Colson Praises PETA - Darwin Worldview

Christians who buy into Darwinian evolution need to understand what they are really saying: that their God considers them of no more value than a rat, or a pig, or a dog.

Great post. My suspicion is that Christian evolutionists are not really Christians but closet Darwinists passing themselves as Christians. Sorry, larrynormanfan. I always tell it like I see it.

Christians should consider that King David praised God over and over for having fearfully and wonderfully formed him in his mother’s womb. David believed it was all God’s handiwork (KJV), not the result of some blind process. And he was right.

Natural selection was anticipated by God and this is why He front-loaded the gene pool. Genes did not evolve; they were preloaded from the get go. It’s all the result of the awesome intelligence and unlimited goodness of God. David was a grateful man. Darwinism is the worst form of ingratitude that can exist, in my opinion. It is evil. The worship of animals instead of the Creator by the PETA organization is just as evil.

As an aside, why is it that every time I read something about PETA I feel like slaughtering a goat or a cow or some other farm animal and have a pit barbecue over beer with some friends?

Warning, oxymoron ahead:

Christian evolutionist.

That’s absolutely right. Don’t they all realize? Do they all really deny that atheism = religious dogma? Think about Richard Dawkins: he says the atheist’s raison d’etre is to abolish religious doctrine, but they all revere darwin!

Mapou,

you said

“Christians who buy into Darwinian evolution need to understand what they are really saying: that their God considers them of no more value than a rat, or a pig, or a dog.”

I think this is an example of not understanding the other’s position. The Christians who accept Darwinism believe they worship a more powerful God than the one that ID seems to indicate. ID points to a stumbling, bumbling God who cannot shoot straight and has to constantly intervene to correct the situation. Their God is truly omnipotent as opposed to the ID God who couldn’t figure out a way to get it done from the start.

I just tried to put it in stark terms what accepting ID means as far as God. Similarly, the TE’s are mostly ignorant and condescending of those who espouse ID. They refuse to address the science or evidence and wish away any inconsistencies with the scientific evidence. They have actually written several books on evolution but each is a distortion of what is out there and they refuse to acknowledge their distortions.

So essentially each side has disdain for the other and will not consider the other side’s position. The TE’s are more interested in theology than the ID people are. They constantly talk about it. Go to the ASA website which is a bunch of scientists and most of the topics are about theology.

Here at UD theology is verboten because you could get little agreement on anything and little desire by many to discuss it. Food fights would break out quickly and would destroy ID as theology free.

If Darwinism—which we teach in the schools—is true, then they are right: Slaughtering and eating animals is just as bad as the Holocaust.

That is natural selection- according to Darwinism.

And that means we can rid ourselves of many ridiculous laws.

But anyway what is the difference between a “God” that creates via genetic accidents and no “God” at all?

That would be a question to ask Ken Miller when he is on the witness stand.

“And the real tragedy is that people like PETA are more faithful in following their worldview than many Christians are in following ours.”

It seems to me that one of the most important lessons of the Darwinist phenomenon is that unshakeable faith in a worldview is not a good thing.

Joseph,

you said

“But anyway what is the difference between a “God” that creates via genetic accidents and no “God” at all?”

I believe many of them would say, a lot because God is either affecting the genetic accidents or set up initial conditions that would eventually channel all genetic accidents toward a desired end. No smoking gun, but that is what you would expect from an omnipotent God.

Which is the more powerful God?

One who constantly intervenes to change the ship’s course.

One who constantly intervenes in the background to keep the ship’s course on target.

One who sets the ship’s course at the start and and knows that it will reach its target without any further intervention. Except possibly the breathing in of a soul.

Now the question is what is the start? Is it pre Big Bang, or is at the origin of life. You could argue that the TE’s say it is pre Big Bang and the front loading proponents say it is at the origin of life.

Now how all this plays out via the Fall and the redemption via Christ is theology and not part of ID and is best not discussed here. But before we condemn the TE’s we had better be able to understand the differences between the ID God and the TE God which is as much philosophical as theological.

