Replies

The theories of evolution have been used by non scientist socialist types to justify their monstrous activities over the past 150 years or so. Discussions of evolution vs the Biblical accounts of creation are important in understanding the motivations and psychology of the Dem liberals who are “hell bent” on destroying the Judeo Christian principles on which our nation were founded.

While the average biologist might be appalled at how Darwin has often been misused in the political arena, the top academics in the field have suppressed any meaningful scientific criticism of the subject. These top scientists in the field simply follow the money, advocating politically leftist “scientific opinions” that bolster the Dem socialist politicians’ anti christian view points in order to keep the funds flowing for the scientists’ pet projects.

These evolution discussions do belong here. The evolutionists who consider themselves fiscally conservative FREEPERS have got to understand that Christians’ biggest concerns with the subject have to do with attempts by socialist change agents and politicians to misuse the science to separate Americans from their godly heritage. George Washington said best when he stated “Religion and Morality were the twin props of liberty.”

There can be no morality derived from the theory of Evolution, only a chilling utilitarianism that declares the greatest good for the geatest number with wars being fought over the definition of “good”. A good and moral people ensures a free open society. A society that declares war on religion and morality in the name of evolutionary science ensures that a population arises that is unrestrained in evil and murder. Natural compassion and love are seldom found in such a people and consequentially the sick, weak, old, and the politically unfavored are in the cross hairs for elimination.

It is the attempt to derive a new type of morality from what is supposed to be morally neutral science that has Christians on edge concerning evolution. The ten commandments teaches a man not to steal and that there are eternal consequences for it. Science has no such restraints to teach men other than survival by tooth or claw or the supression of individuality for the greater survival of the hive(the socialist mindset).

I will say again it is the misuse of science and indeed evolution particularly by the socialist minded politicians (and their “scientist money grubbing toadies”) that have caused the most damage to the reputation of science in the minds of serious sober minded thinking Christians. True reason can be likened to a virgin that would never prostitute itself with a priori bias; the a priori biased thinkers would never like her anyway...she forces them to be intellectually honest with themselves!

"The theories of evolution have been used by non scientist socialist types to justify their monstrous activities over the past 150 years or so."

I'll grant you that such justifications have occurred from time to time in the last 150 years or so, if you'll grant me that religions have been used to justify equally monstrous activities for the last 5000 years of recorded human history. There is no religious belief or scientific principle that is "stain free" with regards to people wanting to subjugate and abuse their fellow man. To claim that a belief or theory or scientific principle is false because people mis-use it falls flat, because EVERY belief or scientific principle has been so abused, therefore EVERYTHING must be false.

Science and Religion are not democracies. Appealling to numbers is a flawed argument. If I get a thousand scientists to agree with me, it does not make me right. If I have a thousand followers of my religion, it does not make it true. Saying a thousand people did something bad with this thing does not make the thing bad, it makes the thousand people bad. This same argument is used against GUN CONTROL LAWS.

You imply that these threads serve to as a springboard for discussions of morality. That is not what these threads do here, if you read them critically. What DOES happen is that someone (in the case of this thread, GGG) posts an article claiming to disprove some aspect of the SCIENTIFIC basis for evolutionary theory. Usually, the sources lead back to such places as "Answers in Genesis" or others with the pre-determined answer of Creationism as their starting point. Proponents of SCIENTIFIC investigation respond to these threads by saying such sources are academically irrelevant, and have no credibility.

The thread then "devolves" if you will into variations of the following 'dialog', if you want to call it that:

"I just know ALL eviloutionists are fact distorting LIARS!"

"I just know ALL YEC's are fact distorting LIARS!"

"AMEN! Preach it, Brother!"

"Your [fill in the blank] Expert is a FRAUD!"

"Your [fill in the blank] citation is a HOAX!"

Now, that does not sound like a discussion on the foundations of morality.

"True reason can be likened to a virgin that would never prostitute itself with a priori bias; the a priori biased thinkers would never like her anyway...she forces them to be intellectually honest with themselves!"

Since you bring up "intellectual honesty", here is probably what sticks in the craw of most of the people here on the "SCIENCE" side of the argument, and that is the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of most YEC proponents on this fundamental issue:

BY DEFINITION the process of SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION starts with a QUESTION, then derives ANSWERS based on where the EVIDENCE best leads. This is why science will end up revising and refining man's understanding as it progresses. That is also why an argument that some scientist from 150 years ago did not get EVERYTHING right the first go-around does not carriy much weight.

BY DEFINITION DOGMATIC BELIEF STARTS with the answer then cherry picks or discards evidence to fit the desired result. This is why the YEC's answer NEVER changes, NO MATTER WHAT evidence you put before them.

This is America, and you can BELIEVE what you want. But if you are a YEC, your Bible should inform you to have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to admit that what you are practicing DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF "SCIENCE". When you get "lectured" on morality from someone who refuses to admit, or is intellectually incapable of understanding this, it carries a lot less weight.