Posted on 07/05/2018 11:31:50 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
There is none, but that explains nothing, because your fallacy is that if something is a certain way, as perceived by humans, it must have a cause outside of the evolution and action of humans and their society. And that is an error. Humans invent all kinds of things, social constructs, technical inventions cultures, language, etc. because it is useful to humans.
Most of us agree that we are better off in a society with rule of law, morality, etc.
Pretty much what it is for every trait shaped by evolution - does it make the species more successful and able to reproduce?
Humans weren't as fast or strong as many of our early competitors so the groups that learned to socialize and work together were more successful.
Moral codes, particularly the many manifestations of the Golden Rule, are just a codification of what experience shows us works.
I know you want a metaphysical discussion but that's not what evolution addresses.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
I have to point out that your own personal definitions of words have no weight or meaning for anyone else. In communication with other people we have to use common terms, so personal definitions don't really work. The common definitions are what matter.
I just looked through some of the comments and I think you've already been answered. It's not a good question.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
James 1: 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.
—————
Do any of those God-breathed passages describe TToE, or do they indicate special creation of a new pneumatikos (spiritual) person?
When God makes a person to be born again by grace through faith, is that evolution or is it creation?
Evolution theory has effected philosophical changes on society, and no other kinds of changes. It has had zero effect on the products of hard science. As such, there is no dependence whatsoever of science on the philosophy that is evolution theory.
Related to this, all discussions of evolution are either primarily philosophical in nature, or they exist exclusively in a context that is mostly philosophical.
The fact that evolution discussions are philosophical is seen in the way it induces strong emotions, just like political discussions.
Nobody becomes hostile or belligerent when discussing scientific facts.
I understand - but we really need to use the common definition at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. I think mine is much closer than the definition of freedom.
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
-Aldous Huxley, icon of progressivism
Let’s face it—it all comes down to the part of wish fulfillment that Freud never got. We want to make our own rules. Especially regarding sexual behavior.
If God doesn’t exist, we can run out and do what the guys in the fraternity used to do, and we can do it again and again. Evolution theory, to its adherents, feels like it justifies this.
But if we accept the existence of a Divine Creator who gave Moral Law, things are very different.
You don't think evolutionary theory has informed pharmacological research?
Are you a parody poster?
There has never been any product of scientific research, pharmacological or otherwise, that is dependent on evolution being true.
BS
Science describes mechanism. Mechanism is reproduced.
An example where the mechanism of real science produces something real: chemical energy transformed into thermal energy and then kinetic energy gets your car running and you can get to work in the morning.
Give me an example where evolution “science” produces something real, in this same way, that we need and use regularly.
you are talking drivel.
In other words, if something is real then science can ultimately reproduce it. This is what science is.
Evolution is not real. Think of it as analogous to all talk and no action.
You have no clue about the reality of our world or of science
You producce Fake Posts.
Made up
Untrue
Your spouting drivel again.
I shall continue to be in awe of an incomprehensible God of Nature.
I accept the fact that my puny monkey brain may never be able to understand Creation.
The only reason brains of any sort refuse to acknowledge the simple truths about Creation is illustrated by Aldous Huxley’s comments:
“For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. WE OBJECTED TO THE MORALITY BECAUSE IT INTERFERED WITH OUR SEXUAL FREEDOM.”
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.