DaveScot, the verse you quote is Genesis 1:29. But it’d be a little unfair to look only at that one while ignoring God’s words to Noah just a few chapters later:

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. — Genesis 9:3

Sure, maybe that was a concession on God’s part post-Fall. But steak tastes soooooo good!

I always find the PETA point of view of speciesism as contradictory. Are not plants species? And who is to judge that animals such as slugs are better than a rose. Are we all confined to ingesting chemicals to survive? That would be the only non-contradictory PETA position.

I always find the PETA point of view of speciesism as contradictory. Are not plants species? And who is to judge that animals such as slugs are better than a rose. Are we all confined to ingesting chemicals to survive? That would be the only non-contradictory PETA position.

PETA is hoisted by its own PETARD. It’s a pathology, a psychiatric disorder, like bipolar disorder or something of that nature.

DaveScot: Satan’s influence would be my guess. Try roasting corn instead.

LOL. Funny. Corn has feelings too, you know.

jerry: “Are we all confined to ingesting chemicals to survive?”

Spoken like a true Organicist!!.

PETA unfairly excludes rocks from their comparison. Special Pleading?…

Actually, Colson is right if ethics were made sense from a Darwinian standpoint. But as evolution is about wholesale death, making way for the one true improved species, ethics itself is a bit strained by Darwinian processes.

Ethics becomes a balancing process by which you only have to preserve those species and members of those species that actually help you and yours continue. It is the lacks of definition in this that becomes “bio-diversity”–and “equality” among humans.

What’s forgotten is the competition for resources. Therefore, if a boy (more likely his adult form) helps me survive better than a rat, a rat is not a boy. Because only a species ability to leverage that being into–or enjoy, from that being–an asset of survival ultimately matters.

It is the rejection of the predatory behavior of Man that actually has only detachment from reality. If we were predatory before Darwin, then clearly it could only be by the glorious blind process of evolution.

What the anti-teleologists seem to be saying at every turn is that blind is good, creative, …clever, effective, and capable of everything which is. Why fight progress?

In this case, PETA represents not an adjustment to Darwinianism but an extreme Pollyanna-ism to an academic point of absurdity. But it’s kind of an Argument from Ignorance, we rely on something on the basis of what we cannot prove.

DLH,

First of all I have not say what I believe here. So personally I am not claiming anything. I am just the messenger of what others have said and believe and which people here should understand before they condemn.

I believe your sentence

“You are describing one who appears impotent, not omnipotent.”

would be expressed by the TE’s as

“You are describing One who appears impotent at first glance, but actually One who is incredibly omnipotent when all the evidence is considered.”

Jerry at 5:

Here at UD theology is verboten because you could get little agreement on anything and little desire by many to discuss it. Food fights would break out quickly and would destroy ID as theology free.

I wish there were more ID here. When I look at the front page, the only posts that mention ID are a joke from Dr. Finch and a post on whether Senator McCain supports it.

—-Jerry: ” But before we condemn the TE’s we had better be able to understand the differences between the ID God and the TE God which is as much philosophical as theological.”

Jerry: that the whole point: Ken Miller’s God is less powerful, less logical, and less Biblical that Michael Behe’s God.

There is nothing logical about a purposeful, mindful, God who decides to use a purposeless, mindless process. Such an approach would mislead the scientist from the get go. In fact, the whole scientific enterprise began in earnest when researchers believed that they “were thinking God’s thoughts after him.” God left clues through design, meaning that we live in a rational universe. God created rational minds, a rational universe, and a correspondence between the two. In order to discover truth, a rational mind must come into correspondence with a rational universe that was DESIGNED TO CORRESPOND WITH IT.

Thus, when you rule out design, the entire rational enterprise immediately collapses and there is no way back from it. Miller might as well say, indeed, he must say, that our rationality, the correspondence principle, and the rational universe (which, as it turns out, would make the whole thing irrational) all occurred through contingency. Further, our souls, composed of intellect and will, had to evolve as well. That rules out the Christian teaching of our first parents. That’s bad theology not good theology. Again, Miller’s Church (Catholic) rules out any such scenario.

