How bad is evolution?

[wienerdog]

My take is that the only (!) problem with evolution is that it seems to contradict the biblical statements that God created various living things to multiply after their kind. And if it's applied to human beings, it certainly seems to contradict the direct creation of Adam and Eve.

However, this is only a problem about inerrancy. I hold to inerrancy, but I don't think it's necessary for salvation. On another thread I wrote that the attempt to date the Exodus under Rameses instead of under Amenhotep seems to contradict the biblical witness, and so evolution has as much intrinsic importance to me as does the date of the Exodus, and any other apparent challenge to inerrancy. I don't really worry too much about it.

However, I think it has importance extrinsically, in that secular society set up a false dilemma between evolution and Christianity: you can only accept one or the other. IOW, society is using evolution as an excuse to reject God. I think we (Christians) have allowed secular society to define the terms of the debate.

So I would vote for the third option.

[Socrates]

#1 "Really bad: you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution," is a caricature of mainstream creationist groups such as ICR and AiG, although that doesn't stop compromisers from misrepresenting them.

#2 "Pretty bad: evolution contradicts Christianity, but some people are naive about it," is correct. And I would add that those who are NOT naive about it generally have far more serious problems with christian doctrine, e.g. denial of the bodily Resurrection of Christ.

Evolution denies the special creation of the First Adam, who brought death, 'the last enemy' into the world because of his sin. This in turn undermines Paul's teaching about the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, who brought resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45).

Also, evolution undermines the biblical teaching that humanity is ONE RACE because we are all descended from Adam (17:26). This denial has harmful effects on the Atonement, where Jesus is our saviour because He is our Kinsman-Redeemer, who is related by blood to those He redeems (Isaiah 59:20). This is possible only because all humans are related by blood to Jesus because of our common descent from Adam.

WienerDog is inadvertently right when he says, "I think we (Christians) have allowed secular society to define the terms of the debate." That's exactly the trouble -- far too many Christians have swallowed the idea that secular science should be our primary source of knowledge about events in the past, rather than God's Word, the Bible.

[Sher]

#1 because I'm ornery tonight ...

(ok, okay ... I changed it ... stop :poke:'g me)

[dizzle]

Great post Soc :thumb:

[mandolin]

Well... though I'm not an evolutionist, nor do I pretend to be a scholar on the matter, I find it important that Christians don't isolate themselves from the scientific world.

Is there scientific reasoining to believe in evolution?? I have no credible idea. But is there any theoloical reason to condemn these scientific theories?? not at all

(unless of course you are talking about human evolution...which i think is a crock)

That is why I checked, "no problem"
Theistic evolution is credible belief structure. (for the most part)

As long as the evolutionary model is limited to the animal kingdom with exclusion to homo sapien, I think it is feasible. (though I don't necessarily believe it)

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120840#post120840)
mandolin:

Well... though I'm not an evolutionist, nor do I pretend to be a scholar on the matter, I find it important that Christians don't isolate themselves from the scientific world.

We don't. Evolution has nothing to do with real science; it is a belief system about the past that excluded direct miraculous acts by God a priori.

Is there scientific reasoining to believe in evolution?? I have no credible idea. But is there any theoloical reason to condemn these scientific theories?? not at all

Then please deal with my post.

(unless of course you are talking about human evolution...which i think is a crock)

That is why I checked, "no problem"
Theistic evolution is credible belief structure. (for the most part)

Apart from the denial of biblical authority and the sin-death causality ...

As long as the evolutionary model is limited to the animal kingdom with exclusion to homo sapien, I think it is feasible. (though I don't necessarily believe it)

But no evolutionist worth his salt would exclude humans from it.

[wienerdog]

OK, I see now that I have put myself in the position of having to explain how evolution could be compatible with Christianity. That kinda sucks, but I'll give it a try:

I don't think evolution requires that all human beings are not descended from a single pair. I know some were championing a "multiple origins" model of human beings for awhile, but I thought that had gone by the wayside. And I know some evolutionists claim that we're descended from an original human community, rather than a pair. But I don't see how evolution leads to this conclusion. I think they're just speculating. So, as long as evolution does not deny that we're descended from an original human pair, it doesn't lead to the denial of the unity of the human race.

Of course, I think social Darwinism is totally racist, but that's not about our descent from an original ancestor. That's about our subsequent splitting off into tribes and nations that are more or less "evolved" than others.

I agree with Soc's theological point about how Christ is the second Adam, thus there must have been a first one. But, again, I would argue that believing in an original human pair that sinned against God is not necessarily tied to their supernatural (as opposed to natural) creation.

If I wanted to be really liberal :spam: I would say that maybe Paul is applying a known category to witness to people about Christ. We know he did that in Athens. But that's just so offensive, I don't even want to think about it anymore.

Again, I believe in Adam and Eve and their fall in the garden of Eden. I'm just throwing out (up?) possibilities about how evolution may not be as radically against Christianity as some claim.

[Socratism]

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

The overwhelming majority of leading biologists reject God.

The overwhelming majority of the general public do not.

We know this by surveys.

Does anyone here think this is an accident?

[wienerdog]

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122440#post122440)
Socratism:

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

The overwhelming majority of leading biologists reject God.

The overwhelming majority of the general public do not.

We know this by surveys.

Does anyone here think this is an accident?
I certainly don't. My point, however, is that it is more due to society's use of evolution as an excuse to avoid Christ than due to any actual difficulties it raises with Christianity.

[Sher]

This should go without saying :eek: But the guidelines for posting in this area ALSO APPLY to the poll ... if you aren't supposed to post here, please don't skew the results ... Thank you!

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 03:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121659#post121659)
wienerdog:

OK, I see now that I have put myself in the position of having to explain how evolution could be compatible with Christianity. That kinda sucks, but I'll give it a try:

I don't think evolution requires that all human beings are not descended from a single pair. I know some were championing a "multiple origins" model of human beings for awhile, but I thought that had gone by the wayside. And I know some evolutionists claim that we're descended from an original human community, rather than a pair. But I don't see how evolution leads to this conclusion. I think they're just speculating. So, as long as evolution does not deny that we're descended from an original human pair, it doesn't lead to the denial of the unity of the human race.

But according to evolution, individuals don't evolve; populations do. And the evolutionists do not believe in descent from a single human PAIR. How can anyone read 1 Timothy 2:14-15 and NOT get the impression that Paul was referring to real individuals called Adam and Eve, who did certain things in real history? I.e. Adam was created before Eve, and Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Like everywhere else in Scripture that refers to Genesis 1-11, it takes a wilful blindness not to take the events and characters as historical.

I agree with Soc's theological point about how Christ is the second Adam, thus there must have been a first one.

Yes, this is a key to the Gospel as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15. And in this chapter, Paul links the resurrection of the Last Adam to the death brought by the first Adam. But theistic evolutionists such as Zeus are led into heterodoxy, because of his need to divorce physical death from sin, they also divorce physicality from the Resurrection (see » Theology Wing » Religion 102 » For Zeus: The Rez Body (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=121262#post121262)). This aberrant theology is a perfect example of the baneful consequences of compromising with a theory that was first invented to exclude God.

And Paul explicitly calls Adam "the first man" (v. 45). But one cannot believe this as well as have faith in secular dating methods. If they are right, then fossils that were undoubtedly Homo sapiens and with definite human behavior have been "dated" to 160,000 years old -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp That's unless you stretch the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 beyond all meaning to allow Adam to be that old.

But, again, I would argue that believing in an original human pair that sinned against God is not necessarily tied to their supernatural (as opposed to natural) creation.

It is, since the whole point of the original human pair is that they did NOT have ancestors. Adam was made from dust and became a "living soul" (nephesh chayyah) only after God breathed in him. Therefore he must have been made from something inanimate. If he had evolved from an ape-like creature, he would already have been a nephesh chayyah since that term is used of the animals in Genesis 1 as well.

And Paul's teaching about men and women in 1 Corinthians 11 depends on the teaching that Eve was made from Adam's rib. Evolution undermines this teaching as well.

If I wanted to be really liberal :spam: I would say that maybe Paul is applying a known category to witness to people about Christ. We know he did that in Athens. But that's just so offensive, I don't even want to think about it anymore.

It is indeed. It is committing grievous bodily harm on the text. Other examples are Luke 3 and Hebrews 11. They move completely seamlessly from characters in Genesis 1-11 and later parts of Scripture. There is not the slightest hint that Adam and the others were non-historical.

Again, I believe in Adam and Eve and their fall in the garden of Eden. I'm just throwing out (up?) possibilities about how evolution may not be as radically against Christianity as some claim.

You have overlooked the most serious point -- that theistic evolution makes so-called science (really a materialistic view of the history of the world) authoritative over Scripture. Liberals are more consistent -- they "interpret" the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection the same way. I.e. they deny the historicity on the grounds that "science" also shows that virgins don't conceive and dead men don't rise.

So Christians must resist evolution and denounce it for the anti-biblical (hence anti-God) philosophy it is.

[John Reece]

Socrates:
Evolution has nothing to do with real science; it is a belief system about the past that excluded direct miraculous acts by God a priori.

Exactly.

I spent many years in my distant past reading dozens of books by scientists and logicians on the subject of evolution. I found that neither science nor logic provide any basis for the theory of evolution.

What has been presented to the public on the subject of evolution, and the way it has been presented, is in the nature of propaganda (brain-washing). Education is a misnomer for such a process.

I was struck by the effectiveness of the propaganda while counseling a teenage drug abuser in a mental health center. In the course of a session with him, I happened to say something that indicated that I did not believe in the theory of evolution. The young man was amazed at me: “What, you don’t believe in evolution?!” He could not have been more stunned if I had said I did not believe the earth revolves around the sun, or that astronauts had gone to the moon. In his mind, evolution was not a theory, it was a scientific fact.

