Reply With QuoteLong read but I liked it!
| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
Since it is cold outside, I thought I would post another essay written by my neighbor, Charlie
"The Unintended Darwin"
Every philosophy, every political stand, and every “ism” out there claims validity by planting itself in either science or religion, or a form of both. For the most part, the Left has based its authority in secular materialism, a philosophy rooted in Darwinism. I am not claiming that all those on the left are atheists, but leftist ideology suggests that God is not necessary nor even wanted in government. To the left, religious conviction should be only in the private sector. They believe that is where “science’ has relegated it. The “real” world needs to be unencumbered by the conflicting dogma of various belief systems. This is actually where it appears the one and only facet of the constitution that the left holds inviolable, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” They have shamelessly misinterpreted this to mean that there can be no mention of God in government, though they have a difficult time explaining our national motto and numerous inscriptions and frescos on government buildings. It seems that they have a better understanding of the founders than the founders.
The difference between the two camps, liberal/statist (left) and conservative (right), is striking and profound at its foundations. We argue policy in the tree limbs among the leaves but understanding one another must be at the root level, it is there that the motivations and inclinations are birthed. Having already touched the left, the right usually agrees with the founders, that individuals have unalienable rights, i.e. God given natural rights. The left denies natural law and sees the state as the purveyor of rights and privileges. I have always marveled at the left’s confidence in the state, as if it was an entity divorced from human interaction. It is as if the left sees the state as a beneficent god, but the right recognizes it for what it is a human invention corruptible by humans. The right champions the individual while the left supports groups; to the left the individual’s function is to provide for the collective. The right sees government as the protector of individual rights, while the left sees the individual as function of the collective.
The contrast is so clear on the latest debate between left and right, Health Care. The left sees individuals objecting to what they consider the collective good. Therefore, they as a collective have no compunction against vilifying the individual, seeing it almost as an obligation to do so. The individual acting as an individual is detrimental to the collective and must quashed quickly. Voltaire’s edict “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it…” has no place in leftist’s discourse with dissenters. However, the right as a whole sees the individual defaming one of the right’s own, recognizes it as his right to do so, at least agrees with Voltaire, and is therefore more tolerant. (Did I just hear the left’s collective, boisterous, and shrill objection to the last two words? Anyone who claims that right is just as intolerant to dissent as the left is just not paying attention.) But the roots are even more fundamental than this, the right is theistic, however the individual himself wants to define it, and the left is humanistic, man centered, rooted in Darwinism, ignoring or denying theism as a viable influence for government.
However, Darwin is not always a friend to the left. Recently, this current Statist President “preached” a teleconference to over one hundred thousand religious leaders about the country and claimed the health care issue as “a core ethical and moral obligation.” On what grounds could he make such a claim? If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals? Darwinian “science” is simply that, a mechanism that somehow produced life and ultimately man. It can provide no moral guidance other than hypothesized natural selection which peels down to simply “survival of the fittest.” It is for this reason that the left must invoke God into the argument, to provide grounding for whatever it is they support. Indeed, this President did just that in almost the same breath, by invoking Biblical authority. “’I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,’ Obama said, invoking the frightening specter of the Ten Commandments.” Has he ever used such language before, “bearing false witness?” Why would he use it here? He was not only injecting Biblical authority into his speech, but he was also trying to maneuver those to whom he was addressing this manipulative tripe into favoring his position, this moralizing from the man who voted three times for withholding care from abortion survivors! The left sees no inconsistency in such a position because to them there are no absolutes, no clear right or wrong. Darwinism gives them no solid moral ground for anything they wish to pass legislatively. They can never have an answer to the question, “Why should we do this thing you ask?” The invocation of God from the left is never genuine and always manipulative because the root of their ideology is Darwinism and they must seem to have some foundation for their ethics and morals. They were forever incensed over President Bush’s faith and trust in God, yet, “…CBS News recently reported, Obama has thrown around the name of God even more often than George W. Bush. Then again, no group couches policy as a moral obligation more than the left.” I guess now it suits them.
One of the frequently used epithets hurled at individual objectors to leftist proposals is the word “racist.” If you are of a different ethnicity than this president and disagree with his policy, you must be racist, and, to use another frequently employed disparagement, a hate-monger. You must understand that to the left, disagreement always embodies hate, an individual cannot disagree with someone without hating him; it’s axiomatic. It is not so difficult to understand; the left hates the right and projects that hatred unto the right to reflect it back unto themselves, thereby being justified to hate the right and calling them hate-mongers. I hate you, therefore you must hate me. It’s like blaming the mirror for a huge zit on your nose.
