But how can evolution be “wrong”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2019

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It by [FernÃ¡ndez-Armesto, Felipe]

Concluding a review of Felipe Fernández-Armesto’s Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It,
philosopher John Gray writes,

Most puzzling in this fascinating compendium of ideas is Fernández-Armesto’s own idea that human imagination is an immaterial faculty. “Human intelligence,” he avers, “is probably fundamentally unmechanical: there is a ghost in the human machine.” Again, he is not the first to suggest that the human mind may not be wholly explicable in mechanical terms. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of modern evolutionary theory, believed the human animal emerged via natural selection but at some point acquired higher mental powers from a non-natural source. Having studied animal minds and emotions, Darwin was horrified by Russel Wallace’s suggestion. What was at stake for Darwin was not just his own theory, which was meant to include the human mind. It was the idea of science itself, which – though he never unequivocally rejected theism – he thought meant explaining events in the world by reference to natural processes within it. Whether Fernández-Armesto rejects this idea of science is unclear.
The puzzle is deepened by his observation that most ideas are bad or wrong or both. If what makes humans unique is the power of seeing what is not there, what makes them so destructive is that they believe what they have seen to be real. Untold millions have killed and died for the sake of dreams – gods, utopias, visions of the past or future – conjured up in the imagination. The ancient Gnostics, discussed by Fernández-Armesto when he considers the origins of Christianity, believed a malignant deity or “demiurge” had consigned human beings to a lower world of ghosts and phantasms. It’s an entertaining metaphysical speculation. But perhaps we should consider the more mundane possibility that in the course of its evolution something went badly wrong with the human brain. The destructive power of ideas may have a natural explanation. There may be no ghost in the human machine, simply some crossed wires we cannot untangle.
John Gray, “The perils of the human imagination” at New Statesman

Well, it’s important to know whether there is a “ghost in the human machine” vs. “crossed wires we cannot entangle” because the ghost may be acting badly. But evolution caan’t go “badly wrong.” Ain’t no such animal.

Comments

Seversky as quoted by SA at 38
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival.
At least that is the 'just-so story' that Seversky would rather believe in than believe in God, but the real world empirical evidence of the situation is a far cry from the bed-time story Seversky wants to believe in. In fact, not only is Seversky's materialistic worldview completely amoral, i.e. blind pitiless indifference,,,
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins
,,,not only that, but when coupled with Darwin's ‘survival of the fittest’ principle,,,
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
,,,when coupled with Darwin's ‘survival of the fittest’ principle, Seversky's materialistic Darwinian worldview is not only amoral but becomes downright anti-moral, and even actually provides yet another empirical falsification of Darwin's theory. Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html
And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
Moreover, the falsification of ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking goes even deeper than that. If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort, would be highly superfluous and even detrimental to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found. And they even stated that “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs
Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
Darwin’s theory simply has no explanation for such altruistic behavior from microorganisms, (much less for altruistic behavior in humans), and in fact such behavior is completely contrary to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that lays at the heart of Darwin’s theoretical framework. And according to a falsification criteria that was laid down by Darwin himself, these findings, (and several other findings like these), falsifies Darwin's theory as a viable scientific theory. Thus, Seversky can tell himself as many bedtime stories as he wants as to how man's innate moral sense came about, but as far as the science itself is concerned, Seversky's bed-time stories do not even get out of the starting gate in regards to being scientifically credible.bornagain77_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Seversky
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival.
That's a reasonable explanation but I do not see that a goal of evolution is the survival of a group but rather, there are no goals and that mutations and selection pressures merely allow the fittest to dominate. The fact that a group survives or not is not a goal for evolution. I also do not see that human moral systems are oriented to the survival of a group. Again, evolution is not about survival alone but also reproductive success, and moral norms (against rape, polygamy) often limit that aspect of what evolution would obtain. Animals, for example, do not appear to need any moral norms in order to compete and survive and reproduce. They will either continue as a group or become extinct. Evolution does care either way and the animals don't either.Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Seversky
Evolution is a theory in biology not ethics.
Ethics comes from somewhere other than biology? Perhaps from some immaterial cause or source?
It is concerned with describing and explaining how life is, not how it should be.
Evolution is not merely a theory, it is supposedly the process that created human life. Evolution does not "explain" how things are or should be, instead it Created how they are and how they "should be" is how evolution made them to be.
Categorizing an act as an atrocity is a moral judgment made by humans about human behavior which, as far as we can tell, only we as humans are capable of here on Earth.
The fact that we make such judgements argues against an evolutionary origin.
If a society has developed rules of behavior which protect the majority from the depredations of the few that would ignore the rights and well-being of their fellows then the bonds which hold that society together are strengthened by that amount.
It is assuming that evolution occurs in order to hold society together. You're supplying some purpose and direction to evolution, which the process does not have. Populations compete with each other and even have competition within their own ranks. The most fit might survive, or not. Evolution does not care. The existence of morals and ethics, for reasons you've given (which conflict with evolutionary patterns) are arguments against evolutionary origins of human beings.Silver Asiatic_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 33
In Darwinian belief, there are no atrocities. But you’re saying that humans have a set of rules (reference?) which conflict with evolutionary outcomes. I see that as a conflict between human reason and evolutionary processes, and therefore, one cannot be the outcome of the other. In any case, evolution always has a problem explaining why products of evolution (humans) create rules that frustrate evolutionary processes.
Evolution is a theory in biology not ethics. It is concerned with describing and explaining how life is, not how it should be. Categorizing an act as an atrocity is a moral judgment made by humans about human behavior which, as far as we can tell, only we as humans are capable of here on Earth. If a society has developed rules of behavior which protect the majority from the depredations of the few that would ignore the rights and well-being of their fellows then the bonds which hold that society together are strengthened by that amount.Seversky_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 13
Humans have different moral systems. Supposedly, these all emerged from biological processes. But the fact that humans attempt to create moral norms to regulate behavior, is an argument against evolutionary-origins, since there is no need for moral systems in the animal kingdom, for example.
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival.Seversky_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Mimus_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