I voted option # 2 in the poll.

[Socratism]

Well, I voted #1 because I believe that evolution and scripture are in direct conflict. This means that a person who believes we descended from apes or that all life came from a primitive protocell is inventing their own private version of Christianity which in a technical sense is not the Christianity of the Bible.

This does not mean that their belief in Jesus Christ will not save them. It simply means that they are compromising with the world and in that sense could be said to not be genuine Christians.

They are also dangerous, because they tend to indoctrinate others with their false belief in evolution and hence may be said to be responsible for the fate of the people they so influence who may go on to lose their faith in Jesus Christ.

Of course their position would be that YECers also run that risk, but my response would be that I feel more secure in upholding the entirety of scripture than using my own fallible humanity to judge which parts of scripture to discard as being untrue.

Doesn't scripture warn against this latter practice?

Oh, I forgot. That part can also be proven wrong by "science" (falsely claimed).

[Piebald]

For Sher and Socratism who voted for the first option:

Would you say that someone isn't a true follower of Jesus if they believe in evolution (thus not a "true Christian"), or that they can simply be really misguided and engage in a kind of cognitive dissonance, asserting two contradictory things as true?

[Sher]

Today @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122917#post122917)
Hamster:

For Sher and Socratism who voted for the first option:

Would you say that someone isn't a true follower of Jesus if they believe in evolution (thus not a "true Christian"), or that they can simply be really misguided and engage in a kind of cognitive dissonance, asserting two contradictory things as true?

Hey Hamster ... Read the whole thread ...

I was very cranky that night, but changed it later to #2, my real answer (but my name stayed there under #1, even though my count doesn't)

I think really do think that evolution is a compromising position ... but any Christian can be misled/misguided about it, or other things. Believing in evolution doesn't make one not a Christian ... but it does mean they are not a very mature one, IMO.



... and of course, I refer to it as evolution in the sense that it should properly be used ("goo to you via the zoo") ... not in the equivocal sense ... but that should go without having to say in this area, right?

[Socrates]

Romans 1:18-25—

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 ¶ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

This passage clearly teaches that unbelievers won't have the slightest excuse for unbelief, because God's power and deity can be "clearly seen" from nature. This seems to be a strong support for the argument from design.

Atheists like Hume, whom Zeus adulates, made some facile attacks against this argument, but never really addressed it properly because they had no alternative explanation for the complexity of life. Paley, writing 30 years after Hume, had shown up the pathetic nature of his special pleading.

However, according to Gould, one of Darwin's main motivations was to counteract the argument from design, especially as expressed by Paley—see Darwin’s real message: Have you missed it? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp) So if evolution were true, where is the clear evidence for God's power from what has been made? This is a major reason atheists are so keen to promote evolution -- without it, they realise they have no excuse for their anti-God religious beliefs. No wonder ardent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Ian Plimer Jerry Coyne, Scott Page etc. have to cling to evolution so desperately and fulminate against creationists who threaten their faith. Once more, compromise with evolution has far more consequences that just Genesis 1.

Furthermore, many theistic evolutionists are very naive about evolution, thinking that it means some sort of progress, so there must be a guiding force behind it. But Gould made it very clear that real evolutionists believe no such thing; rather, they believe that that evolution is contingent, so if the clock was rewound we would never see humans evolve again. Far from seeing evidence for a divine hand, all they see is ‘there’s nothing else going on out there — just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ So once again, if evolution were true, there is no evidence for a God from what has been made, but evidence only for ruthless struggle for existence. Evolution and the Apostle Paul cannot both be right!

Also, if God's attributes can be seen in nature, what attributes are revealed by a god who uses a process of survival of the fittest to create? They are contradictory to the true God revealed in Christ, who said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." In evolution, the meek do not inherit the earth but are crushed by the strong. So once again, the attributes revealed by a theistic evolutionary "god" are diametrically opposed to those of Christ, fully God and fully man.

Yet another attribute about God in the Bible is that He regards death as "the last enemy", and originally created animals to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:30), and will restore them to that state in the future (Isaiah chs. 11,65). He is even concerned for a single sparrow. But this is totally opposite to a god who would use millions of years of death and suffering to create things, and declare all this to be "very good" (Genesis 1:31).

In reality, what is plain from creation is that we live in a world of great beauty and ingenuity, but this is marred somehow. The attributes of God revealed in creation are His immense intelligence and sense of beauty far unimaginably beyond our own, but one who has cursed His creation because of sin (Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:20-22).

[The Laughing Man]

Christ himself rejected any other explanation for human origins than special Creation:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Christ never said anything to the effect of, "At the beginning, God created a one-celled organism, then let life evolve on its own into human beings over millions and millions of years." No, he - God the Son, a person of the Trinity that is God - affirmed that humans were created "as-is" (except for the curse of sin and everything that entails, of course) by God. That is why I voted #1. It greatly disturbs me that some people would just flippantly dismiss the words of the one they claim is their Lord and Savior. If you choose to ignore them, which other of Christ's teachings will you choose to ignore in order to fit in with the world?

Incidentally, if populations evolve but not individuals, how could that first organism ever evolve?

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122761#post122761)
John Reece, replying to:

Socrates:
Evolution has nothing to do with real science; it is a belief system about the past that excluded direct miraculous acts by God a priori.

Exactly.

I spent many years in my distant past reading dozens of books by scientists and logicians on the subject of evolution. I found that neither science nor logic provide any basis for the theory of evolution.

What has been presented to the public on the subject of evolution, and the way it has been presented, is in the nature of propaganda (brain-washing). Education is a misnomer for such a process.

I was struck by the effectiveness of the propaganda while counseling a teenage drug abuser in a mental health center. In the course of a session with him, I happened to say something that indicated that I did not believe in the theory of evolution. The young man was amazed at me: “What, you don’t believe in evolution?!” He could not have been more stunned if I had said I did not believe the earth revolves around the sun, or that astronauts had gone to the moon. In his mind, evolution was not a theory, it was a scientific fact.

I voted option # 2 in the poll.

That’s an interesting account, and sadly typical. And alas he is acting consistently — if evolution were true, then our thoughts are merely an epiphenomenon of chemical activity in the brain, so what's the problem with a few other chemicals?

It also has some other lessons for Mr Hamster who seems intimidated by the majority support for evolution among scientists (which does NOT make him non-Christian as most poll respondents have made clear). Many people, like this young druggie that JR counseled, have no idea why they believe in evolution, but merely accept it because of the same argumentum ad numeram that impresses Mr Hamster. Scientists are just as much followers of peer pressure as anyone else—Thomas Kuhn has written at length on the power of the paradigm. Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia, commented on dogmatism from the establishment even against a non-Darwinian (neo-Lamarckian) theory on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV program Lateline, 9 October 1998:

‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it hard to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll find it very hard.’

Also, the vast majority of scientists are in fields where evolution is irrelevant, and that includes most biology researchers. That’s because real science deals with repeatable observations in the present, not claims about what allegedly happened in the unrepeatable past, which are therefore matters of history, not science.

We must also consider what is meant by evolution. Leading evolutionary propagandists deliberately equivocate about the meaning, i.e. claiming it just means “change of gene frequency over time”. Of course, no creationist denies that. Perhaps many of the scientists who claim to believe in evolution are merely asserting that they believe in mere changes. But then the propagandists play bait’n’switch and parade all this support as evidence that most scientists believe in evolution as an antonym to creation!

Finally, in my point that JR quoted, it's clear that many evolutionist scientists do no really believe because of science, but because of a philosophical decision to disbelieve in miraculous acts by God in the past. See my post documenting this www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=40404#post40404 See also Dr Gisler's admissions to TWeb's most fair-minded atheist Dr Powell, that scientists often have non-scientific motivations for adopting certain theories at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=121324#post121324:

‘Unfortunately their positioning has also caused good scientists to shy away from positions that might suggest YEC views. ...

I supported his point of view partly with a political motivation: I wanted to get funding for some transient survey telescopes, and was successful in that.’

The lesson is that statistics can be misleading. It's not enough to know the numbers of people who hold a belief, but why they hold it.

[wienerdog]

Yesterday @ 08:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123544#post123544)
Jinx72:

Christ himself rejected any other explanation for human origins than special Creation:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Christ never said anything to the effect of, "At the beginning, God created a one-celled organism, then let life evolve on its own into human beings over millions and millions of years." No, he - God the Son, a person of the Trinity that is God - affirmed that humans were created "as-is" (except for the curse of sin and everything that entails, of course) by God. That is why I voted #1. It greatly disturbs me that some people would just flippantly dismiss the words of the one they claim is their Lord and Savior. If you choose to ignore them, which other of Christ's teachings will you choose to ignore in order to fit in with the world?

Incidentally, if populations evolve but not individuals, how could that first organism ever evolve?
First, my standard caveat: I do not accept evolution.

Well, I would reiterate that the statement that God made human beings does not by itself mean that he created them supernaturally. I mean, he parted the Red Sea, right? But he did it by means of natural processes (a strong wind that blew all night). So I don't think Christians who believe in evolution are rejecting Christ's words, and would suggest that you may be reading your meaning into them (no offense).

Second, I don't think it's fair to say that Christians who believe in evolution are "flippantly dismiss(ing) the words of the one they claim is their Lord and Savior." Just because they haven't thought enough about how to reconcile their belief in evolution with following Christ doesn't mean that they're not true and devoted followers of Christ. If having a coherent systematic theology was a prerequisite to praying the sinner's prayer, then we're all screwed.