Now, according to Dembski (and all the great philosophers) there are only three explanations for all the events that we witness—law (necessity), chance (contingency) , and intelligent agency (design). Someone needs to explain to me why a God who allows himself to create only through contingency is more powerful than a God who chooses to create through necessity, contingency, and design. Which God is more powerful, a God who can use all three, or a God who can use only one? Or, even if God chose to create only through contingency, why does that make him more powerful simply because he chose not to use the other two processes. In my judgment, a God who leaves clues is much more powerful, more reasonable, and more accessible that a God who doesn’t. Someone needs to provide a better argument than Miller’s to convince me that I am wrong.

Indeed, even Miller’s religious instincts are not very well informed. In order to accommodate Darwin, Miller must negate the teaching of Scripture. According to the Bible, the creator has left evidence of his handiwork. Darwinism, of course, insists that there is no such evidence, or that the evidence is an illusion. Now there is no law that says a Darwinist must believe in Scripture, of course, but Miller says he is a Catholic. Thus, he is militating against his own testimony about being a Christian, because a Christian by definition is someone who believes in the Bible.

How can this be attributed to a Darwinist view?
On one hand people are saying that a Darwinist view causes eugenics, and on the other hand some of the same people are saying that the Darwinist view causes PETA to avoid harming any form of animal life. This seems like the opposite of “natural selection” to me.

Colson writes,

To a Darwinist, you see, there is no distinction between human beings and animals. We all came about by chance; we are made of the same “stuff,” and we all end up as nothing more than dust. Instead of recognizing humans as bearers of God’s image, Darwinism sees us as nothing more than competitively successful bipeds with opposable thumbs. Forget any talk of human dignity.

I think Colson is totally wrong about what evolution implies. But that’s not my point. Nor am I interested in the chain of responses about whether people like me can be real Christians. Whether Mapou thinks a person can be a Christian Darwinist (or whether StephenB, in earlier threads, thinks a person can be a Christian Democrat), or any of the other supposed contradictions — this is of no consequence to me. The Gospel is not about those things, and such people are not my judge.

My point is this: Colson’s statement should have nothing to do with ID. I keep hearing on this board that ID is supposed to be non-religious, that the designer could be non-supernatural. Now for my part, I think that’s a fig leaf: none of the major players in ID take that seriously. (I don’t mean you, DaveScot: I mean the published ID authors.) If the designer does not need to be supernatural, then an IDist could very easily hold the very same view of humanity that Colson attributes to Darwinism. If, for example, it’s just an alien form that created life on earth. It’s even quite possible if the designer is supernatural, since ID says nothing, to my knowledge, about the soul: only about what’s required for life.

Or has somebody calculated the CSI of the soul?

jerry:

“The Christians who accept Darwinism believe they worship a more powerful God than the one that ID seems to indicate. ID points to a stumbling, bumbling God who cannot shoot straight and has to constantly intervene to correct the situation. Their God is truly omnipotent as opposed to the ID God who couldn’t figure out a way to get it done from the start”

Well, I am aware that you are just trying to understand another point of view, and that’s quite fair, but still I would like to comment, perhaps a little less fairly, on that comcept.

I agree with you that here in the ID field we don’t, or at least we should not, become involved in theology. I try never to forget that ID is a purely empirical and scientifical theory. I believe that and try to put it into practice. But still, once we accept the evidence of design, it is perfectly correct to build models about the designer(s).

Leaving alone, for the moment, the perfectly adequate models implying physical designers (ETs and similar), there is obviously the possibility that the designer be a non physical, intelligent being, who happens to be not only the designer of biological information (which is the proper issue of ID), but also the designer of the whole physical universe (about which a strong argument for design can anyway be made in the ID framework). Now, that’s the idea with which those of us who believe in a God are already familiar.

