Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: medved
Basically, evolution and atheism provide no logical basis for morality. A Christian or a Jew could form a logically coherent argument against the reasoning which Dahmer cites above; an evolutionist could not.

Wrong: Only atheism provides no logical basis for morality. Evolution is not religion, it is a scientific theory and, as such, as no more relevance to morality than Einstein's theory of relativity, or Galileo's theory of a heliocentric universe, or electromagnetic theory, etc. So Jeffrey Dahmer believed in evolution. So what. I'll bet he also believed in electromagnetic theory and heliocentricity. So what. Ditto for Hitler and Stalin.

And please do not insult my intelligence by claiming to be a "Christian evolutionist", a Jewish nazi, or anything else like that from the realm of fairytales.

I am a Christian, and I am a scientist. Apparently, you are of the opinion that belief in both religion and science are mutually exclusive. That's your problem, not mine.

173 posted on 08/14/2002 12:03:17 AM PDT by exDemMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom
Wrong: Only atheism provides no logical basis for morality. Evolution is not religion, it is a scientific theory and, as such, as no more relevance to morality than Einstein's theory of relativity, or Galileo's theory of a heliocentric universe, or electromagnetic theory, etc. So Jeffrey Dahmer believed in evolution. So what. I'll bet he also believed in electromagnetic theory and heliocentricity. So what. Ditto for Hitler and Stalin.

Beleif in heliocentrism did not cause Dahmer to kill people; belief in evolution did. Those are his own words.

Evolution is junk science with known pathological social and political consequences.

181 posted on 08/14/2002 3:53:12 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: exDemMom
To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.


488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved


226 posted on 08/14/2002 10:22:12 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson