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?
Come again?
Only bad things can result from false premises aggressively pursued. There is an organized attempt (see Philip Johnson & his ID friends at the Discovery Institute) to hijack the conservative movement. They want to get us to fight an innocent bystander in the real ideological war: the one between moral individualism and moral collectivism. The collectivists haven't disappeared - they're just licking their wounds in the postmodernist college enclaves of English Lit, Feminist Studies, & Environmental Studies, etc. Meanwhile the ID crowd wants us to engage in a massive distraction, and embrace a falsified psuedoscience in the process. (Johnson even accepts the label "postmodernist of the Right"!)
What a tragedy it would be if the conservative movement were to go off half-cocked in some jihad against mainstream science, leaving mainstream scientists with no other home but the Left! It would surely sound the death-knell for our political movement.
I am still looking for an evolutionist who will tell me where all of the matter of the universe came from. Since evolutionists do not believe in creation, they apparantly have no explanation as to the origin of inorganic matter. I am told that it was always in existence -- a very poor explantion for the origin of matter I might add!
And likewise, I seek a creationist who can tell me who created the creator.
I'm afraid we shall both be disappointed for some time.
I don't recognize a created universe, nor do I recognize the existence of a creator, and yet I recognize and defend moral absolutes.
Go figure.
You know, Jenny, I had a preacher at a charismatic church utter the EXACT same line when he discussed the origins of moral relativism in one of the first apologetics seminars I ever attended. Uncanny.
BTW, The two sources he pointed to as the starting point for post modernism and moral relativism was in the mid 1800's. Darwin and Nietzche. After the mind numbing atrocities of the 20th century, It looks like he had empirical observation to back up his statement. In my book, that trumps your "hijack" fear.
I tend to agree with your analysis of crevo debates here (as well as other places). Yet I would question the site-author whether his/her issue should be with the 'ignorance of creationists' and their short-term rhetorical arguments ......or the format of internet chat and message boards itself.
Debating Creationists: Some Pointers
Debates and the Globetrotters by Eugenie Scott Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, argues that public debates with creationists do little to further the cause of quality science education. Among her reasons are that (1) creationists usually fill the audience with their supporters, who are unlikely to have the educational grounding necessary to understand the arguments presented in favor of evolution, (2) evolution is a complex set of ideas that are not amenable to simple explanation in a short debate format, and (3) creationists make many simplistic but convincing-sounding arguments against evolution that take a significant amount of time to refute.
Debating the ICR's Duane Gish by Richard Trott Richard Trott gives some advice to people who are considering debating the Institute for Creation Research's most prominent debator, Dr. Duane Gish. Among Trott's recommendations are that you know your audience, know Gish's standard presentation, be prepared for his charisma and standard evasions, and avoid being a dull or arrogant lecturer.
I'm sorry my friend, but I have to take acception to the conclusions drawn by your charismatic preacher friend. Darwin advanced a scientific theory regarding the origin of species. It did not address the nature of morality (relative or otherwise) in any way, shape, or form. Nor are his ideas in any way incompatible with the idea of a creator.
I don't know why people insist on believing in a creator, and yet dictating the terms of his actions to him.
JMJ333 has indeed been trying to convince me that:
1. There is such a a thing as 'Judeo-Christianity.'
2. Our nation's laws and constitution are based on it.
I contend that none of our founding fathers were Jews, so this 'Judeo-' thing is meaningless. I also contend that the Magna Carta, the works of Locke and Montesquieu, and the examples of the English Civil War and the Puritan theocracies were the primary influences on the Founding Fathers. The Bible, NT or OT, was not the foundation for any of the documents or structures of this nation.
If you care to pass the time by arguing about it, I'm game. But separated from any contemporary issue, it's just an intellectual sport. (Like those endless American Civil War debates).
Go figure.
Note the underlined word in my message to JM333. I underlined the word "theological" for emphasis. Of course the Christian faith served as the nation's theological foundation. It was in fact, nearly the only theology in practice. But that (as you pointed out) has nothing whatsoever to do with the country's political foundation.
Make up your mind! Either the founding fathers were influenced by their religious beliefs or not. You say there is nothing in regard to Christian thinking in our documents? I say everything from the bill of rights to the DOI shows Christian belief systems. Certainly they didn;t flow from atheism!
Astrophysicists and indeed almost all scientists I know cheerfully concede how much they have yet to learn about the universe. But not Darwinists. I believe your post reveals why - you're terrified that any concession that any part of Darwin's theories may have been wrong will give a victory to the "fundamentalists." All I can say is "be not afraid." Go where the evidence takes you, not where fear, prejudice and peer pressure dictate. The very best that can be said for Darwin's theory that some species evolved into others by natural selection is "not proven." And after 150 years of fruitless searching for the fossil record of the innumerable mutations necessary to support the theory, I don't think natural selection will ever be proven.
Calling me a fundy or creationist won't prove the theory of natural selection, either. It does reveal, however, that this debate has much more to do with the culture wars than with science.
If you read the Bible with an open mind, I think you may change your thinking a bit in the existance of a Creator.
At any rate, if I am wrong and there is no creator, I am not in trouble -- but if I am right and there is a Creator, then I shall be a winner with eternal life as has been promised to all who accept Jesus Christ -- so much for the sermonizing.
I pray that will see the truth in the Bible some day, my friend. Just read a few of the first books of the New Testament with an open mind -- it's worth a try -- see what you think after reading some of the text.
If I recall correctly, I believe he made a suggestion that Darwin would be shocked at what his work has turned into and been represented to be.
One quote, as I remember it, "the fig leaf covering the ugliness of pure atheistic naturalism was a theory which had humble beginnings".
The context he was calling "ugliness" was the horrific communist, fascist, and nazi atrocities made possible by the diminishment on Man's importance in their philosophical systems. I know you value people for diferrent reasons than some people I know that are doing missions work, but just as consistently and passionately.
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.