If God is the Designer, the possible models for introducing design, as far as I can understand, are the following:

1) Theistic evolution: I put that at number one, just because I really don’t think it is a model of design implementation. For me, TE is only a way of innaturally saving one’s belief in a God, once one has accepted darwinian evolution. Here I can’t compromise: if God creates through darwinian evolution, He really seems useless as a God: although Dawkins and company may have a high estimate of darwinian evolution, I don’t see how we require a God just to set up a universe where the only significant contribution of divine intelligence consists in setting up the premises for it, and then “occasionally” breath in a few souls. I have no sympathy for this concept. It is ugly, irrational, useless.

2) Front-loading hypotheses, in all their varieties: perfectly adequate ID models. I don’t believe in any of them, but that’s just my point of view.

3) Full interventional models. That’s the real ID stuff, in my opinion. And yet, there are very different possible models in this category. As for me, I believe that God intervenes in the world practically always, and my only problem is to try to understand, from empirical evidence, if we have any clue about how the specific intervention of implementing biological complexity takes place.

But, after this long premise, let’s get back to the problem of the “power” of God. I don’t agree that the role of God is only to “set up” the ship and then hope, or just be sure and wait, that it goes the right way. That is, for me, a very reductive and mechanicistic way of conceiving a God.

I think that God is out of time and space, and that He loves his ship, He loves creating it, and that creation does not happen at a certain moment (be it big bang or else) and then God has something else to do and is there waiting and/or hoping that everything will work, or rather adjusting things if it is necessary. God is always there. His act of creation is not limited in time or space. The whole universe is His intelligent act, not only at the beginning, but always.

So, again, a God who needs to “input” everything in the beginning is, in my opinion, really not so powerful, because the only reason to do that is if you then lose connection with your ship, with your loved ones, with your work of art. But if God is omnipresent and omnipotent, He is always there, with His Love, Power, and Intelligence, and everything can happen according to His Design and His Will, whose modalities aand laws it is our duty to try to understand, even, as far as it is possible, at a scientific level.

Which one of these is Jesus? Anyone?

Holy smokes, Dave. I never figured you for some hippy-dippy vegetarian. You never cease to amaze me.

Front-loading hypotheses, in all their varieties: perfectly adequate ID models. I don’t believe in any of them, but that’s just my point of view.

What is there not to believe? Even Darwinian natural selection assumes that a feature must already exist in order for it to be selected. To me, that’s what front-loading is all about. As an example, does anybody deny that the genes that code for a Chihuahua existed millions of years ago in wolves?

That’s a big problem for Darwinism, in my opinion. How can evolution create random genes millions of years before they are expressed so as to be tested via natural (or unnatural) selection? Yet those genes are perfectly suited for a future environment such as the home.

DS,

I’m not sure what’s wrong with the hunter picture. What’s the difference between that and a smiling family around a table with a steaming hot plate of baby-backs or prime rib? IMO, the only difference is where you go for your dead animal (Albertson’s or the woods), and how long it takes to clean up.

PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals

It appears that PETA is an oxymoron:

PETA Killed 97 Percent of ‘Companion Animals’ in 2006, According to VDACS

Death toll up to 17,400; overdue report describes PETA’s deadliest year ever

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency’s deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it’s perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 “companion animals” in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.

“Pet lovers should be outraged,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans’ support. PETA is not one of them.”

In courtroom testimony last year, a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.

Today in Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face felony charges in a dog-napping case. Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA’s Norfolk headquarters.

“PETA raised over $30 million last year,” Martosko added, “and it’s using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA’s hypocrisy is simply staggering.”

To speak with a spokesman contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.

For more information about PETA’s massive euthanasia program, visit http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com.

Website: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
Website: http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com/ 

jerry,

It is rather interesting to watch the responses to my being the messenger trying to convey one side’s thoughts in this debate. Who are you trying to convince? Yourselves, me, others here or the TE’s who are probably not reading this because they have disdain for ID. All I am saying is before you condem, understand the other side because the TE’s consider themselves religious and I don’t doubt that.

