The lie of evolution

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

"Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. "

Hitler was an occultist. I don't think he was any moer a Christian or creationist than Darwin was. He used the church and Christians sintements to his own ends. To assume him a Cristian is a real stretch, more like a messianic nut.

 

So why are we even thinking that the ravings of the madman Hitler have any bearing on our quest for truth around here?

 

Because Hitler took evolution to its logical conclusion.

 

Since we seem to be aiming for repetition of the same points over and over:

"You can't get to 'ought' from 'is'."

 

Evolution voids morality. It is amoral.

It would result in racism...as Darwin himself acknowledged... not by creating morality but rather by nullifying morality.

That is a false statement that assumes a fact decidedly not in evidence. Evolution is a statement of opinion about how some suppose what is came to be.

Not true. Selfishness and pride are just "highly evolved" forms of self-preservation and natural selection.

</font>[/QUOTE] Not true. Gender roles are defined in scripture.

Like theories on origins, our views of gender are either consistent with the Bible or they are not.

 

Oh. Well some of us don't see it yet - can you spell out the logic please?

Use formal logic pattern. For example, All men are mortal, I am a man, therefore I am mortal.

 

How can an amoral science ever void morality?
As well expect cooking schools to lead to cannablism. The connection isn't required.

</font>[/QUOTE]The point is that, mistaken or not, evolution is only a statement of "fact" and not, therefore, logically connected to morality.

 

Here is a possible "logical" arguments that evolution leads to immorality:

"All tools of the devil are error. The Devil uses Evolution to lead people to immorality. Therefore Evolution is an error"

This argument is false because the Devil is perfectly capable of using some truth mixed with error in order to decieve; he even quoted scripture once to Jesus.


We look forward to a truly logical explanation as to why evolution leads to immorality.

Beware of the reasoning that just because an idea is true, the logic leading to the idea is good. It is possible for bad logic to accidently lead to the truth. "Rain makes the ground wet. The ground is wet. Therfore it has rained" is bad logic even if it HAS rained - because other things can make the ground wet.

To much bad logic has been accepted around here because people thought they already know the truth and therefore there is no need to ponder the logic proffered.

 

How can an amoral science ever void morality?</font>[/QUOTE] That is self-evident in the definition of the terms.

Amoral says there is no right and wrong. Morality classifies right and wrong. If there is no right/wrong then moral codes are null.

</font>[/QUOTE]The point is that, mistaken or not, evolution is only a statement of "fact" and not, therefore, logically connected to morality. </font>[/QUOTE]Right. It is ultimately "amoral". In fact, it demands "amorality" for its mechanisms. There can be no right or wrong only what worked and what didn't. What survived and what perished.

Survival of the fittest presupposes no morality. Introduce morality, it ceases to function properly.

 

Scott J, you're using a different definition of morality, I believe. Here is the definition that I am using.

Morality: a standard of desireable behavior--the way one ought to act. Not necessarily Christian morality.

The theory of evolution is amoral in that it is just a description of what has happened. However, when people take the theory and try to draw a conclusion about how we ought to behave, that is when they are creating a morality from it.

Now we turn to David Hume and the is-ought problem.

The application here is that basically the theory of evolution makes a descriptive statement that it is the fittest members of a population that survive. Some people come along and, motivated by pride, selfishness, and fear, make a normative judgement that those they consider unfit should either be exterminated or not aided because they are unworthy. That is a fallacy--it doesn't follow. You can't make a value judgement from a descriptive statement.

Every single one of us believes natural selection does indeed mandate that the fit survive. We can see this in human populations--in Africa sickle-cell anemia is widespread because being heterozygous for the sickle trait extends lifespans by lessening the severity of malaria infection, and in Scandinavia endemic smallpox caused the proliferation of a CCR5 mutation which conferred resistence to smallpox and now to AIDS. Would anyone here say that because of this it is right to persecute those who don't carry the sickle-cell or CCR5 mutations? Of course not! That is because the truth that natural selection acts on human populations does not affect how we as moral agents ought to behave.

If anyone here wants to contradict Hume and say that you can get to ought from is . . . well, you probably want to avoid that. Christians have been saying for decades that it is improper to draw any conclusions about proper moral behavior from simple observation of the natural world since true morality comes from God. The moral relativists disagree, and by saying that you can logically draw conclusions about the way one ought to behave from evolutionary theory, you're giving them ammunition.

