Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
No....but then again, their "creationism" doesn't serve as a philosophical justification for their actions.
"Survival of the fittest", on the other hand, has served wonderfully for justifying the attempted extermination of "inferior" races, and so forth.
EXACTLY!!! Evolution is as much of a science (or religion) as Six-Day Creationism.
Evolution proponents don't have the definitive skinny on the origin of life and they admit that. Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on. What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east. Being it is faith it is undesputable to them....so be it. I cant see why there cant be evolution as started by God and as they say "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
Actually, you are absolutely right in this statement. This is why even the merest suggestion that ID/creationism would even be mentioned alongside evolution in the public schools is met with frenzied howls of rage from the evolutionists. It's not that science is "under assault", but rather it is the evolutionists religion which would be challenged. And like the mullahs in a shari'a state, the evolutionists cannot allow the dominance of their theological system to be challenged in any way, shape, or form. Even if it means stifling free inquiry and open criticism.
People can come up with all sorts of justifications for their actions. “Survival of the fitest” was never meant to be a model for human behaviour, it is simply a description of how nature works. You can’t argue that an idea is invalid because some people have chosen to misuse it to justify their actions.
I did. I still don’t see how it would affect our survival, granted things may change, but I really doubt we wouldn’t survive.
Can America survive the end time biblical prophesies and is America safe from the true believers who are going out of their way to ensure it happens?
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
As I asked, how does this afffect the survival of America?
No, you don't. Absent the observation of such, all you have is speculation. And even this is tenuously done, since you have no fossil intermediates which have stood the test of criticism. Even evolutionists bemoan the lack of intermediary structures in the fossil record.
but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
Actually, the speculated origins of life on earth upon which empirical science can actually be brought to bear (i.e. excluding exotic nonsense like panspermia or "aliens brought life to earth from somewhere") are positively excluded by an understanding of simple chemistry. There simply was no abiogenesis of life on any early earth.
What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.
You are aware that the evolutionary philosophical system relies upon a cosmogeny which is still basically the same as what people in the Stone Age believed, right?
What is an abyss of naturalism?
Perhaps not, but I *can* point out that it HAS led to those actions.
“First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. “
And this is bad how? Some people used to burn “witches.” But fortunately that’s sort of “evolved.” The Old Testament contain many strictures that we just ignore now. Thank goodness.
Except that there is more science to support evolution than there is, for example, to support Noah's flood.
Major parts of all three directly contradict creationism, are purely theoretical, or cannot be duplicated. Does all that fall under the 'misinterpretation of empirical evidence' part?
nice spin, pseudo-science at its best. you should be congratulated for you use of hyperbole.
fossil intermediates eh?
yes there are holes in the fossil records. if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.
I am done with this post, your faith is strong, have a good life.
Well we did survive Jimmy Carter...
No, you can’t. It has been used as a justification by people who had their own agendas, but I don’t think it can be convincingly argued that communism, for example, developed out of a belief in evolution. I’ll admit that it was the major driver of the eugenics movement, although again that was a misapplication. Note that Darwin’s theory was about “Natural Selection”, and there’s nothing “natural” about what the eugenicists were trying to do. In fact, what they were trying to do was a lot closer to traditional animal husbandry and breeding techniques, concepts which predate the theory of evolution by several thousand years.
We don’t stone people for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, at least.
The whole point of those that push evolution is the exclusion of a Creator, and more to the point, of the existance of truth and rules that are objective and outside of human manipulation.
Once you’ve destroyed the concept of an absolute truth, then your society is open for the “truth” as promoted by the strongest, the cruelest, and the most politically powerful.
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.