A large number of Christians have a view of evolution that is design oriented but it plays out in different ways than what is usually espoused here. They also argue a lot as to how it plays out.

What they are saying is that the design was implemented in the initial conditions of the Big Bang and what followed was the result of law and these initial conditions. Or it could have been placed in the origin of life and then the laws determined all the rest. There is not reliance on contingency for anything major only design and law and the laws were designed. So it is all design. Forget about chance, contingency etc. Design rules them all in the initial conditions and the design of the laws which then govern the outcomes.

Another group don’t think the omnipotent God is this omnipotent and must guide the change by affecting the little things which then become the big things. So the mutations are not pure chance but guided which is by definition design.

Each would play out as if there were no obvert guidance but would in fact be incredibly well designed. And they believe reflect a truly omnipotent God.

Again all I am doing is trying to restate their opinions. I do not believe this is how it happened because the forensic evidence does not support it.

I suggest all read Cornelius Hunter’s book, “Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism.” He discusses much of this and Hunter is pro ID.

MO, the only difference is where you go for your dead animal (Albertson’s or the woods)

I had a couple of friends, one of whom grew up in a large city and the other on a dairy farm. When the country boy asked the city boy where he thought his steak came from, the response was “the supermarket, wrapped in cellophane.” Some things are better just not thought about.

Somehow I got may name stuck in the first line and didn’t notice it in my last post.

toc: PETA Killed 97 Percent of ‘Companion Animals’ in 2006, According to VDACS

So PETA is a big fraud, a con game being played at the expense of weak-minded people, eh? Why am I not surprised? So what’s next, PETRA (People for the Ethical Treament of Robots and Animals)? Unplugging your computer will be punishable by law?

jerry:

“Again all I am doing is trying to restate their opinions. I do not believe this is how it happened because the forensic evidence does not support it.”

That sums up pretty well my position too. It is the evidence, first of all, which falsifies TE models, at the same time that it falsifies darwinian evolution.

As I said, I appreciate you goodwill in trying to understand the reasons of others. I don’t want to convince anyone. I was just stating that, besides being falsified by ID related evidence, TE is “also” a theory which I personally dislike for its philosophical and religious connotations. In other words, in my opinion, it is both a scientifically false and philosophically bad theory. But the “philosophical” part is obviously a personal point of view.

Mapou:

“What is there not to believe?”

I don’t believe that biological information was implemented in the beginning (be it OOL or big bang, or any beginning you like to pick), and then just developed by “natural”, blind laws. I do believe that biological information has been continuously implemented in the history of our planet, more or less gradually (I really have no final ideas about that) and with modalities which are still to discover. In other words, I do believe in a progressive increase of the information observable in living beings, and that the increase is always realized with the input of new designed information. That’s different, as far as I understand, from any front-loading hypothesis.

DaveScot:

I really appreciate your defense of animals. Although I have no sympathy for organizations like PETA, I believe that love and compassion for all sentient beings are a distinct mark of true spirituality. That can include or not strict vegetarianism, and I am not criticizing anyone here, but useless cruelty against animals is not certainly an attitude I appreciate.

Dave, I can’t believe you are using the Bible to defend your aversion to killing animals for food. Consider this:

When Jesus resurrected Lazarus, he instructed that he should be given strong meat.

Once, after Jesus told Peter to cast his fishing net in a particular place, Peter caught so many fish, he could not pull the net into the boat.

The Passover meal (which Jesus, being a Jew, partook of) consists of eating a sacrificed spotless lamb. Wasn’t the last supper was a Passover meal? Yep. Jesus himself symbolized the stainless (sinless) Passover lamb according to Christian doctrine.

Worse, according to Mosaic law, the Passover lamb had to be brought inside the house for 30 days before being sacrificed. So imagine the whole family getting used to the cute little lamb like a lovable pet and then see it killed. This, by the way, symbolizes that Jesus lived 30 years among man before being sacrificed for our sins. And we should all be grateful. Biblical front-loading, if you will.

