Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
It is more complicated than that. Man evolved to function in groups, for the purpose of outcompeting other individuals, and other groups. (Not group selection, but selection for individuals who spontaneously formed effective groups.)
As a result, man eolved selflessness, honor, loyalty, and charity to their ingroup. Even monogamy and two parent child rearign are strategies to enhance the competitiveness of those who compose the group. All of these loyal urges developed to aid the group in competition.
Of course, there is an alternative strategy which envovles promiscuity, dishonesty, and selfishness, and that is Liberalism.
You see both strategies throughout nature, beginning with r/K selection theory.
God did create the world, and He does intervene periodically (I know. At 22 I was an agnostic mechanist, who saw the universe as a God-less clockwork mechanism. I didn't come to believe easily.), but He also imbued it with a mechanism by which goodness would be rewarded in perpetuity, and would be able to outcompete evil.
The irony is evolutionary theory is amazingly supportive of Conservatism. If you explain to a Liberal how their ideology mirrors the r-selected evolutionary psychology, and how Conservatism mirrors the K-selected psychology, they are crestfallen, and ashamed, in a way many Conservatives could never imagine being.
If we learn to use the weapons of our enemies, we can easily destroy them. Whether we will or not, remains to be seen.
I think of the universe as an amazingly complex seed, created, and planted by God, with the full knowledge of where every branch would be, where every leaf would form, and what every flower would look like. Think of the rules which govern the universe as a DNA sequence that He created, with full knowledge of how it would guide the formation of every detail in the world, including mankind.
You’re viewing chance as chance, and out of God’s control, when He created chance, itself, as an inherent part of the universe, and therefore knows how the dice will fall, before they do, everytime.
Perfectly said.
I was entertaining your comment until this statement. The fact is, conservatism is based in following "what works", and "what works" is plainly given in the Word.
What evolutionary theory DOES fit well, and is the basis for, is Marxism. Evolution fits hand in glove with Marxist ideology, from the application of evolution to culture and society to the promise of "uber man" through culling and selective breeding.
Read "You can still trust the communists to be communists" for more details on this.
Just don’t imagine that both can exist at the same time. Don’t ask why you can’t imagine that, just don’t do it.
Let me guess - you figured out the “tea” and “no tea” test of intellect in Hitchhikers’ Guide.
From God’s perspective, there is no such thing as chance. I also believe that there is no such thing as chance. We as humans have free will, but every permutation has been predetermined by my omniscient God and He has sought me throughout the folds of time. Were chance any part of any equation, it would not be science. Science deals with observation and should not make speculation, but this is precisely where evolution takes us.
Moreover nobody who understands evolutionary theory thinks that selective breeding will produce an “uber man” any more than selective breeding of horses produced (or will produce) an “uber horse”.
Sounds like our sources on communist theory disagree. Let me guess, yours is from a pro-Darwin source, attempting to separate Darwinism from Marxism.
Might be more relevant what the chicoms think...
My source is actual History, you might want to learn some sometime.
“Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet Science”, a book by a former Molecular Genetics teacher of mine from the Soviet Union - a man who thanked Ronald Reagan in his prayers every day for getting him the hell out of the Soviet Union.
Lysenko and Stalin separated Darwin’s theory from Marxism - they threw anyone who espoused Darwin’s theory (or modern Genetics) out of their job, to Siberia, and even execution.
Hard to find a more draconian separation than that.
amd: Typical that creationists are unable to argue against a scientific theory without making an argument against atheism - while being too ignorant to recognize the difference.
Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is in fact atheism with respect to the living, transcendent Creator Who spoke. It is not however atheistic with respect to Chaos, the “first substance in existence” out of which the sun-god Ra for instance, created himself, according to post-flood Sumerian and Egyptian creation mythos. Modern evolutionists merely renamed Chaos, ie., “spontaneous generation” of something from nothing and Big Bang, which amounts to the same thing, that is, life comes from death and order from disorder.
Evolution is merely the mechanical mechanism by which life somehow emerged from death...Chaos, spontaneous generation, Big Bang.
From the beginning it has been a paradox and this hasn’t changed. For example, Darwinian materialism nihilizes man’s soul/mind, thereby reducing man created in the spiritual likeness of God the Father to an emergent product of mindless matter. Man is nothing more than an ex-ape whose “thoughts” are the chance movement of chemicals. “Thinking chemicals,” in other words. If this utter stupidity is nevertheless true, then why ought creationists take evolutionists seriously?
Ah, yes... you never tire of the "proof by condescension" approach. DISMISSED.
Perhaps, since He is such a grand designer, you just can’t comprehend what He’s doing?
“My faith is much stronger than that. It consisted of a finely woven cloth of belief. Tease out one thread and it is still a strong whole.”
You have faith, but in what deity? Certainly not the Creator of Genesis, for you previously accused Him of lying:
post #25: “...then He is lying to us through his World.”
And you have yet to explain your accusation.
I imagine that includes all the bad things that have happened throughout history...all the Dahmers, Hitlers, 9/11s, wars, disease, disasters, murders, rapes, etc.
I bet all the innocents that have suffered from these, wished that since He knew they were going to happen, He would have prevented them.
Ignorance is all you have, and condescension to any source that disagrees with your ignorant opinion as being a “Darwinian” source will be sure to keep you ignorant.
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.
You are bearing false witness. You posted half of my sentence to support your false statement.
Right now stars are forming through gravity and nuclear fusion - did God not create these stars? Does God have to use miracles for him to be the creator of these stars in your system of belief?
I was created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return - but I was also created through cellular and molecular processes involving DNA. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust” in your system of belief?
I'm not going to address your arrogance, but I will point out the fallacy of this statement by re-stating it -
the more time someone spends being taught only one side of a controversy (ie, immersive brainwashing), the more likely they are to espouse the position they've been taught. Makes perfect sense, but doesn't prove the superiority that you claim.
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.