[wienerdog]

wienerdog: I would argue that believing in an original human pair that sinned against God is not necessarily tied to their supernatural (as opposed to natural) creation.

Socrates: It is, since the whole point of the original human pair is that they did NOT have ancestors. Adam was made from dust and became a "living soul" (nephesh chayyah) only after Adam breathed on him. Therefore he must have been made from something inanimate. If he had evolved from an ape-like creature, he would already have been a nephesh chayyah since that term is used of the animals in Genesis 1 as well.
I think the whole point of the original human pair is that they were the first human beings, and that they were created by God. I don't think evolution undermines this, although I don't see how it can possibly be reconciled with a historical reading of Genesis 2. The idea that they evolved from another form of life that God had previously created (and, presumably, which he had previously created via evolution) doesn't mean that the first human beings weren't the first human beings, created in God's image.

[Zeus]

06-11-2003 @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120027#post120027)
Socrates:

Also, evolution undermines the biblical teaching that humanity is ONE RACE because we are all descended from Adam (17:26).

This is factually false and smacks of historical revisionism. It was totally due to Darwin's powerful argumentation in The Descent of Man that the idea of different existing human species and distinct races was finally dropped by the majority in mainstream biology. In contrast, the great opposers of evolution in Darwin's time, such as Cuvier and Agassiz, were devout Creationists who argued forcefully that there were quite separate human races, even different human species. Cuvier actually encouraged the idea that Hottentot Africans were chimpanzees.

Z

[Zeus]

Yesterday @ 07:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124220#post124220)
wienerdog:


I think the whole point of the original human pair is that they were the first human beings, and that they were created by God. I don't think evolution undermines this, although I don't see how it can possibly be reconciled with a historical reading of Genesis 2. The idea that they evolved from another form of life that God had previously created (and, presumably, which he had previously created via evolution) doesn't mean that the first human beings weren't the first human beings, created in God's image.

Exactly. There are many ways to make something, and exactly how it was made has no bearing on its present form.

[Zeus]

06-15-2003 @ 08:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123544#post123544)
Jinx72:

Christ himself rejected any other explanation for human origins than special Creation:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'


Read my response to your other post:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=125135#post125135


Christ never said anything to the effect of, "At the beginning, God created a one-celled organism, then let life evolve on its own into human beings over millions and millions of years."


What does that prove? Jesus never happened to tell people the cause of epilepsy either, He never mentioned anything about quantum mechanics or relativity. So what? That was not His purpose here at all.


No, he - God the Son, a person of the Trinity that is God - affirmed that humans were created "as-is" (except for the curse of sin and everything that entails, of course) by God.


That is reading in to Christ's words. He never says they were made as is. Anyway, even from an evolutionary point of view, there must have been a first human, and there must be a single male ancestor of all living humans. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has explained that at length.


That is why I voted #1. It greatly disturbs me that some people would just flippantly dismiss the words of the one they claim is their Lord and Savior. If you choose to ignore them, which other of Christ's teachings will you choose to ignore in order to fit in with the world?


Sorry, but I don't even come close to flippantly dismissing Christ's words. You simply read more into what He said that what He actually said.


Incidentally, if populations evolve but not individuals, how could that first organism ever evolve?

It couldn't -- that's pretty elementary.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125182#post125182)
Zeus, replying to:

Socrates:

Also, evolution undermines the biblical teaching that humanity is ONE RACE because we are all descended from Adam (17:26).

This is factually false and smacks of historical revisionism.

Who needs village atheists when we have professing Christians like Zeus and Meert to undermine the Bible and the Church? Fact: passages like this motivated the Church to speak out for the native Americans on the grounds that they were descendants of Adam. Later on, evangelical Christians such as Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery, while pro-slavers like Lord Melbourne said "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life". Sounds like a modern pro-abortionist.

It was totally due to Darwin's powerful argumentation in The Descent of Man that the idea of different existing human species and distinct races was finally dropped by the majority in mainstream biology.

You have to be joking. Darwin and his followers believed in the inferiority of negroes. And according to Sir Arthur Keith, Hitler tried to apply evolution consistently to Germany -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147

In contrast, the great opposers of evolution in Darwin's time, such as Cuvier and Agassiz, were devout Creationists who argued forcefully that there were quite separate human races, even different human species. Cuvier actually encouraged the idea that Hottentot Africans were chimpanzees.

Neither of these were biblical creationists, but catastrophists. Agassiz was a unitarian as well. But the Endarkenment philosophers like Voltaire and Zeus's hero Hume believed that dark-skinned people were inferior.

The problem was that Darwin's compromise with biological evolution was preceded by the compromise with geological evolution.

[Joe Meert]

Who needs village atheists when we have professing Christians like Zeus and Meert to undermine the Bible and the Church?

JM: I don't worship the Bible as God. It's an important piece of history, poetry, allegory and myth. It's purpose is about salvation and not science. I oppose Christians who use the bible incorrectly and find organizations like AIG, ICR and the people within (Sarfati, Ham, Morris etc) to be doing more harm to Christianity than helping. Their crass attitudes and misrepresentation of science may lead non-believers to question the honesty and integrity of the Christian faith. Talk about undermining the bible!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Bill the Cat]

Hey Joe, before you get "Moderated" please read the guidelines for this forum:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=104721#post104721

Creationists only. Sorry.

[Zeus]

It was totally due to Darwin's powerful argumentation in The Descent of Man that the idea of different existing human species and distinct races was finally dropped by the majority in mainstream biology.


You have to be joking. Darwin and his followers believed in the inferiority of negroes.


That is quite debatable for Darwin. Anyway, beside the point -- it would prove nothing even if true. There is nearly not a white person alive in the 19th century who didn't think that non-whites were inferior. Darwin made statements that would not be considered "PC" today, of course. But compared to the views of the people he was surrounded with, he was anything but a racist. The truth is that, by far, even the most ardent Abolitionists, those arguing for "equality of races", believed in the inferiority of non-whites. For instance, most people consider Abraham Lincoln to be a pretty good guy in this matter:


http://www.bartleby.com/251/61.html

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.


[Lincoln goes on to clarify his position]

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it; anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,?the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man.

Abraham Lincoln, October 13, 1858.


Or Thomas Jefferson:

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. - To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. ... Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
....
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=45


Compare those with Darwin's views from the Descent of Man:

But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty- three, according to Burke. (18. See a good discussion on this subject in Waitz, 'Introduction to Anthropology,' Eng. translat., 1863, pp. 198-208, 227. I have taken some of the above statements from H. Tuttle's 'Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man,' Boston, 1866, p. 35.) This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

....

The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much discussed by anthropologists, who are divided into the two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species as separate creations, or in some manner as distinct entities; and they must decide what forms of man they will consider as species by the analogy of the method commonly pursued in ranking other organic beings as species. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an indeterminate element such as an act of creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town, or city. We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds, insects, and plants, which represent each other respectively in North America and Europe, should be ranked as species or geographical races; and the like holds true of the productions of many islands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate the races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference. (21. See Prof. Huxley to this effect in the 'Fortnightly Review,' 1865, p. 275.) ....

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works (24. Tylor's 'Early History of Mankind,' 1865: with respect to gesture- language, see p. 54. Lubbock's 'Prehistoric Times,' 2nd edit. 1869.) can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shewn by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions.

Or from his private letters encouraging Abolitionism:

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.M. HERBERT. Maldonado, Rio Plata, June 2,
1833.

It does one's heart good to hear how things are going on in England. Hurrah for the honest Whigs! I trust they will soon attack that monstrous stain on our boasted liberty, Colonial Slavery. I have seen enough of Slavery and the dispositions of the negroes, to be thoroughly disgusted with the lies and nonsense one hears on the subject in England.



CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 5 [1861].

Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in! Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth--slavery--abolished!


CHARLES DARWIN TO THOS. WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. Down, February 27th
[1873].

My dear Sir, My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed.


From Darwin's Autobiography:
The last man whom I will mention is Carlyle, seen by me several times at my brother's house, and two or three times at my own house. ... his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded.


CHARLES DARWIN TO His Wife. Maldonado, Rio Plata, May 22,
1833.

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character.


And according to Sir Arthur Keith, Hitler tried to apply evolution consistently to Germany -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthrea...56147#post56147


And what does that prove about Darwin or evolution? The Americans didn't just try, they were quite successful in applying relativity to the Japanese, and indisciminantly destroyed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and civilians by using that scientific theory. Men have always used science to further their purposes, whether good or evil. Hitler was no dummy -- he knew that if he killed all brown-eyed, dark-skinned people that he could direct the evolution of man to result in only blue-eyed people with blond hair. Evolution tells you the scientific result of an action -- it does not somehow give you permission to perform that action.

In contrast, the great opposers of evolution in Darwin's time, such as Cuvier and Agassiz, were devout Creationists who argued forcefully that there were quite separate human races, even different human species. Cuvier actually encouraged the idea that Hottentot Africans were chimpanzees.

Neither of these were biblical creationists, but catastrophists.

Beside the point. That was the background in science that Darwin was reacting and arguing against. To deny that is engaging in historical revisionims, Soc. You have been shown completely wrong about Darwin's views on race. I sincerely hope your future actions will reflect this realization.

Z

[wienerdog]

The acceptance of evolution leads to social Darwinism only if it is used as an alternative to Christianity. As such, the wisest course of action would be to live more in tune with nature, i.e. ensuring that the fittest survive and that the less fit do not. But evolution by itself does not lead to this conclusion without tying it to a rejection of God and morality.

