Replies

PMFJI...

[DJ2:] Which proves my point made earlier. Darwinism has no foundation for placing value upon human life.
[B666:] Nor does it try to do so. You are still arguing against your own strawman.
[DJ2:] No I'm not. You may claim that Darwinism doesn't try to place value on human life, but it can not be neutral. There are repercussions to thought systems. That means EVERY though system. Nothing operates in a vacuum and nothing is without effect on how people think. Darwinian evolution makes humans no more valuable than a bacteria. There are implications to when you tell people they are no better than animals, and repercussions to a system of belief without moral foundation.

Ah, we're finally getting somewhere! IMO this kind of argument is why Morton's Demon is so welcomed by many creationists. You (rightly IMO) want there to be a secure moral code that all people can be persuaded to obey, because the alternative is perpetual chaos, war, & degradation on several levels from the personal to the political. But you (wrongly IMO) don't think that the natural world provides any objective reason to be moral, therefore any morality based on an appeal to the facts of the natural world can be persuasive.

Do I have your position essentially correct so far?

Close. I know there is a moral code, it was set down by God in Scripture. Second, there needs to be this code, because without it all of morality would be based upon man's fault subjective opinions of how things should be. Without the ten commandments, I seriously doubt our legal system would look a thing like it does today. In Darwinism, there is no higher authority than majority rule. Therefore, if you are an American living in America, you recognize the law "do not murder". It is your preference that murder not occur. If you are a tribesman in certain tribes around the world, however, murder is not only okay it causes the entire tribe to come out and celebrate.

This is illustrated in an old missions video called "Peace Child". It is the story of missionaries who went to tribespeople in the SW Pacific that had largely been cut off from others for centuries. They came to their camp facing the greatest dangers to share the gospel with these tribespeople. The tribespeople immediately welcomed them but it was pretty much a ruse because they were actually hoping to kill them. They had done exactly that, some time earlier, when a tribesman from a neighboring tribe had made friends with them. They acted friendly towards this tribesman until they received his full and total trust. Then, they gave a celebration for their friend and in the midst of the celebration came up upon him and brutally murdered him. I think they shrunk his head after that.

Well, these missionaries came upon this tribe and risked their lives to bring them the gospel. They learned the language and began from creation, teaching them week after week about God, His love, and the History of the Old and New Testaments. At the climactic point in time, however, the missionaries were stunned by the reaction of the people to the story. When it got to the point where Judas betrayed Christ, the tribespeople began cheering and celebrating. Judas, embodied the chiefly treasured attribute that the tribespeople loved- treachery. It was only later, when a tribe chieftan gave up his son to the neighboring tribe to raise as their own as a sacrifice of peace (as long as the child would live, the tribes vowed peace) that the missionaries were able to find common ground for the tribesmen to accept the gospel and for lives to be changed.

So, no. I do not believe that there is some inherent law within nature that gives man the impetus to act morally. But there is a law that God has given (which to a certain extent is seen in nature but ignored) that does give a foundation for moral beliefs and actions. Darwinism can't do that. It can only give majority opinion rules that may change not only from society to society but from house to house (and nobody can have authority to say different opinions regarding morality are right and wrong). God is an authority higher than any earthy authority and His law stands as an unmoveable guide to write and wrong that has rational, spiritual, and emotional basis.

Morton's demon is not welcomed by creationists. We have a higher authority than the ever changing scientific arena. Of anything, it is evolution that suffers from Morton's demon because if anything even smacks of the miraculous, they feverishly have to run about trying to find naturalistic explanations to it. The common sense observations that we are not here by chance go unnoticed by the superior acting scientist who believes that within his finite mind he can solve mysteries without use such antiquated notions as a supernatural God. Well, the Bible has a word for such people- fools. I didn't write the book, but I know that I know that it is right and contrary to making me feel superior it humbles me to know how fearfully and wonderfully made I am.

You see Jenny, people like Morton are interpreting disagreements with their worldview as acting preaching something that makes them feel superior- and yet, I have seen so much belittling of creationist and I.D. scientists, even on this thread, that it is very apparent that the superiority freaks are the evolutionists. The Talk Origins website is a prime example. Can creationists step over the line a bit sometimes in their attacks on evolution? Yes. But never so much as the Darwin Thumping evolutionist who absolutely refuses to consider that he could be wrong or to admit that his whole system of belief is ultimately one of faith.