The way I see it, animals are spiritless living creatures, just like trees. A dog is no more conscious than an ant, regardless of its seemingly conscious behavior. I predict that animal-like behavior will indeed be duplicated in machines. Are we going to feel sorry for our machines too? I’m sure that many will feel compassion (or hatred) for their computers when AI gets to that point. I feel sorry for those people.

Yes, we are to respect life but life feeds on life. That’s the way it has always been. The God that I worship would never let us kill animals for food knowing that they are conscious like us humans. I, too, believe in a compassionate God.

Mapou:

“The way I see it, animals are spiritless living creatures, just like trees. A dog is no more conscious than an ant, regardless of its seemingly conscious behavior. I predict that animal-like behavior will indeed be duplicated in machines.”

I respectfully disagree with you, but I don’t want to be engaged in a theological dispute.

Anyway, my two pretty cats seem to disagree too…

—–Jerry: “It is rather interesting to watch the responses to my being the messenger trying to convey one side’s thoughts in this debate. Who are you trying to convince? Yourselves, me, others here or the TE’s who are probably not reading this because they have disdain for ID. All I am saying is that before you condem, understand the other side because the TE’s consider themselves religious and I don’t doubt that.”

Jerry, I don’t hold you accountable in any way for the TE formulation. All I am saying is that I have honored you standard: I do understand their position and Hunter’s account of their motives, otherwise I wouldn’t presume to criticize them. What makes you think that I haven’t given it due consideration? Indeed, it is that understanding that shapes the precise texture of my criticism.

In my earlier post (18), I showed that their position is irrational even before the discussion of evidence is introduced. So far, no one from their camp or our camp as refuted my arguments. So, as far as I am concerned, the modern version of TE cannot be reconciled with the principles of right reason.

Indeed, the very term theistic evolution is, for them, and us, a misnomer. True theistic evolution, in the traditional sense, always meant that God directed the evolutionary process. They have hijacked that term and redefined it as a non-directed evolutionary process, and we have let them get away with it. When they refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists, they create the illusion of believing in a directed process while positing a non-directed process. We encourage that kind of duplicity each time we honor them with the term. We should be calling them DURFC’s, “Darwinists who Use Religion For Cover.” For them, Darwin is the thing; God is only a footnote. As I have explained, their theological justification is no justification at all because it doesn’t make any sense.

I am not arguing to persuade them, because I consider them to be impervious to reason. I am interested in reaching the undecided onlookers, those who may not know how irrational modern TE really is. Miller and co. recruit Christians into their camp every day under the misapprehension that Christianity is compatible with Darwinism. It isn’t. They are doing much more harm to the ID movement than Richard Dawkins could ever dream of doing. I say we challenge them. If someone can show me where I am wrong, I will retract everything I have ever said. And yes, we will have to discuss religion, because they are the one’s who brought it up with the term Christian “evolutionists.” If they are going to raise theological and philosophical objections, then I must be free to refute them on philosophical and theological grounds.

DaveScot: You better get your believer fixed in that case because I most do use the bible to defend having compassion for other living things in this world.

It’s obvious that you do but the sacrificed Passover lamb was not supposed to be a make-believe animal. It was a real flesh and blood animal. For the record, I don’t condone the mistreatment of animals but it’s mostly for the sake of us humans. Someone who enjoys mistreating animals is likely to be mean to humans as well.
I have pets and I love them.

What a striking lack of compassion. I officially and openly despise you now and it is my fervent wish that you burn in hell. You represent what I hate most in the world. Any respect I had for you has completely vanished.

ahahaha… Are you kidding me or are you an asteroid orifice for real?

DaveScott: I doubt you care but know it nonetheless.

You’re right. I don’t really care.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, you too.

DaveScott: Do you “love” your toaster and washing machine too?

Not as much as my computer or my cats. It’s a matter of degree.

Careful with asteroid orifice comments. I’ve banned for less.