The problem, as I see it, is not evolution but naturalism. Evolution is often used by naturalists to justify their world view, but it's not the same thing. Although, obviously, I think evolution is wrong.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127538#post127538)
wienerdog:

The acceptance of evolution leads to social Darwinism only if it is used as an alternative to Christianity. As such, the wisest course of action would be to live more in tune with nature, i.e. ensuring that the fittest survive and that the less fit do not. But evolution by itself does not lead to this conclusion without tying it to a rejection of God and morality.

The problem, as I see it, is not evolution but naturalism. Evolution is often used by naturalists to justify their world view, but it's not the same thing. Although, obviously, I think evolution is wrong.

I disagree WD. I have seen evidence ... time and again ... that the more someone begins the compromise toward evolution, the more they begin to reject the truth of God ... Naturalism begins to rear its ugly head ... it's almost a foregone conclusion that goes hand-in-hand with belief in evolution.

But I'm glad you think it's wrong :smile:

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 03:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126541#post126541)
Zeus, replying to:

Socrates:You have to be joking. Darwin and his followers believed in the inferiority of negroes.


That is quite debatable for Darwin. Anyway, beside the point -- it would prove nothing even if true.

It would show that evolution is a foundationally racist philosophy. Biblical creation is the only real solution.


Or Thomas Jefferson:

The deist, who butchered the Bible to remove all miracles?

Compare those with Darwin's views from the Descent of Man:

Why not look at his most famous book: the full title of Darwin's most famous work is Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. :hrm: I just can't imagine where Hitler got his ideas of a master race from, ultimately :huh:

Or from his private letters encouraging Abolitionism:

Not disputed. He was a racist abolitionist. One can be active against cruelty to animals without believing animals are equal to humans.

[Cuvier and Agassiz]
Neither of these were biblical creationists, but catastrophists.

Beside the point.

Not at all. If they had stuck to the Bible, which teaches that we are of one blood, they wouldn't have had such views. Such racist ideas owe more to Endarkenment philosophy.

That was the background in science that Darwin was reacting and arguing against. To deny that is engaging in historical revisionims, Soc. You have been shown completely wrong about Darwin's views on race. I sincerely hope your future actions will reflect this realization.

I was never wrong, since I agreed he was an abolitionist. But you have overlooked the racism in the earliest evolutionary teaching. Gould wrote, and he was a staunch anti-racist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 127–128, 1977):

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

[Zeus]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127755#post127755)
Socrates:


That is quite debatable for Darwin. Anyway, beside the point -- it would prove nothing even if true.

It would show that evolution is a foundationally racist philosophy.

Scientific theories say nothing about morals -- so by definition they cannot be racist. See my next post.


Soc:
Why not look at his most famous book: the full title of Darwin's most famous work is Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. :hrm: I just can't imagine where Hitler got his ideas of a master race from, ultimately :huh:


Hitler didn't get the idea of a "master race" from evolution, he got it from Nietzsche. Hitler defended his hate of the Jews with Christianity for goodness sake! You can't use a scientific theory as a basis for morals (see my next post to Weinerdog). In his writings and his public speeches Hitler ALWAYS said he was following "Christ his Lord" in protecting his country from Jews. Of course Hitler was a lying sack of dung, but he couldn't have done what he did alone. Hitler needed the help of fellow Nazis and the German public, and it was Hitler's public writings and arguments that swayed the public, of course -- and they exclusively appealed to Christianity and country, not evolution. I suppose you think "races" in the title of Darwin's book refers to humans? You are hilarious. The first mention of "race" in on the Origin of Species is in reference to races of cabbage!


C. Darwin, all from On the Origin of Species:

it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.

With respect to horses, from reasons which I cannot give here, I am doubtfully inclined to believe, in opposition to several authors, that all the races have descended from one wild stock.

It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species;

Great as the differences are between the breeds of pigeons, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects.

when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability.

but, as a general rule, I cannot doubt that the continued selection of slight variations, either in the leaves, the flowers, or the fruit, will produce races differing from each other chiefly in these characters.

Pigeons can be mated for life, and this is a great convenience to the fancier, for thus many races may be kept true, though mingled in the same aviary

In the same way, for instance, the English race-horse and English pointer have apparently both gone on slowly diverging in character from their original stocks, without either having given off any fresh branches or races.

I presume that no one will doubt that all such analogous variations are due to the several races of the pigeon having inherited from a common parent the same constitution and tendency to variation, when acted on by similar unknown influences.




Soc:
If they [Cuvier and Agassiz] had stuck to the Bible, which teaches that we are of one blood, they wouldn't have had such views. Such racist ideas owe more to Endarkenment philosophy.

Well, Cuvier actually did "stick" to a literal interpretation of the Bible -- he was a catastrophist, but he believed in six literal days of Creation, and believed in a young earth. Very similar to what AiG and ICR teach. Cuvier was very racist, and it was the racist views, popular in biology of the early 19th century, from anti-evolution opponents like Cuvier, that Darwin was arguing against.


I was never wrong, since I agreed he was an abolitionist. But you have overlooked the racism in the earliest evolutionary teaching. Gould wrote, and he was a staunch anti-racist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 127?128, 1977):


Gould got lots of things wrong -- that is a blatant appeal to authority. You have provided no evidence for your case. And besides, you stated that "Darwin ... believed in the inferiority of negroes." That is false, as I showed above with Darwin's statements, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate your false claims.

Simple logic and honesty sometimes do come hard for you, eh?

[Zeus]

Today @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127538#post127538)
wienerdog:

The acceptance of evolution leads to social Darwinism only if it is used as an alternative to Christianity. As such, the wisest course of action would be to live more in tune with nature, i.e. ensuring that the fittest survive and that the less fit do not. But evolution by itself does not lead to this conclusion without tying it to a rejection of God and morality.


Even that is incorrect, W. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is pithy at best, and terribly misguided at worst. It is not a scientific statement, and does not accurately describe the theory of natural selection. This is the most accurate statement of natural selection:

w(ave)Δz(ave) = Cov(w,z) - E(wΔz)

where Cov(x) is the statistical covariance of x, E(x) is the statistical expectation of x, z is a quantitative measure of the character value being studied, and w is the fitness of z, where fitness is defined by this equation:

q' = qw/w(ave)

where q is the frequency of the character z in the ancestral population, and q' is the frequency in the descendant population. That is the most rigorous and universally applicable definition of selection, and it is known as the Price Equation (first formally solved by George Price, a devout born-again Christian). There are many other, more complex, statements of selection theory which are tailored to specific genetic systems (like sexual reproduction where each organism carries two alleles of every gene).

Selection can lead to many different outcomes based upon the initial conditions. One very common result, called genetic drift, is that the fittest in fact do not survive -- that happens when populations are small (technically when s < 1/N, where s is the selection coefficient and N is population size).

Another of those possible outcomes is altruism. Specifically, altruism evolves when r*B > C, where r is a quantitative measure of relatedness between two organisms, and C is the "cost" of an action in quantitave terms of fitness, and B is the "benefit" in terms of fitness.

Both of these outcomes are direct mathematical results of the Price Equation when solved for common genetic systems like those found in bacteria and animals. Selection can also lead to the more commonly assumed outcome of extermination of others less fit.

Why, in the absence of any other moral system, would you choose as your moral guide only the "exterminate others" outcome of selection, and not choose the "drift" outcome or the "altruism" outcome? To choose the first over the latter outcomes requires some moral belief external to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory cannot "tell" you to exterminate others, or to randomly drift without regard to fitness, nor can it tell you to foster conditions that result in altruistic behavior. You must decide, somehow, which of those you think is best. Evolutionary theory can't tell you which one.

z

[Morpheus]

Hitler didn't get the idea of a "master race" from evolution, he got it from Nietzsche.

i agree with much of what you're saying, zeus (i am a theistic evolutionist), but i just wanted to point out, so no one is mistaken, that nietzsche did not himself expound racist ideas in his philosophy. many people who do not understand nietzsche have the false notion that his "master race" refers to the rising of the aryan race at the expense of the others (specifically the jews), but the truth is that nietzsche was referring to a "master human race," based on what he saw as beneficial for the advancment of mankind as a whole.

hitler took these ideas and misused them for the purpose of his racism against the jews.

[wienerdog]

Nietzsche was promoting the idea that some people were superior to others, although he didn't draw any lines down ethnic divisions. There were some people in society who were the overmen, the masters, and others who were the slaves. He advocated a return to the rule of the masters, wherein they would invent their own moralities, without ever mistaking it for being objective, and subject the slave class to it. Eventually, this would produce a race of overmen/masters.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127793#post127793)
Zeus, replying to:

Socrates: It would show that evolution is a foundationally racist philosophy.

Scientific theories say nothing about morals -- so by definition they cannot be racist. See my next post.


Evolution originally had ideas that some races were more evolved than others. So it can be racist. It can also provide no basis for opposing racism for the reason Zeus gives.

Z: Hitler didn't get the idea of a &quot;master race&quot; from evolution, he got it from Nietzsche.

And Nietzsche got it from Darwin.

Also, Hitler's policies on racism and euthanasia had been previously advocated in German universities, based on Haeckel's ideas which were in turn based on Darwin's. Also, the founder of eugenics was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton.

Hitler appealed heaps to evolution. And a few years ago on the Australian SBS TV channel which often has foreign language films, they even showed footage from Nazi propaganda films illustrating the strong animals killing the weak, and making master race parallels. And during the Nazi regime, a confession people used to make was that they had 'sinned against natural selection'.