 

Scott, like so many, is committing an elementary logical fallacy. It goes like this:

Evolution is wrong; therefore, the fruits of believing in evolution are evil.

Believing that combustion is caused by escaping phlosgen was wrong; nobody thought it led to widespread immorality to have that belief.

There has to be some connection.

Understanding the common descent of all life and the ancient age of the earth doesn't drive ME to want to go out and murder people I don't like; I fail to see why it should.

Perhaps, by examining the behavior of animals, I can better understand the wellsprings of some of my temptations. Does that mean I can excuse myself from the obligation to be a moral agent? If I discover the biological roots of addiction, am I therby enabled to be an innocent partaker of drugs?

Such would seem to be the logical beliefs of someone who holds that evolution fosters immorality. 'taint necessarily so.

 

Here's a better one.

Satan wants people to ignore and violate God's moral laws. What better way could there be than to convince them that they are nothing more than a highly evolved animal...that morality is artificial...that human emotion and thought are products of evolution and that morality is irrational codification of fear and other emotions...that morality, like God, is ultimately irrelevant to the existence of life...that since man is just a highly evolved animal our behavior is ultimately subject to the laws of nature alone.

Nope. Your conclusion is not proven by your example. The fact that Satan uses truth mixed with error does not mean he never uses error absent truth.

Because it convinces people that morality and immorality don't truly exist- that they are creations of men and not the standards of man's Creator.

If the speed limit was 55 and I could convince you in whole or in part that there were no such things as speed limits or laws that would punish you for harm done to others... would it effect your behavior? The only limitations left would be your fear of harm to yourself.

Boy you said a mouth full there... Now if you would only apply that kind of logic to the arguments put forward by evolution...

Amen. Preach it. Many have accepted naturalism as a limitation to what God could have possibly done in creation... and refuse to return to the premise itself but rather want to dwell on supposed details of proof without validating the primary assumption.

 

Because it convinces people that morality and immorality don't truly exist- that they are creations of men and not the standards of man's Creator.</font>[/QUOTE]It does?? Hmm, actually, it doesn't. I think all of the theistic evolutionists here firmly believe that morality exists.

Yes, a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe might tend to cause people to believe that God does not exist rather than flinging themselves upon a God of the Gaps (this would be ameliorated, however, if young earthers weren't propagating the idea that you have to believe in a literal creation week in order to be a real Christian). However, if God did indeed create the universe in a Big Bang and grow it by natural processes, then trying to convince people that it was created 6000 years ago as a means of making them believe in God is using utilitarian justifications to obscure the truth.

You're side-stepping the issue here. If evolution really occurred, then it really occurred even if fallen men abuse the facts to justify sinning. Your position is that it did not occur, but you've come up with precious little evidence for this position.

Still waiting on that Nobel prize-winning discovery of the ultimate specific DNA mutagen, by the way.

 

Maybe. I am using the American Heritage definition which is consistent with Webster's:

It is more definitive than what "ought to be" and of course these definitions are consistent with an active, sovereign creator.

It is not a description of what has happened but it is amoral.

No. Taken to its logical conclusion, the theory says that there are no valid authorities for telling us what we "ought" to do except that we "ought not" do those things that threaten our survivablity.

Why? Why not turn to scripture where God says that man "ought" to obey and that there "is" a consequence for not obeying?

Do you as a Christian really want to cite Hume as an authoritative counter to scripture?

But it isn't a value judgment in the sense of morality if evolution is true. Humans don't have individual value if evolution is true. We are nothing more than highly evolved animals. And no, you can't reference God here. Since it is your contention that morality is what "ought" to be rather than what God said "must" be.

BTW, what you argue against, Darwin argued for.

Darwin did. And while no one here would an atheist whose world view was shaped by evolution would have no reason not to consider it since morality is ultimately arbitrary.

Maybe for you. But for me it is because God has established moral laws that are every bit as sure as natural law. It isn't an "ought to behave" proposition according to the Bible. It is a do this or die proposition... of course, that's where Grace comes in.

No I don't. What little I know of Hume's beliefs aren't impressive and I certainly wouldn't use them as a filter for scripture.

