory behind abiogenesis) is really making you look silly and uneducated.

back to AIG for more training for you!

[freedumb2003]

>>But the belief that God doesn’t exist is taught more pervasively, although often in a subtle or passive-aggressive manner, than evolution in public schools.<<

I hand’t seen that in the curriculum. If it is, it is up to people to get it out.

Which text is that in? Just so I can can be accurate when I complain the the administration.

[Moonman62]

Alvin Plantiga, a very smart and respected Christian philosopher, thinks that evolution supports theism.

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were top scientists of their day and the founding principles of the US were a product of the Age of Enlightenment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment

[semimojo]

Again, the target here is to be able to articulate the ontological basis of individual human worth.

That may be your metaphysical target but it doesn't fit with the topic of the posted article.

The article lists a bunch of man-created concepts and without any rationale implies that humans who were the result of an evolutionary process couldn't have reasoned them out.

[AndyJackson]

the target here is to be able to articulate the ontological basis of individual human worth

Not only is the article drivel, but your demand is self-serving drivel - suggesting that you interlocutor defeat you on ground you have chosen - as if it is any ground at all.

We could instead demand that you conclusively argue your thesis, that liberty or freedom cannot be an evolved social value. And in fact, since it is your thesis, it is, as is the custom in these things, your duty to advance an argument in its defense.

Of course you start off by muddying the waters with an irrelevant semantic argument over the difference between freedom and liberty.

In sum you are on the way to winning a nobel for logical fallacies, starting with question begging, then victimizing yourself with circular reasoning, and then distracting us with a semantic fallacy, and then declaring a QED after relying on the negation of a false negation of your thesis.

Quite a knot you tied yourself up in here.

[loveliberty2]

"I believe we need to rediscover the ideas of liberty."- fishtank, FR

You might enjoy a book entitled "Rediscovering the Ideas of Liberty," which is a condensed version of the Bicentennial (1987) Volume, Our Ageless Constitution.

Both are easy-to-read explanations of the principles and ideas underlying America's Declaration of Independence and the Framers' Constitution.

America's founders embraced a previously unheard-of political philosophy which held that people are "...endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.." This was the statement of guiding principle for the new nation, and, as such, had to be translated into a concrete charter for government. The Constitution of The United States of America became that charter.

Other forms of government, past and present, rely on the state as the grantor of human rights. America's founders, however, believed that a government made up of imperfect people exercising power over other people should possess limited powers. Through their Constitution, they wished to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and for posterity by limiting the powers of government. Through it, they delegated to government only those rights they wanted it to have, holding to themselves all powers not delegated by the Constitution. They even provided the means for controlling those powers they had granted to government.

This was the unique American idea. Many problems we face today result from a departure from this basic con­cept. Gradually, other "ideas" have influenced legislation which has reversed the roles and given government greater and greater power over individuals. Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of in­dividual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity.

---

Footnote: "Our Ageless Constitution," W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

[mlo]

"After the Civil War the term was changed from liberty to freedom - and that is the word we use today. But they are not interchangeable in their historic context."

That one word might be used more in the past than the other does not mean that the other word means something else. That doesn't follow. "Liberty" means liberty, not justice, or some other concept. If you have liberty you are free.

You should explain to us what exactly you think liberty means.

[mlo]

"You can still be the first person in human history to explain an intelligible rationale for the ontological basis of individual human worth in the absence of a transcendent Moral Law Giver."

Hardly. Like the question hasn't been answered a thousand times already.

[impactplayer]

Liberty to me means the ability to operate without constraint within specified boundaries as defined by God. Freedom, on the other hand, is license to do what ever government agrees to allow. Thus, liberty results in justice, and freedom in government control. To me, it really is that simple.

[Getready]

I think the author is just trying to reiterate the fact that belief in “Darwinism” as a ruling paradigm for life may allow certain human behaviours to be considered to be the outflowing of biological imperative or patterns...and have no moral standard to be ranked against...what can follow from such a belief can be truly horrendous...and not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole.

[momincombatboots]

Atheism equals survival of the fittest which by definition feeds on the bodies and souls of the innocent, weak and imperfect. Of course today, the sacrifices of humans are for their own good and done behind closed ddors. Barbaric ideology of the dark ages.

[reasonisfaith]

No sweat, guys. Do your thing, more power to you.

But I would like an answer, please:

What is the basis for individual human value, or any morals for that matter, in the theoretical context of a Godless universe run by the random interactions between matter and energy?