The atheistic and anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith had no doubt where Hitler's ideas came unlike our evolunary revisionist Zeus, (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947):

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Here's another scholarly view (Fest, J.C., The Face of the Third Reich, Pantheon, NY, p. 99, 1970):

‘Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society. He was convinced that the race was disintegrating, deteriorating through faulty breeding as a result of a liberally tinged promiscuity that was vitiating the nation’s blood. And this led to the establishment of a catalogue of ‘positive’ curative measures: racial hygiene, eugenic choice of marriage partners, the breeding of human beings by the methods of selection on the one hand and extirpation on the other.’

Hitler even regarded Blacks as ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’—very much an evolutionary idea, not a biblical one!

Z: Hitler defended his hate of the Jews with Christianity for goodness sake! You can't use a scientific theory as a basis for morals (see my next post to Weinerdog). In his writings and his public speeches Hitler ALWAYS said he was following &quot;Christ his Lord&quot; in protecting his country from Jews.

Oh, puh-lease, not this boring old canard. TheFiveSolas and I have done this stupid claim to death by citing what Hitler REALLY thought of Christianity and the Nuremberg documentation that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to exterminate Christianity -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56147#post56147 You'll NEVER get Master Race and anti-semitic ideology from the Bible (and I bet Zeus denies biblical inerrancy).

I've pointed out that there were times that Hitler used Christian phraseology if he thought that it might influence gullible churchians, who had already rejected the Bible's authority so wouldn't bother checking it out, or would 're-interpret' the Bible to fit Nazi ideology. It's no accident that Nazism grew up in the birthplace of 'liberal theology'. Hitler made it clear that his 'positive Christianity' was nothing more or less than National Socialism, with himself as a counterfeit Messianic figure. The word 'Heil' is intimately connected with save, savior, salvation, etc.

Zeus would be better off if he stopped wallowing in atheistic gutter sites.

Z: Well, Cuvier actually did &quot;stick&quot; to a literal interpretation of the Bible -- he was a catastrophist, but he believed in six literal days of Creation, and believed in a young earth. Very similar to what AiG and ICR teach.

Rubbish, Cuvier was famous for his belief in multiple catastrophism, and an Earth far older than the Bible would suggest.

Cuvier was very racist, and it was the racist views, popular in biology of the early 19th century, from anti-evolution opponents like Cuvier, that Darwin was arguing against.

And I've pointed out that Endarkenment types like Hume and Voltaire were very racist, and you supported this inadvertendly by citing Jefferson.

This quote from Darwin, The Descent of Man, shows that he was racist, even though he was not in favor of cruelty or slavery to these allegedly savage races.

‘At some future time, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will not doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.’


Z: Gould got lots of things wrong -- that is a blatant appeal to authority.

And a cogent appeal to authority. Why should we believe you over him?

[wienerdog]

Zeus: Why, in the absence of any other moral system, would you choose as your moral guide only the "exterminate others" outcome of selection, and not choose the "drift" outcome or the "altruism" outcome? To choose the first over the latter outcomes requires some moral belief external to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory cannot "tell" you to exterminate others, or to randomly drift without regard to fitness, nor can it tell you to foster conditions that result in altruistic behavior. You must decide, somehow, which of those you think is best. Evolutionary theory can't tell you which one.
They wouldn't choose it as a moral guide, but as a rational response. If this is the way nature operates, and we are a part of nature, so we should strive to be more in tune with nature. But again, I would state that this would only be a viable option for those who have rejected Christian morality.

Sher: I disagree WD. I have seen evidence ... time and again ... that the more someone begins the compromise toward evolution, the more they begin to reject the truth of God ... Naturalism begins to rear its ugly head ... it's almost a foregone conclusion that goes hand-in-hand with belief in evolution.

But I'm glad you think it's wrong
Well, again, my experience is contrary to this. I know plenty of people who are searching for God, but think Jesus isn't an option because they accept evolution. I think we (the Christian community) have made evolution a stumbling block to the acceptance of Christ. I don't deny that evolution is problematic for Christianity, but so are the thousands of false ideas we hold when we come to faith, as well as the thousands of false ideas we maintain, and will never realize were false until we see God face to face.

I understand your point, though. I think you're saying that there is a natural progression from the acceptance of evolution to the denial of God. I can see how people would believe this, but I'm not sure it's true. First, you're assuming that people are inherently rational, and will follow evolution to its logical conclusion (atheism). But I don't think most people are prepared to be rational, in the sense of being systematically consistent. Second, I don't think evolution does lead naturally to a denial of God. I think it can be used as an excuse to deny God, but it doesn't by itself lead to that conclusion. It's only when it's used as an alternative to God that it leads in this direction. Just because you know people who have used in this second way, as an excuse, doesn't mean that it leads that way inherently. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[Socratism]

I think you are wrong.

Have you read the Nature survey of the beliefs of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[Sher]

WD, Yeah ... natural progression fits what I was saying. I'm not simply trying to rely in my experiences with people, although I have known several, but that there is a growing trend toward that path. Perhaps it goes hand-in-hand with other things, but I think it is dangerous by and of itself.

(Rom 1:19-25) Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest it to them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead--to their being inexcusable; because, having known God they did not glorify Him as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, professing to be wise, they were made fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves; who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.

[Tennisbuff]

Christianity and Evolution do not seem to be able to exist synonymously with eachother. If a "christian" believes that the world came about by accident without any supernatural means, than that person does not believe in the same god that I do. This person believes in a god that did not create the universe and humankind and I would ask how this god has any authority over a universe and humankind that he did not create it. Because Jesus is God, when we scew the general definition of God as one, we scew the definition of who Jesus is also. Jesus created the world along with the Holy Spirit and the Father. To be saved one must believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who created the universe including us. An evolutionist can believe in these aspects of Christianity but he or she will not be saved because they believe in a completely different Jesus than the Bible presents. They in fact do not beleive in "Jesus Christ" at all.

[Zeus]

Today @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129069#post129069)
Tennisbuff:

If a &quot;christian&quot; believes that the world came about by accident without any supernatural means,

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the world or the universe, or even the ultimate origin of life itself.

One can beleive in biological evolution and also believe that the creation of humans was "unaccidental."



than that person does not believe in the same god that I do. This person believes in a god that did not create the universe and humankind and I would ask how this god has any authority over a universe and humankind that he did not create it.

What? Belief in evolution does not mean disbelief in Creation. God used evolution to create different life forms -- its very simple.

[CobraA1]

I vote #2: pretty bad.

[Sher]

Just a reminder people ... If you do not subscribe to the rules which enable you to post in this area, you are not allowed to vote in the poll either! Thanks, Sher

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129143#post129143)
Zeus:

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the world or the universe, or even the ultimate origin of life itself.

What twaddle :dunce: Last week's New Scientist said that the origin of life was one of "Five questions of evolution." :dufus: And another article in the series claimed that God was the creation of our brains. Yet the professing Christian Zeus yokes with such an anti-God explanation.

What? Belief in evolution does not mean disbelief in Creation. God used evolution to create different life forms -- its very simple.

And this notion is incoherent, since evolution is a theory designed to exclude God. There is a good parable, The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_tractor.asp). Of course, the tractor replaces the horse. But theistic evolution is like imagining that a horse is still invisibly pulling the tractor, although all we can see is the tractor.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 06:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128971#post128971)
wienerdog:

Well, again, my experience is contrary to this. I know plenty of people who are searching for God, but think Jesus isn't an option because they accept evolution. I think we (the Christian community) have made evolution a stumbling block to the acceptance of Christ.

Oh, come off it!! Most of the church has been only too happy to kowtow to evolution. The strongest opposition to YECs seems to come from churchians. So where is the stumbling block?

But what have been the results of this cowardly compromise? A huge decline in membership of the compromising churches, and worse, a loss of biblical authority. The compromise has told people, in effect, that the Bible is only good for subjective things like morality, while for objective things such as the history of Earth and life on it, trust the "scientists" over the Bible.

Rather, this compromise is a stumbling block, because the Church has told the world that the Bible can't really be trusted. Yet the Bible's history of the Creation and Fall in Genesis is the foundation for the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128376#post128376)

Socrates:
It would show that evolution is a foundationally racist philosophy.



Zeus:
Scientific theories say nothing about morals -- so by definition they cannot be racist. See my next post.


Socrates:
Evolution originally had ideas that some races were more evolved than others. So it can be racist.


Only if you already have the idea that "more evolved" is somehow "better" or more "valuable", which you obviously do according to that statement. Those are value judgments, and you must bring those value judgments to the theory -- you can't get them from it. Nowhere in the theory of natural selection does it state "more evolved is more valuable" or "more evolved organisms are superior" -- whatever "more evolved" would mean. From the beginning Darwin denied that natural selection necessarily leads to "higher" organisms anyway -- he had a whole chapter on the subject in On the Origin of Species called "On the degree to which organisation tends to advance", where he says this:


"But here we enter on a very intricate subject, for naturalists have not defined to each other's satisfaction what is meant by an advance in organisation. ... natural selection ... does not necessarily include progressive development--it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life."


Why would saying one "race" is "more evolved" than another necessarily be racist? If the statement that "X is more evolved than Y" is a statement that can be objectively determined and measured, then it is no different than saying that person X has green eyes and brown hair. Such statements only become racist when you make an external ethical value judgement and decide that green eyes are "inferior" or that "more evolved" is superior.

What if I think "less evolved" is more preferable and of higher value (since it is less changed from the original, ideal species)? In the theory of universal gravitation, is heavier equal to "better"? Why would it be? Why wouldn't it be? Your logic is absolutely pathetic Soc -- you fall hook line and sinker for the very atheistic, humanistic arguments you abhor. If you decide that "heavier" is more valuable, you can use Newtonian theory to find objects that are more valuable by your morals. But you can never get value judgments from scientific theories -- all you can do is make the value judgments first, and then use the theories as a tool.


