Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?
Darn, I always seem to miss all the good replies.
I didn't see anything that warranted a removal of the poster and any record of his existence... but I didn't read the whole thread.
I read enough to know that he wasn't very popular.
More accurately, one or more such universes exist. We don't know how many exist, but we know there is at least one where we are possible.
Well-enough dated to support the theory of evolution.
The Dark AgesTM has been a pretty pretty good marketing gimmick, but the modern scientific method was still begun by creationists.
Not surprising, given that prior to Darwin, virtually everyone was a creationist.
If Creator-less evolution is true then it really doesn't matter a hill of beans what one's worldview is.
It matters to me what my worldview is.
I didn't realize the drafters of the Constitution were evolutionists.
Being pre-Darwin, of course they weren't. But they were entirely able and willing to do their own thinking. If they had only acted in accordance with the received wisdom of their past, there would have been no Revolution.
I'm no threat to you, PatrickHenry. That's a mighty broad brush yer paintin' with there, friend. But in the grand evolutionary scheme of things, what difference would it make if one group of 'unthinking' people were able to overpower you and kill you, for example? Wouldn't that just be 'natural selection' at work?
It would be murder, and it would be wrong. (But a creationist mob might not see it that way.)
I don't enter into these debates much, but I think those who do feel they are defending or attacking the basis of religion. I thnk the C/E debates are pointless when they confuse the inner and the outer teachings of religion.
I participate in "crevo" threads for two basic reasons.
1. To learn
2. To explore and perhaps convince others that nobody knows the answer to the "ultimate" questions of life and origin. That at some point all knowledge accepts something on faith, and therefore evolution has no superior claim to truth.
All those posts were from a new poster, just registered today, named 'down with all kings'. His account was nuked, which means that all of his posts were automatically deleted. I thought this was an over-the-top reaction to his comments, until it occurred to me that he might have been someone who was banned before. The powers-that-be can check IP addresses.
It would be murder, and it would be wrong.
Why would it be qualitatively different than a lion killing and eating a wildebeest?
Maybe he is rebelling from his roots. You know, like Johnny Taliban did. ;^)
I'm not sure where the question to which you were responding came from, but I'll form a response to your response, in the absence of context, and hope that I don't miss the mark.
Human beings are differentiated from animals in that they have the cognitive and frontal brain function necessary to restrain impulsive and instinctive behavior, and act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
PatrickHenry's response to Diamond's #45.
Human beings are differentiated from animals in that they have the cognitive and frontal brain function necessary to restrain impulsive and instinctive behavior, and act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
Agreed. Now, given that we can 'restrain impulsive and instinctive behavior', why should we? Is it simply fear of punishment from those with more power that restrains us, or is there an objective moral imperative?
There is an objective moral imperative, defined by the application of reason to reality.
I am a human being.
Each of my rational actions is chosen in affirmation of my values, in pursuit of my happiness.
In order to pursue happiness, I must be free to act in accordance with my own understanding of it.
Other human beings likewise require freedom to act in accordance with their own understanding of happiness, in order to pursue happiness.
There are only two ways in which a rational human being may be prohibited from acting in accordance with the dictates of his own will. Initiated force, and fraud.
If I am to pursue happiness, I must be free of initiated force and fraud on the part of others.
If I am to claim the pursuit of happiness as a moral imperative, I must be willing to deal with others only by consent, forswearing the initation of force, or fraud.
And there you have it in a nutshell.... a rationally derived moral code.
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.