Yeah, Dave. I’m trembling with fear. You’re a psycho, dude. Ban this!

StevenB,

I do not think the TE’s think evolution is a chance affair. You point to Miller but to me Miller is a fraud because he makes a couple hundred thousand a year off his charade. If he undermined Darwinian processes, his textbook sales would quickly taper off and a new author would arise. I doubt he has started a lecture or presentation with these facts that might affect his judgment. Mrs. Miller wouldn’t let him. There is too much money at stake.

You said you are a Catholic and many in the Catholic Church accept Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life’s progress. I doubt if you would say they are not religious. I do not buy this wholesale attribution to their motives. I am not denying that Darwinism has an affect of people’s thinking and beliefs but it is not the only thing in play.

Also one thing that is different from what you said is that I said it is not chance they believe in but a guided process. Your quote is

“They have hijacked that term and redefined it as a non-directed evolutionary process”

I don’t think they believe the process is non directed and that humans are the result of chance. At least I haven’t seen any who said that. But I haven’t read them all.

I happen to believe that the thinking will change on Darwin in the general public as soon as ID embraces a more thorough theory of evolution that in completely in sync with the data. But now ID has too much baggage to be take seriously by serious thinkers. It is so easily marginalized.

The sacrifice of an animal for the benefit of the living is meant to be an act that conveys gravity. Never should it be a conscienceless act, IMO. The Bible bears this out.

While I don’t share Dave’s “burn in hell” wish, nor his notion that the Bible denounces meat eating (nor the image of Jesus Photoshopped into a Bambi scene) for those of us who choose to eat meat we should take note of what our life costs: shed blood.

In reality not only does the Bible permit the slaughter of animals for food, it is required of some (Exodus 12, Leviticus 23).

Genesis 3:21 hints that the first animal sacrifice was an act of God. Genesis 4 points to Abel’s offering of animals as superior to Cain’s of fruit.

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was replaced by a Ram, provided by God (Genesis 22).

Jesus ate the Passover meal (Luke 22:15).

It’s more than noteworthy that Paul communicated to the Roman church that eating meat was permissible, however abstaining was superior — although not for the animal’s sake, but for your brother’s (Romans 14:6,21)

If you can accept Paul’s teaching, then judge neither the eating of meat, nor the abstaining (Romans 14:10).

Apollos: If you can accept Paul’s teaching, then judge neither the eating of meat, nor the abstaining (Romans 14:10).

Yeah, I agree. I don’t condemn animal lovers who refuse to eat meat but how much love and compassion can one have for the trillions of living bacteria that one has in one’s guts and on one’s body? We kill them as fast as they replicate. By the trillions! LOL.

Dave, your penchant for irreverent satire surprises (and surpasses) even mine.
And people think I’m a smart *** (hee-haw!).

Of course, the above image of Christ playing with little animals playing in Bambi’s magical forest is nonsensical and an invention
or Medieval philosophers, who also by the way made Christ look more like a Caucasian in a leathery tunic.

He was probably kinda rough looking, named called people once in while (calling the Pharisees the vipers—-and devils!), and probably no more a pansy
of the type the Unitarians hold than, say, well—-maybe a little like Dave Scot over on PTET’s little funhouse Dominatrix site. Christ certainly showed compassion but also stood up to people too. Tough and tender. (Kinda like my wife says about me too every Valentine’s Day!)

What about lamb feasting, Solomon’s temple feasts, the wedding of Cana (where some wine flowed too!), and Esau’s hunting of deer and
all the mentions of animals sacrifice and the fact that pigs are nasty but cows are yummy?

I hope all here understand that “thou shalt not kill” is best translated from Hebrew as MURDER. Else I can not so much go into a Chick-fil-A ever again.

God certainly DOES have a hierarchy in life. Only man examines the condition of the soul, or can sin, or be noble of spirit. Other forms of life are set on instinctual autopilot. All life is precious, yes, just that some is more noble than others. Apes don’t type out their thoughts and ants don’t ponder the meaning of jurisprudence and waterboarding, nor cows the efficacy of Richard Dawkin’s multimillion book deals. (Though Dawkins certainly thinks apes are akin to people).