Socrates:
[Evolution] can also provide no basis for opposing racism for the reason Zeus gives.


At least you got that right. Just like the theory of quantum mechanics can give no reason to oppose racism -- they are scientific theories, not ethical philosophies. But like any other scientific tool, you can use evolutionary theory to do good, if that is your goal. For instance, in my research I use evolutionary theory to understand and discover the cellular mechanisms involved in cancer formation and aging, which will eventually lead to beneficial drugs and treatments to ease the suffering in both conditions.

Z: Hitler didn't get the idea of a "master race" from evolution, he got it from Nietzsche.

Socrates:
And Nietzsche got it from Darwin.

Darwin never said anything about a "master race" or a race of "supermen". You lie. If you disagree, back up your slander -- show us a single quote where Darwin talks about master human races or supermen, and approves of it.



Socrates:
Also, Hitler's policies on racism and euthanasia had been previously advocated in German universities, based on Haeckel's ideas which were in turn based on Darwin's. Also, the founder of eugenics was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton.


So ... you adhere to the principal of "guilt by association" eh? Not a very ethical, or logical, argument there Soc. In fact that is one of the well-known logical fallacies. Of course it has good emotional and rhetorical effect, which is why you use it. Haeckel of course was a racist and an evolutionist. That says nothing about evolution itself. There are plenty of baseball players who are racists too -- does that mean baseball is an inherently racist activity? Racists have, throughout history, long before Darwin was alive, applied Newtonian mechanics to kill people. Does that say anything about the morality of Newtonian mechanics? Not at all. Evil people will use any scientific means, any scientific theory at their disposal to accomplish their goals. Scientific theories are all just tools. You can use them for good or evil.


Socrates:
The atheistic and anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith had no doubt where Hitler's ideas came unlike our evolunary revisionist Zeus, (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947):

"The German Fuehrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Have I denied that? Hitler was an evolutionist, most certainly. Hitler applied evolution to accomplish his evil goals, there is not doubt. The point, which I cannot believe you can fail to comprehend, is that Hitler justified the choice of his goals by wicked, twisted appeals to God, country, and family.

Henry Drummond (http://www.amos-sct.org.uk/literature/hd/henry.htm), the famous Scottish minister who wrote the timeless devotion "The Greatest Thing in the World" (http://silkworth.net/henry_drummond/hd_tablecontents.htm), was also an evolutionist who consciously sought to make the practice of Christianity conform to the theory of evolution. Drummond saw altruism as the natural consequence of evolutionary theory, and Drummond's works and writings have had a more lasting impact than Hitler's.


Socrates:Here's another scholarly view (Fest, J.C., The Face of the Third Reich , Pantheon, NY, p. 99, 1970):

"Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society. He was convinced that the race was disintegrating, deteriorating through faulty breeding as a result of a liberally tinged promiscuity that was vitiating the nation's blood. And this led to the establishment of a catalogue of 'positive' curative measures: racial hygiene, eugenic choice of marriage partners, the breeding of human beings by the methods of selection on the one hand and extirpation on the other."

Sure, that is undisputed. As I'm sure you are aware, "Social Darwinism" is an ethical philosophy, it is not the scientific theory of natural selection. Similar "Moral Relativism" is an ethical philosophy, it is not equivalent to the scientific theory of general relativity (even though many relativists use that theory to support their ethics).

But, now, how did Hitler decide that interbreeding of cultures was equal to "disintegration" and "deterioration"? Evolutionary theory says nothing about those value judgments. In fact, if you want to make a population more vigorous it is well-known in genetics that inbreeding is bad and that introducing variation from other populations helps (the commonly observed phenomenon of "hybrid-vigor", a prediction of natural selection). Hitler got his values from somewhere besides evolutionary biology (somewhere like the Thule Society). Why were the "Teutonics" the master race? Why weren't the Jews the master race? Why didn't Hitler decide to kill everybody except the Jews, God's own chosen people? Evolutionary theory can't tell you who to kill, it can't tell you to kill people at all! If you want to evolve a Teutonic race, evolutionary theory can tell you how. If you want to evolve a French race, evolutionary theory can tell you how. If you want to intentionally evolve a race of musicians who have perfect pitch, evolutionary theory can tell you how. But it can't tell you what to choose to evolve, or even to choose anything in the first place. This is no different from any other scientific theory. If your goal is to incinerate 500,000 Japanese kids and their moms, relativity theory can give you an easy way to do it. If you want to suffocate 100,000 Kurds quickly, chemistry can tell you how to do it. Neither of those theories are "genocidal at core" because of that -- they are simply tools that you can use to further whatever goals you have already decided upon, whether good or evil.


Socrates:
Hitler even regarded Blacks as "monstrosities halfway between man and ape" very much an evolutionary idea, not a biblical one!

Oh whatever, Soc! Of course that's not a Biblical idea, but where in the world do you get that evolutionary theory calls anything a "monstrosity"?? This is how Hitler justified the idea you are referring to:


The State should consecrate it [marriage] as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.


Hitler did not justify his views by appealing to evolution -- he appealed to the God of Genesis, to the "image of God." And the German public bought it! In evolutionary theory, nothing is a "monstrosity", it just is whatever it is, and it evolves. Hitler believed that Teutonics were made in the image of God, and that other races were not, and thus any thing that "destroyed that image" was a monstrosity. Does evolutionary theory tell you which races or species were made in the image of God? No, obviously.


Z:
Hitler defended his hate of the Jews with Christianity for goodness sake! You can't use a scientific theory as a basis for morals (see my next post to Wienerdog). In his writings and his public speeches Hitler ALWAYS said he was following "Christ his Lord" in protecting his country from Jews. Of course Hitler was a lying sack of dung, but he couldn't have done what he did alone.


Socrates:
Oh, puh-lease, not this boring old canard. TheFiveSolas and I have done this stupid claim to death by citing what Hitler REALLY thought of Christianity and the Nuremberg documentation that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to exterminate Christianity -- see my post
[snip irrelevant posturing]

Did I ever say Hitler was a Christian? No -- I said he was a "lying sack of dung." Did I ever claim that Hitler didn't hate Christianity? No.

My point, which you obviously would like to ignore, is that what came out at the Nuremberg trials and what Hitler allegedly said in private had no impact whatsoever on Hitler's success before and during WWII ("Table Talk" is well-known as a very unreliable source, being biased hearsay). Hitler had to convince the German public to do what he wanted them to do. Hitler never killed a Jewish person himself -- he used oratory and argumentation to convince the German public to kill them, over 6 million of them. And what Hitler said in public was entirely justified by appeals to family values, Christianity, and country. One of the main slogans of the Nazis was "Church, Kitchen, Children." Hitler invented Mother's day. And in public, he said stuff like this (all from his book Mein Kampf):


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. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other. ... 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 undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

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. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle."

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.



Socrates:
(and I bet Zeus denies biblical inerrancy).


You just lost money.


Socrates:
Zeus would be better off if he stopped wallowing in atheistic gutter sites.


Huh? I didn't realize project Gutenberg was atheist -- maybe you should inform them, Soc. I read historical documents, like Mein Kampf, to know what Hitler said. I don't trust hearsay from anti-Catholic Nazi aides. Here, read it yourself:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt


Z: Well, Cuvier actually did "stick" to a literal interpretation of the Bible -- he was a catastrophist, but he believed in six literal days of Creation, and believed in a young earth. Very similar to what AiG and ICR teach.

Socrates:
Rubbish, Cuvier was famous for his belief in multiple catastrophism, and an Earth far older than the Bible would suggest.

I truly think you are wrong. Henry Morris of the ICR is happy to list Cuvier as a Biblical Creationist (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm), multiple times. Please, show me a single quote from Cuvier where he states he believes that the Earth is ancient. Cuvier believed in six large "catastrophies" that he ascribed to the days of Creation. He never states that they were longer than a day, and he certainly chides other scientists of his time for belief in an ancient earth. Cuvier, who found evolution of animals to be absurd, said this in his famous "Discourse on the revolutionary upheavals on the surface of the globe (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/cuvier-e.htm)":


We see that, while entrenching themselves entirely within the limits set by the Book of Genesis, naturalists still gave themselves a large enough goal. They found themselves soon at an impasse. When they succeeded in seeing the six days of the Creation as so many indefinite periods, discounting the centuries, their systems took flight in proportion to the lapses of time which they were able to deal with.

Even the great Leibnitz amused himself, like Descartes, by making the earth an extinguished star, a glazed globe, on which vapours, trapped at the time of its cooling, formed the seas which later deposited calcified earth (14). Demaillet covered the entire globe with water for thousands of years. He had the waters gradually ebb. All the land animals at first lived in the sea. Even man started as a fish. And the author asserts that it is not rare to meet in the ocean fish which are only half human, but from them the species will become completely human one fine day (15).
...
I know that some naturalists rely a great deal on the thousands of centuries which they add up with the stroke of a pen.
...
Although at first glance the traditions of some ancient peoples who trace their origin back so many thousands of years seem forcibly to contradict the newness of the present world, in fact when we examine these traditions a little more closely, it does not take us long to notice that there is nothing historical about them.
...
The most degraded of the human races, the Negroes, whose shapes most closely approximate the brute animals and whose intelligence has not grown to the point of arriving at a regular government nor the least appearance of coordinated knowledge, has preserved no written records or traditions at all.
...
Thus, I am of the opinion, with Deluc and Dolomieu, that if there is something confirmed by geology, it is that the surface of our world has been the victim of a great and sudden upheaval, whose date cannot go back much beyond five or six thousand years, that this revolutionary upheaval pushed down the countries where human beings and the species of animals best known to us today previously used to live and made them disappear, that it, by contrast, made dry land of the bottom of the most recent sea and from it created the countries now inhabited, that since this revolution the small number of individuals which it spared have spread out and propagated throughout the territories recently made dry land, and consequently that it is only since this time that our societies have resumed a progressive development, formed institutions, raised monuments, collected facts about nature, and put together scientific systems.