I do not approve of the term “racist” being used to describe anyone; it is judgmental, incendiary, and almost always inappropriate. That being said, we should look are the political spectrum and see which ideology has the weightier moral authority to this epithet. Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.” Let us suppose that there are only three races of humans, the blues, the purples and the oranges. Evolutionarily speaking, one would have to come from a slightly sub-human ancestor at some point in time. Which one was it, the blues, the purples or the oranges? The odds of all three emerging at the same time would be too high to comprehend, so statistically, only one came forth first. Let’s say it was the blues (everyone knows they’re inferior). Over time, out of the blues came the purples slightly more advanced than the blues, and out of the purples once more over time came the oranges race, once more slightly advanced over either. Now these advances in the evolutionary scheme may be too slight for us to notice, beyond skin color anyway, but clearly since evolution advances a species, the one who emerged last is superior. Evolutionarily speaking, since the oranges are in fact slightly superior to the purples, which are slightly superior to the blues, racism is a fact! For the left then to call someone a racist, therefore, is to acknowledge him as one who recognizes Darwinian truth and it becomes a compliment to his enlightened state! So for the leftist to call anyone a “racist,” he is really displaying his ignorance if he means as a slander.
But conservatives as a whole do not hold to that ideology. Deep down conservatives recognize the folly of Darwinism and adhere at least philosophically to a Creator who addressed the issue in His instruction manual. The Bible tells us that God “…made from one man every nation of mankind…” “See! ‘… from one man!’” shouts the leftist, “That’s evolution!” Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness. So ask yourself the question, “What color is the image of God?” There is only one race of men, the human race and to deny that is to adhere to the suggested racism of Darwinism.
The left’s support of most things gay is well documented, and the homosexual community reciprocates as a block supporter of the leftist agenda. The animosity between the gay community and admittedly mostly right leaning individuals is unfortunate, regrettable, and unhealthy. I do not approve of the gay lifestyle on moral grounds, but I also recognize that my approval or disapproval means nothing to anyone but me. I would hope that all those engaging in homosexual activities for their own benefit would refrain, but do not wish to interfere in the private lives of anyone. What goes on behind closed doors is not my business. That being said, Darwin is not a friend of the homosexual.
We must follow the logic of Darwinism. Evolution is premised on natural selection and “survival of the fittest.” What is a ramification of “survival of the fittest?” In order for the species (not the individual) to survive they must produce offspring. If homosexuality as some militants proclaim is genetic, then their offspring would carry presumably recessive homosexual gene. But the vast majority of those in the gay community do not produce offspring simply be virtue of that lifestyle; same gender sex cannot produce children. The fact that they are capable does not overshadow the fact that the vast majority doesn’t. If, and must emphasis that, if homosexuality is genetic and no one can change their propensity for same gender sex, is this an advance of human evolution or an aberration? Just how long would the human race last if the entire population was homosexual?
Evolution is a very slow imperceptible process of change. The homosexual gene (if it exists at all) is just now being recognized through the appearance of the thriving gay community, even though there have been gays throughout human history. It does not yet manifest itself as a physical adjustment to the human race; it is now only a preferential expression. It could evolve over time, a long time, and those with the gene could become incapable of having offspring and that means the natural selection has selected the homosexual for extinction. What a horrific contemplation! What a detriment to humanity, the loss of the contributions possible. Disprove the logic, please! And I reject it to its minutia!
Many on the right, on the other hand, recognize the struggle many gays have, not as an irresistible compulsion, but a very strong preference environmentally entrenched in their lives. It is true that most belief-systems reject the lifestyle, but will accept the person who wishes to escape. It is also true that the right, like the left, has its share of intolerance toward anything different, and displays a level of ignorance that hurts not only him, but those with whom he associates. Unlike the left, however, many on the right are embarrassed by them.
That is why Darwinism is really no one’s friend or ally. It is morally bankrupt and ethically and ethnically repugnant. But it is still the root philosophy of leftist ideology. I believe that if most of those leaning left understood this, they would reject it outright. The hard core statist/liberal will never reject Darwinism until a more powerful antidote to theism is created, because theistic logic does not support the leftist agenda. You see, it’s not about misplaced compassion or an artificial sense of justice that drives the statist/liberal. It is control and power. That is why they have no qualms whatever of rejecting Darwinism for theism as it suits them, for the end justifies the means. That is the highest ethic for the left!
After thinking about this for a few weeks, I realize some may not appreciate this logic very much, but if taken to it's logical conclusion, that's where it goes. That is why Darwinian philosophy should be rejected, but to reject Darwin leaves only a form of theism for the left, and I believe they would rather believe in that nefarious thinking and overlook its conclusions. Being a Christian, I reject racism and the gay's dismal long term future. Darwinian philosophy is error! The logic I presented is there for all to see if they have the courage to admit it.
Senior Member
Long read but I liked it!
Senior Member
Long read...but yes....it was fantastic.
Super Moderator
I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.
A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.
"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”
Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.
Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.
"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”
No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.
The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.
"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.
Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.
We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.
Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.
Senior Member
this is a long read, but if you read it all, it will make sense. in your post I read where you touched on a couple points in this read. I found this interesting and hope it helps someone.Originally Posted by apb
http://www.kjvbible.org/exwords.html
Senior Member
Some of us old OLD farts still can recite the the pledge of allegiance. We weren't doing bad before that was added. The hand over the heart replaced the raised right arm something about a practise in the early 40s.
Senior Member
I remember saying it every morning before class started. standing and placing the hand over the Heart was done, to replace the salute, because the salute looked to much like the Nazi salute. here is a little history on the Pledge of Allegiance.