I most definitely DON'T want to avoid that. God's moral laws bridge the gap between "ought" and "is" completely.

We aren't saying that. We are saying the opposite and this whole line of reasoning is invalid.

It is exactly because evolution frees man from the moral absolutes that it results in immorality.

 

Nope. If evolution really occurred then a) the Bible is not true and b) if the Bible is not true, there is no objective standard for defining the word sin and no justification is needed- thus amorality.

The evidence is that God took credit for evolution, said it was done in 6 days, gave an order for it, and then affirmed that He intended for the account to be taken literally by both OT and NT writers of scripture.

In fact, using your own "ought-is" argument... all evolution does is say that since this "is" that "ought" to have occurred.

 

A scientific theory is neither moral or immoral. Rather, it is totally amoral, since morality has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. Those who use morality as a means of attack against the theory of evolution are misguided. This is like debating whether spoked wheels vs. solid wheels are moral or immoral. There is no relevance except in the disjointed minds of people with a particular axe to grind.

 

Because it convinces people that morality and immorality don't truly exist- that they are creations of men and not the standards of man's Creator.</font>[/QUOTE]It does?? Hmm, actually, it doesn't. I think all of the theistic evolutionists here firmly believe that morality exists.</font>[/QUOTE] Why? If the supernatural has no valid place in the natural order of things then why do you believe in any form of objective morality?

That is a fallacious charge and you more than likely know it. I could just as reasonably accuse you of Naturalism in the gaps since where evolution lacks evidence (which is like saying where the universe lacks matter) it inserts naturalistic assumptions.

I haven't argued this. I believe that more than likely all Christians are wrong about something concerning the Bible, morality, or life. I do admit however to believing that evolution is a very serious error because of its philosophical underpinnings.

That's an interesting charge since God is the source of believing that He directly created the earth in a manner different from the dictates of naturalism. It was He, not me, that said "morning and evening". It was He that claimed credit for creating everything that is by His word.

If Genesis is an allegory then God is guilty of precisely the charge you level against YE'ers above since in all of scripture He never alludes to such an idea. He used a story that was untrue to convince people to believe in Him... Isn't that what you are condemning?

 

Sorry but no. If objective morality exists and you convince people that amorality is actually the governing truth of the natural world then you have providing them a justification for ignoring conscience.... since as Hume argued, it is only a function of emotion and not reason or objectivity.

 

MP

Who determines your morality?

From Adolf and his scientists, Scientific theory was absolutely evil ...

Science can only be without moral judgements if it is used by truly honest scientists

 

Oh my word, this is about as hard as trying to converse with this atheist I know, except coming from the other direction. . .

I'll try to simplify. We'll use your definition (which is essentially mine!), morality is "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." There is the Christian standard of morality, which is the true standard. Then there are various other standards of morality, which are flawed to varying degrees. All lay out what one ought and ought not to do. I don't understand your balking at the word "ought." It's a good old-fashioned word that's gone out of usage lately. It most definitely applies to Christian morality laid out by God. It describes an absolute obligation. We ought to give to the poor, we ought to keep our promises, and we ought not steal others' belongings.

The viewpoint of eugenics is a morality because it makes value judgements as to what is desireable and sets a standard of right or good conduct. In this case, right or good conduct is killing those you don't like because they are inferior and their very existence is an insult. Yes? They make a leap in logic and say that because a certain person is more likely to die than another (as all observers would agree) then that person ought to be exterminated (as not all would!). Leaping from "is" to "ought".

I wish I were so secure in my intellectual abilities that I could just wave aside philosophers and scientists without having really read their works, but I don't think that would be wise on my part. From my reading Hume makes a good point and a good argument against the moral relativists' suggestion that morality can be derived simply from what people and animals do (thereby making homosexuality and infanticide ok) and what occurs in the natural world (making "ethnic cleansing" ok). Because we can't logically bridge this gap to obtain a conclusion regarding proper morality God gave us his revelation in Scripture. Without it we would all do what was right in our own eyes--and we'd be mostly wrong.

But now you would like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that observation of natural law and human and animal behavior can validly be used to synthesize a system of morality (although wrong morality), which seems rather, dare I say, liberal.