Socrates:
And I've pointed out that Endarkenment types like Hume and Voltaire were very racist, and you supported this inadvertendly by citing Jefferson.

I never disagreed. I simply was showing the contrast that Darwin made with his contemporaries.


Socrates:
You have to be joking. Darwin and his followers believed in the inferiority of negroes.


Socrates:
This quote from Darwin, The Descent of Man , shows that he was racist, even though he was not in favor of cruelty or slavery to these allegedly savage races.


'[But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct]. At some future time, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ? will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.'



You claimed that "Darwin ... believed in the inferiority of negroes" and you have been asked to support that claim. The Darwin quote you give says nothing of the sort. It is certainly not "PC" by today's careful standards, but that is really just a semantic issue. We wouldn't use the term "savage race" today, of course -- we'd use a euphemism, with exactly the same meaning, like "third world nation" (which is considered insensitive by some now) or the more PC, "non-industrialized culture." MLK exclusively used the word "negro" with pride less than 40 years ago. Language changes.

Darwin says nothing in there about one race being superior to another, in any sense. Darwin says nothing about any race being inferior to any other, or any race being less valuable in any way. His point, if you had actually read the previous paragraphs (or the preceding sentence which I re-inserted above in brackets), is simply that in the future the apparent "gap" between man and ape will be wider since humans will likely have killed off both many men and many apes. The preceding paragraphs and chapters were all devoted to showing that the differences between the human "races" are miniscule when viewed objectively (see all the quotes from the preceding paragraphs that I posted earlier (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=126541#post126541)). You are simply showing me that you engage in that tired, worn-out, unethical, and ubiquitous YEC tactic of quoting out-of-context when it suits your purpose. Darwin's entire book was devoted to showing that human "races" blend into each other, and that the mental faculties of "savages" were similar to those of "civilized" people -- all in striking opposition to the common views of the day, in complete opposition to all that Darwin had been taught.

Given the terrible genocide that the "civilized races" have so skillfully performed, and the fact that most apes are on the verge of extinction, Darwin's prediction will likely be fulfilled. The Americans already have exterminated a very large fraction of Native Americans, and the few that are left form a tiny fraction of people living in the United States (less than 1%). As recently as 2000, the Washington state Republican party passed a resolution stating that the US government should "immediately take whatever steps necessary to terminate all ... non-republican forms of government on Indian reservations." The main sponsor was John Fleming, who warned that if tribes resisted "then the U.S. Army and the Air Force and the Marines and the National Guard are going to have to battle back."

The only value judgment Darwin does make in the quote above is in reference to "Caucasians," where he not-so-subtly implies that they are quite uncivilized now, but that hopefully mankind as a whole will be more civilized in the future (a point he touches on with great emotion in his private letters, repeatedly).




Socrates:
I was never wrong, since I agreed he was an abolitionist. But you have overlooked the racism in the earliest evolutionary teaching. Gould wrote, and he was a staunch anti-racist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 127?128, 1977):

Z:
Gould got lots of things wrong -- that is a blatant appeal to authority.


Socrates:
And a cogent appeal to authority. Why should we believe you over him?

Why believe anyone who can't back up their statements with facts? Gould was gifted writer, but his facts were often wanting, and very often made unwarranted ethical extrapolations from data. If you believe his words are infallible please tell us why -- surely there are lots of references and historical notes to back up the claim.

Z

[Zeus]

06-21-2003 @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129511#post129511)
Socrates:

The strongest opposition to YECs seems to come from churchians. So where is the stumbling block?

And why do you think that the strongest opposition to YECs comes from other Christians? The answer should be obvious -- because the majority of Christians know that YEC evangelists are wrong and that their work is a stumbling block to non-Christians. Christ did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. It is the non-Christians that are the issue here, not those already in the Church.

Tell me this Soc -- do you really believe that there is no way, whatsoever, that you are incorrect? Is it absolutely impossible that Genesis is metaphorical?

This is a yes or no question.

Zeus,

Post Length Considerations
The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

Your text has been preserved ... PM me if you'd like it for later discussion ~Sher

[Zeus]

06-21-2003 @ 05:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129510#post129510)
Socrates:



What? Belief in evolution does not mean disbelief in Creation. God used evolution to create different life forms -- its very simple.

And this notion is incoherent, since evolution is a theory designed to exclude God. There is a good parable, The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_tractor.asp). Of course, the tractor replaces the horse. But theistic evolution is like imagining that a horse is still invisibly pulling the tractor, although all we can see is the tractor.

And the exact same twisted logic can be applied to any other scientific theory. Was Newtonian theory designed to exclude God? It does not mention God, and it explains, naturally, things that the Church used to think were due to direct Divine intervention. Theistic gravitation is like imagining that a horse is still invisibly pulling the tractor, although all we can see is the tractor.

Is that really an argument against the theory of universal gravitation?

Ditto above notice

[wienerdog]

Socratism: I think you are wrong.

Have you read the Nature survey of the beliefs of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
I think this is just as easily explained by the hypothesis that these people are using evolution as an excuse to avoid God.

Sher: WD, Yeah ... natural progression fits what I was saying. I'm not simply trying to rely in my experiences with people, although I have known several, but that there is a growing trend toward that path. Perhaps it goes hand-in-hand with other things, but I think it is dangerous by and of itself.
I would argue that a growing trend itself, is just as easily explained by the "excuse" hypothesis. I mean, what's the worst thing evolution can do? It can invalidate one particular form of one particular theistic argument. Big whoop. I believe that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile evolution with inerrancy, but belief in inerrancy is not a salvation issue.

In fact, it seems to me that there's a huge trend towards Christianity, since people are recognizing that Big Bang cosmology says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Socrates: Oh, come off it!! Most of the church has been only too happy to kowtow to evolution.
I don't think that "most of the church" has been willing to accept evolution. Atheists tried to use it as an excuse to avoid God, and the church reacted instead of thinking. They let the atheists define the terms of the debate, including Christian doctrine, by saying that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

The strongest opposition to YECs seems to come from churchians. So where is the stumbling block?
(Note: after this I'm addressing opposition to YEC rather than evolution) While I disagree with Zeus about evolution, I have to agree with his response:

Zeus:The answer should be obvious -- because the majority of Christians know that YEC evangelists are wrong and that their work is a stumbling block to non-Christians. Christ did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. It is the non-Christians that are the issue here, not those already in the Church.

Socrates: But what have been the results of this cowardly compromise? A huge decline in membership of the compromising churches, and worse, a loss of biblical authority.
First, it's neither "cowardly" nor a "compromise" and I think you know it. That's just ungracious. Second, churches that are open to views about the age of the earth are known for their growth, outreach, and evangelism. Whatever you think about the "super-churches," or whatever they're called (like Willow Creek), they certainly don't exclude people who disagree with a young earth interpretation. Third, it doesn't result in a loss of biblical authority, it only results in a loss of authority for young earth ministries.

The compromise has told people, in effect, that the Bible is only good for subjective things like morality, while for objective things such as the history of Earth and life on it, trust the "scientists" over the Bible.
Again, it's not a "compromise," and it's not against the Bible, but against a particular interpretation of the Bible. Your interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture itself.

Rather, this compromise is a stumbling block, because the Church has told the world that the Bible can't really be trusted. Yet the Bible's history of the Creation and Fall in Genesis is the foundation for the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
And again, it's not a "compromise." And at best, all it would amount to is the Church telling the world that young earth ministries can't really be trusted.

I would also reiterate that people know they need a Savior, regardless of whether they understand the logical and historical underpinnings of how it all works out. They don't need to have a systematic theology in order to recognize their need for salvation and pray the sinner's prayer. Although, of course, I agree that the fall of humankind is what the need for a Savior comes from.

Zeus: (to Socrates) Darwin never said anything about a "master race" or a race of "supermen". You lie. If you disagree, back up your slander -- show us a single quote where Darwin talks about master human races or supermen, and approves of it.
Let's tone this down. There's no need to challenge each other's motives or veracity.

[Zeus]

Wienerdog:
Atheists tried to use it as an excuse to avoid God, and the church reacted instead of thinking. They let the atheists define the terms of the debate, including Christian doctrine, by saying that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

Amen. This is one of my main points -- so many YECs fall for the theological arguments of atheists. Shouldn't we as Christians be extremely skeptical of the atheist who claims that if evolution is true, then God is false? Isn't there a rather obvious irony in there, somebody who believes there is no God instructing us on God's nature?




Zeus:
Hitler didn't get the idea of a "master race" from evolution, he got it from Nietzsche.

Socrates:
And Nietzsche got it from Darwin.


Zeus:

Darwin never said anything about a "master race" or a race of "supermen". You lie. If you disagree, back up your slander -- show us a single quote where Darwin talks about master human races or supermen, and approves of it.

Wienerdog:
Let's tone this down. There's no need to challenge each other's motives or veracity.