As to this other issue-Christ referred to Adam as a real man in the original lingual context. If that is not the case and the Garden is merely some marvelous allegory about the evolution of life but “planned” by God, then it has no meaning for Scripture elsewhere, wherein everything related to sacrfice and redeeming the Fall becomes utterly meaningless. Thus Christ died for Roman kicks–and little more. Certainly not for sins, as under the Adamic lesson being false this is now pure myth.

For Christian evolutionists, then–what is your squaring of all this, ie. , why would Christianity hold any promise other than some really VAUGE notion of God-talk about ultimate origins of the Big Bang and the like and getting past the “long odds” of existence?

DLH, you write:

ID can observe evidence of intelligent design, and from that infer an intelligent designer. This it can consider human beings to be similar to that intelligent designer and distinct from animals.

So our human dignity derives from our ability to observe design itself? That’s laughable. For one thing, you have no way of knowing for sure that animals do not infer design. You’re going round your arse to get to your elbow. Face it: Colson’s tortured caricature is really about the claims of Christianity, not about the (misrepresented) claims of evolution. If ID can’t say that the designer is spiritual, there’s nothing in ID that leads to a view of human dignity.

—–Jerry: “You said you are a Catholic and many in the Catholic Church accept Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life’s progress. I doubt if you would say they are not religious. I do not buy this wholesale attribution to their motives. I am not denying that Darwinism has an affect of people’s thinking and beliefs but it is not the only thing in play.”

I don’t know how religious so-called Catholic Darwinists are. All I know is that they are not rational and that they are destructive to intelligent design. The Catholic Church teaches that, if evolution is true, [a] it must be guided and [b] it cannot be materialistic. Darwinism fails on both accounts. So, if the TE’s are going to be consistent Catholics, Darwin has got to go. I have no idea what their motives are, and I don’t care. Cornelius Hunter cares; I don’t. I only care about their irrational public posture.

The Catholic Darwinists like Miller, Barr, and Haught cannot have it both ways. As a general rule, they avoid discussion on the subject of guided vs. unguided because they don’t want to be held accountable. In fact, Miller used the word non-guided in his textbooks until he got caught, then he changed it to guided. He may have changed it back again. I can’t keep up with his duplicity. Barr seems to think that the terms are too ambiguous to be meaningful. How convenient. I believe that Haught is firmly in the non-guided camp. Indeed, they all must be in the unguided camp because Darwinism means unguided by definition. A guided evolution unfolds and adapts; an unguided evolution only adapts. If it is unfolding in any way, it was obviously “designed” to unfold. Under the circumstances, the design would be potentially detectable.

To believe in a guided, front loaded evolution is to believe in design, plain and simple. To deny design in life is to deny that the process was directed. Unless, of course, one wants to take the incredible TE position that the evolutionary process was “designed” specifically not to be detected. Again, I hate the term TE, because, as I explained it is a misnomer, implying purpose and direction. TE’s believe in no such thing. Like Darwin, they all believe that design is an illusion, which means that they believe in an unguided process. If they believed evolution was a guided process, they would be supporting ID rather than militating against it. Indeed, Barr seems to take the incredible position that the design is in the non-designed, random, evolutionary process. I don’t care about their motives or their alleged religion, except that they are always appealing to it to fend off the charge that they are Darwinist ideologues. If they turned loose of even one essential element of Darwinism, they would be in the ID camp.

I must say, though, I don’t think Hunter has zeroed in on the real problem here. As I have written on other blogs, these scientists have all been beguiled by the Kantian error. In effect, they don’t think the human mind can PERCEIVE design in the universe. They think it can only be CONCEIVED. They consider design to be a mental construct, rather than a true intellectual inference. In other words, like the Darwinists that they are, they consider the design inference to be a tautology. That, it seems to me, is the real problem.