Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
And their children to the third and fourth generation. If he were a human we'd all agree he was some sort of sick freak.
The existence of a real Adam and a real Eve is regarded as a necessary logical inference from the doctrine from Tradition of Original Sin. Catholics are also required to believe in "Creation from nothing." Other than that, the Catholic Church doesn't hold as doctrine any scientific position regarding human origins. Science and Faith/Morals are separate categories.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I don't see any evidence in this statement. Unsupported assertions are not science, and your thinly veiled condescending tone ("evidence that no one could miss") does not serve you well. Perhaps you would like to try again?
In a universe governed solely by the mechanisms of random evolution, cooperation is both an evolved behavior, and also an engine of evolution. You're probably correct that in such cases "morality" is definable only in terms of how one adheres to the evolved methods of cooperation.
And you're probably also correct that cooperation is not a strict evolutionary requirement, nor are the means or goals of cooperation constant -- which says that morality is only a relative concept, grounded in random mutation.
But note that in saying this, one must surrender any means of differentiating between right and wrong, except perhaps for the strict utilitarian criteria embodied in evolutionary theory. From that perspective, the only thing wrong with Soviet Communism was that it didn't work. The present Chinese tyranny cannot be morally condemned, because it has yet to fail.
By the same token, Athenian democracy is morally inferior to Spartan despotism, as history shows the latter to have been far more successful than the former.
Morality, in humans, only seems to apply to the group that you are in.
That is a false statement -- Christian morality, for example, teaches precisely the opposite idea, even if the practice sometimes falls short.
Be that as it may, your postulated morality does allow one to express a preference for a particular outcome -- indeed, "cooperation" implies that a group of people can share and pursue a common preferred result.
But again, this does not translate into any universal concept of right or wrong. Indeed, this approach basically denies the possibility of "unalienable rights," especially for individuals; not to mention any pretense to standards of proper behavior.
This highlights the severe logical difficulty underlying the philosophy of, say, Ayn Rand and her libertarian followers here on FR, who quite vocally claim to have access to a set of absolute moral principles.
Gould's contribution to the fray was in putting forth an attractive (if ultimately indefensible) case for an atheistic view of evolution, the logical end of which we have addressed above. It's interesting, therefore, that many of the people who lionize his scientific positions on threads like this one, are the same ones who loudly complain about the practical results of his theory on political threads.
I should have said the truth of the lie of his punctuated equilibrium. Gould looked at the fossil record, realized that the evidence contradicted classical evolutionary theory, but instead of questioning the theory, he simply came up with a twist on the theory which explained the seeming gaps in the fossil record. Can anyone prove that punctuated equilibrium isn't a total fabrication? Gould, like all evolutionists, hold to evolution as gospel, and promote it with evangelistic fervor, which is why I say that evolution isn't science (it can't be observed or replicated in the laboratory), but is ideology. It's their religion. To believe in evolution requires certain leaps of faith.
Logical Ad Hominem.
When was the last time you attended Catholic school? They ALL teach evolution which deals directly with human origins. As I have cleary demonstrated, you can't separate the bible and evolution without falling into hopeless contradiction - as catholic schools have done. They are fast leaving their first love.
-----------------------------
Some people NEED to believe. --Some don't.
If you really had an inquiring mind, this truth would be self evident.
God is ontologically One, Good, True, Beautiful and Being itself. The terms are convertible. God's Goodness or His Moral Law is the good for the human will. God's Moral Law is Truth (and also One and Beautiful).
It is also an aspect of nature that the stronger animals will more often than not subjugate the weak -- which is, after all, the manner by which evolution ensures that beneficial mutations are passed on, whereas harmful ones are not.
Which is to say, if nature gives one the right to self-defense, nature compensates by giving one the right to initiate force as well.
Despite this, I seem to recall that you assert that the initiation of force is wrong, while in contrast self-defense is morally justified. Yet if we go by the evidence of "nature" there is no logical basis for your claim.
Indeed, if "nature" is to be our moral guide, then the evolution of predators (including humans who prey on other humans) must cause us to conclude that might makes right.
Obviously, you don't know a rhetorical question when you see one, but coming from someone who identifies himself with a famous God-hater, I am not surprised.
Oh pleeeeze! Christians believe that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, and every other religion (fundies even say Catholics) are all doomed to eternal hell fire anyway.
So "perfect love" is throwing Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans and every other religion into eternal hell fires?
You know, some humans kill their "lovers" who have rejected them. We usually consider them crazy sick freaks and try to fry them on the electric chair. You guys build a religion around a similar nut case.
It is man's refusal of Christ's offer that dooms him to hell. Not a vengeful God.
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.