WD, you're probably right, but this is the one anti-evo argument that makes my blood boil. There is a smear campaign among the anti-evos, especially prevalent with YECs, to paint Darwin as the inventor of racism, as if it did not exist before 1859. In reality, he was one of the most kind-hearted men alive in his time, and he personally fought hard against racism, bigotry, genocide, and slavery in a time when such things were the norm among even those who claimed to be Christians. If you are like most people, I'm sure you haven't studied this issue (Darwin and racism) in any great depth -- yet I'm fairly confident that you also realize that Soc's statement is blatantly untrue, especially if you read through the quotes from Darwin's personal correspondence and books (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=120957#post120957) that I posted earlier. Soc obviously has studied this issue, he is also aware of Darwin's thoughts on the matter, and as such he should know better. Socrates knows very well that Darwin never said anything about the "superman" or about "master races." I find it very troubling that anyone would feel that winning their side of the debate is worth reinforcing falsehoods. I'm not just defending Darwin because he's a famous evolutionist, I'm defending him because such statments do the man a disservice and distort history. Shouldn't we all, regardless of our views on evolution, be against that? I've read the guy's autobiography (written for his kids) and I've read his diaries from his travels on the Beagle. What he thought is stated very plainly. I'm not going to defend other important, influential evolutionary biologists like T.H. Huxley or Haeckel against charges of perpetuating racism, for the simple reason that those charges are true. They were racist as all get out. And purely scientifically, I respect Huxley as much as any other scientist. The truth should win out, regardless of how ugly it is, regardless of whether it supports "our" side of the argument or not.

z

[Socrates]

WienerDog: Again, it's not a "compromise," and it's not against the Bible, but against a particular interpretation of the Bible. Your interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture itself.

Don't try this existentialist piffle on me. Save "that's just your interpretation" for the postmodernists. On TWeb, try some actual arguments based on the grammatical and historical context. In reality, TEs are not motivated by these concerns but by kowtowing to the false gospel of methodological naturalism.

Socrates: But what have been the results of this cowardly compromise? A huge decline in membership of the compromising churches, and worse, a loss of biblical authority.

WD: First, it's neither "cowardly" nor a "compromise" and I think you know it.

It is and I don't :poke:. At least in Australian English, a compromise means conceding major points to the opposition and abandoning some of one's own points. And it is cowardly because the compromisers crave academic respectability above faithfulness to Scripture.

That's just ungracious.

No, it was a statement of fact. And it's indisputable that the major denominations who have compromised with evolution have rotted completely. Fact: theistic evolution doesn't attract atheists, because it doesn't challenge their foundation. It's again as 5S has pointed out -- they err by thinking that the unregenerate man can come to truth about world history apart from revelation, or even justify the rationality of his own thoughts or the order of the universe -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105258#post105258

Socrates: Rather, this compromise is a stumbling block, because the Church has told the world that the Bible can't really be trusted. Yet the Bible's history of the Creation and Fall in Genesis is the foundation for the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

WienerDog: And again, it's not a "compromise." And at best, all it would amount to is the Church telling the world that young earth ministries can't really be trusted.

Boring :zzz: it IS a compromise, because it says that we must reinterpret the grammatical/historical interpretation to fit in with the evolutionists. And the evolutionists realise that they are telling the world that the Bible cannot be trusted on earthly things. So, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, why should they believe it on heavenly things (John 3:12)?

WienerDog: I would also reiterate that people know they need a Savior, regardless of whether they understand the logical and historical underpinnings of how it all works out.

Of course, and I have always said that, as have AiG and ICR. But Zeus made the inflammatory charge that we were basically lying.

WienerDog: They don't need to have a systematic theology in order to recognize their need for salvation and pray the sinner's prayer. Although, of course, I agree that the fall of humankind is what the need for a Savior comes from.

And that's exactly what evolution denies. If evolution is true, there was never a unique human couple from whom all other people descend. And if there is no first Adam, then what happens to the Last Adam, Jesus. And evolution denies a fall into sin and an end to the death-free paradise. Rather, death, disease and suffering was already in the world and the Fall made no difference.

Zeus: (to Socrates) [more pathetic self-justifying slander to get around the evolutionary basis for Nazism and parrots the atheistic charge that Hitler used genuinely Biblically Christian principles]

WD: Let's tone this down. There's no need to challenge each other's motives or veracity.

But that's par for the course with evolutionists, whether atheists or their churchian "useful idiot" dupes.

I will say that people like WD at least spend some time trying to undermine atheism. But Zeus and his buddy Morton seem to do nothing but attack biblical Christians.

[Sher]

Sher: WD, Yeah ... natural progression fits what I was saying. I'm not simply trying to rely in my experiences with people, although I have known several, but that there is a growing trend toward that path. Perhaps it goes hand-in-hand with other things, but I think it is dangerous by and of itself.
WD: I would argue that a growing trend itself, is just as easily explained by the "excuse" hypothesis. I mean, what's the worst thing evolution can do? It can invalidate one particular form of one particular theistic argument. Big whoop. I believe that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile evolution with inerrancy, but belief in inerrancy is not a salvation issue.

Sher: I disagree with the "big whoop" WD. Belief in evolutionary theory too often white ants the foundations of the faith in a professing Christian.

Although inerrancy isn't a salvation issue, it is a very important issue. If one cannot believe Genesis is a true and literal accounting, referred back to by Jesus Himself for goodness sake, then what other bits can be dismissed as not being literal events. Genesis is more than just the first book of the OT ... it is the very foundation that the rest are built on ... covering not just creation, but marriage, genealogy, etc. as well. I am a firm believer in context of Scripture ... but often a rose is really a rose :rose:... and events as told were literal events for us to understand as history.

Look at how many professing atheists and skeptics do not believe in creation, a worldwide flood, that Adam/Eve were our first parents, etc. Ask them why they also believe that Jesus is a myth or just a "guy" in history who was overrated. Ask them why they so ardently dispute that the Virgin Conception, Jesus' Resurrection, and His very deity are fact. Spend a little time in the Apologetics 301 area ... listen to their commentaries. Talk to some of the science geeks and ask those that claim that they used to be Christians if embracing evolution affected their apostasy. If they are truly honest … if they look at the time period where they first began to doubt and move away from Christianity … I think you will find that it was right about the same time as they began to accept the secular worldview. One of the greatest lies given to society by the secular world is that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

I'm sorry ... you guys can claim I'm looking at a slipper slope fallacy ... but it isn't a fallacy when it really happens.


After thoughts: Something else to consider ... there are, to my knowledge, only three schools of thought (and I might stand corrected) ... Creation ex Materia ex Deo ex Nihilo
The second one is too long (and IMO strange) to speak of here, and not really an issue in this discussion. I obviously believe the third. So that brings us to the first, which IMO, appears to be the basis for the discussion here.

Belief in Creation ex Materia has to include the assumption that the nature of matter is eternal ... which reduces God's sovereignty because it puts something on an even keel with Him. From Creation ex Materia, there are only two options ... with God ... and without Him. The first is an acceptance of a secular worldview, with God in a secondary roll ... one of a Former ... not an Originator. This viewpoint is contrary to Scripture (cf. Col 1:16-17 *, et. al) and therefore, should be abandoned as false. The other option is where atheists (and the secular science world) apply Ockham's razor ** and state that no Creator is necessary ... which is obviously contrary to Christianity.

Why do I mention this, which is obviously more connected with origins than evolution? Because I see that this is following the same path ... that belief in evolution will force man to adhere to one of these same two viewpoints ... and finally reduce in his mind to a belief that there is no need for God.


(* "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.")
(** "A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony. [After William of Ockham.]")

[Sher]

:joy:

[Socrates]

AiG's front page article today The bottom line—it’s about people! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0628bottom_line.asp) shows how wrong the compromisers are in accusing YEC of being a stumbling block.

For instance, Ken M. wrote that he is an ‘administrator and faculty member’ of a secular university, where, he says, ‘my world view is challenged regularly.’ He says that the recent ‘offensive’ nature of the pro-evolution/long-age media onslaught drove him to seek answers. He says,

‘I can't tell you how valuable your ministry [and, he says, recent web responses to evolutionist campaigns] has been to me. It has greatly helped me to connect the dots of reason in defence of my faith … my reasoning and understanding of the foundational causes of world views and belief systems was lacking. Thank you for giving me “the big picture” of understanding from God’s word, starting with Genesis, that I never fully grasped before. … AIG has already strengthened my faith and equipped me more significantly than any ministry I have encountered. We will be supporting you in your efforts to intelligently share the truth of God's word and equip believers to reach out to a very confused world.’

Almost every week, somewhere in Australia, our speakers are ‘out there’ in the real world, ministering on a one-to-one basis to people seeking answers. The Brown family wrote:

‘Thanks … for equipping us with the needed artillery to stand fast against the onslaught of evolutionary forces. We will not give up this fight for the Creator is on our side! … We’ll be praying for you & the AIG staff … .’

…

In response to an email question/request, one of our offices sent out a copy of our Is There Really a God? booklet. The man then phoned the office to say that he had been brought up as an evolutionist and that the booklet and other material on our website had really helped him. He had started to read the Bible and had attended one or two churches. Unfortunately, he was confused because the churches told him that he could believe in evolution and the Bible. He knew that this could not be true because Genesis clearly taught creation in six literal days. Over the phone, he was encouraged to put his trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

A few days later he called again. This time he was in a flood of tears—but joyous ones, because he had just given his life to Christ.

Isn’t that the bottom line—ministering to people? As one staff member recently remarked during our daily devotions, ‘Praise God, that’s what it’s all about!’


Conversely, one Christian on TWeb has told me how upset she is with the professing Christian Glenn Morton (Zeus' buddy) writing such tripe that an atheistic colleague browbeat her with it. And once again, it is the firm uncompromising defence of the Bible by YECs that has greatly encouraged her faith.