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Junior Member
I know enough about evolution to know that there are huge unexplained holes in it. Apb is correct in his summation in the first part of his reply, particularly that the study of biogenesis is the research into how life began. From my reading thus far, the research is not going well. "How organic wholes of this kind originally arose within an entirely inorganic environment remains a mystery." -Errol E. Harris So it is true that Darwinian Evolution only explains the diversity of life, not life itself. And of course, evolution is small change over time. But do not these small changes lead to speciation? Or maybe Apb believes in the theory of punctuated evolution where sometimes change has spurts of rapidity. As for his contention that Evolution is not a philosophy, I must take exception, it is the very definition of Philosophy garbed in the clothing of Science! Macro-evolution has never been observed, it operates to slowly to experiment upon, and the conclusions arrived at are speculative at best.
He misses my point completely on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics may be societal, just as the Nazi regime's morals and ethics. It is not that man cannot produce ethics without God, is it the the quality of those ethics, and the moral authority to implement them. Human ethics are relative and usually dangerous to some particular sub-set of society. If the best anchor for society is humanity, that sub-set faces a grave future.
"'Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.' No, they absolutely do not!" (from Apb above) I stand by my statement! His refutation is simply a description of the evolutionary process of how man became a man! Then he writes, "The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man." Interesting claim! (I agree with him on this point but we are discussing evolution) I fail to see where he has the luxury to avoid the evidence that leads to racism in his philosophy of life! Evolutionarily speaking, how can he claim there is only on race? Race is determined on a genetic level and there are slight differences genetically in the diversity of Humanity. To ignore that then he would have to ignore the great diversity of the canine species, there is only one race of dog! (I speak from the Darwinian perspective here) But looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, how can that be? Is it not possible that minute change within Homo sapiens could lead to a new branch off the current limb? It is undeniable that they is diversity within the Human race (Home sapiens). Are not these differences genetically generated? Are they not "small difference" and changes from the original appearance of Home sapiens from whatever his ancestor was? Did he not "evolve" from that ancestor incrementally, in tiny "advances"? Is it not possible that each divergent step could lead beyond Home sapiens to a "more evolved" superior creature? To say that the branch of humanity is "set" genetically is to deny the progression evolution has made from the very beginning. If the progressive divergent step does not make the one who has taken it superior to those who have not, then what are we talking about? If procreation between the divergent groups within Homo sapiens is still possible to day does not mean it will be possible a million years from now!
As to his argument aimed at the Book of Genesis, that there are two creation narratives, as an unbeliever he does not see the purpose behind them. Just as he accused me of ignorance of evolution and natural selection, I can lay the same accusation at his door when it comes to Biblical hermeneutics. He sees what he wants to see, just as he said of me and evolution. A closer examination of Genesis One and Two causes the differences to evaporate. For example, to use his example, Genesis One says this about the creation of man, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." (Vrs. 27) But Genesis Two says God created woman some time later. Where in Genesis One is the time frame given? Is Genesis One correct? Yes it is, did He not create both male and female? He is assuming many of the events around the creation of woman recorded in Genesis Two did not take place on the sixth day! Is it not possible that they did? How does he know that the information recorded in Genesis 2:5 do not revert to Genesis 1:9 time frame?
To may way of thinking Apb has done nothing to make me want to revise my original essay Bonefish published here. It is clear that Apb and I will never agree and just as I do not accept his argument, neither will he accept mine. I don't think He made his case. There are those who may still be on the fence about this argument, and it is for that reason the debate is good. He no doubt think I am an ignorant rube, a science denier, a religious fanatic, and that's okay. He is a lost soul groping in the dark trying to justify his atheism. My purpose is to bolster the faith of the believer and reassure him that all the barrage modern skepticism need not be overwhelming and is in fact a matter of faith as much as believing on God and the Bible is.
Charlie, Bonefish's neighbor and author of "The Unintended Darwin
GeoFisher liked this post
Senior Member
Senior Member
Before moses, before hamerabi there was a society and maybe before that, we may some day find out. Super human? what didn darwin know about the gnome? What did the ancients know about cloning? The tree anaology is right to an extent. St Patrick used a clover to explain the trinity, Wonder what he thought when someone showed him a 4 leaf clover? And then came the dumb part. That the left[liberal] is against God, and loves government. heres my take on this. Conservatives make rules for the liberals to live, and they choose to ignore the part of their law that they don't like. Prove me wrong. Thats the golden rule you got the gold you make the rule.
Senior Member
That's a different take! Ok I'll pick one... Gun Control. You know the Libs (not all of them) have pushed for this for years. Feinstein, obama, attorney general and scores of other Libs keep trying to impose their will and laws on us law abiding folks by citing crime stats that don't even back their personal agenda.
Heck there is a Bill right now dealing with conceal carry I think it's already being discussed on another thread. Conservatives in Congress are trying to unburden us law abiding legally licensed CCDW folks from restrictive laws in certain states.
Senior Member
Who has the majority of weapons? Usually the government. So how do you get to be a governor? Uh would wealth be a problem reaching that status? Would wealth be a problem maintaining that status? Gun control is not the answer to my question, I don't know what the answer is, hence "the golden rule which is?
Posting Permissions