BB
It’s a good thing that humans have decided to establish a set of rules that everybody is expected to follow, and punish those who don’t.
In Darwinian belief, there are no atrocities. But you're saying that humans have a set of rules (reference?) which conflict with evolutionary outcomes. I see that as a conflict between human reason and evolutionary processes, and therefore, one cannot be the outcome of the other. In any case, evolution always has a problem explaining why products of evolution (humans) create rules that frustrate evolutionary processes.Silver Asiatic_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Comically my last statement about saying we could hate them together is also wrong as that does not follow with the teachings of Christ and I need to love them as I need to love everybody else “love the enemy” As I said I’m not the best and I admit that I suckAaronS1978_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

There is one thing I want to clear up about the comment “those that commit atrocities and say they’re Christians aren’t following the teachings of Christ” This is not a denial that Christians don’t commit atrocities This is a statement of fact that they are being hypocritical if they’re claiming to be Christian and then turning around and doing something horrible In other words practice what you preach and if you can’t do that stop preaching And to a degree I do see why you think that it is a denial that Christians commit atrocities. But at least from how I was raised in the family that I was in in the culture that I’ve dealt with this is not the case it is considered a shameful mistake that was committed by people that follow our belief that were being incredibly hypocritical and we should learn not to do what they’re doing I know that’s a really long picky explanation And I know there are tons of hypocrites on both sides of this coin. But I agree, a person that says they’re Christian and says they’re doing something in the name of Christ and what they’re doing is horribly wrong is being a hypocrite they could still be Christian they’re just really bad Christians And if that is the case we can hate them together. By the way I never claimed that I am perfect nor can I follow the teachings of Christ perfectly I suck at doing that I am not the best and I admit very clearly when I am wrongAaronS1978_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

V@29, thank you for pointing this out. I really should stop drinking at lunch. :)Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

BB Your post in 28 should be addressed to SA , he wrote it. Really you really need to work on actually reading what people write. Vividvividbleau_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

SA
From the Darwinian view, there are no atrocities.
This is correct. It's a good thing that humans have decided to establish a set of rules that everybody is expected to follow, and punish those who don't. The benefit of being animals that can reason, think abstractly and predict outcomes is that we can do this.Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

From the Darwinian view, there are no atrocities. There are just evolutionary outcomes which are neither good nor bad. Through competition, new features and species emerge. The dying off or internal conflict within populations, for whatever reasons, are not 'atrocities'. Evolutionists only rarely accept and act upon that key point.Silver Asiatic_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

BB “My point was just to demonstrate to AaronS1978 that there actually are commenters here who claim that Christians don’t commit atrocities because, as their argument goes, a “true Christian” wouldn’t do that. Thank you for proving my point. ????“ LOL you have serious reading comprehension problems. Vividvividbleau_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

V
I would be very surprised if Aaron disagrees with what I wrote.
My point was just to demonstrate to AaronS1978 that there actually are commenters here who claim that Christians don't commit atrocities because, as their argument goes, a "true Christian" wouldn't do that. Thank you for proving my point. :)Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

BB re 23 I would be very surprised if Aaron disagrees with what I wrote. Vividvividbleau_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

V
To commit atrocities is antithetical to the teachings of Christ and anyone who does so is not following the teachings of Christ.
AaronS1978, I rest my case.Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

BB “Or something like, ‘atrocities may be committed in the name of Christianity but these decisions were made by people who were not following the teachings of Christ’.” To commit atrocities is antithetical to the teachings of Christ and anyone who does so is not following the teachings of Christ. Vividvividbleau_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978
That’s simply not true, Correct me if I’m wrong but no one here says that Christians didn’t commit any atrocities every human being group has committed to atrocities, And I don’t know of anybody who has directly denied that not even BA77
I apologize if I implied that this is the case for all Christians. My wording should have been clearer. However, I have seen the claim I made from more than one commenter here. Here are a few examples from another thread.
Barb: Also, being raised a Christian/claiming to be a Christian =/= actually following the teachings of Christ. Seriously, I have to explain this? Really?

Timaeus: Christianity is not to be equated with formal upbringing. Most Germans were either Catholic or Lutheran at the time. But their faith was often weak, and their churchgoing more a matter of habit or culture than the expression of any deep belief in the truth of the Gospels. Those whose Christianity was truly an expression of the Gospels were not leaders of the Nazi party, did not plan the death camps, and did not direct their operation.

Joe: USA is predominately religious? Maybe if one considers those who call themselves religious but have no idea what that means.

Joe: And it’s no true scotsman because most religious people in the US have no idea what it means?
My point is just that many Christians use the argument that Christians don't commit atrocities because someone who truly followed Christ's teachings would not do so. Or something like, 'atrocities may be committed in the name of Christianity but these decisions were made by people who were not following the teachings of Christ'.Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Bb But what I do find amusing in these discussions of atrocities and religious beliefs (or lack there-of) is that Christians always claim that Christians never commit atrocities because if they did, they would not be true Christians. BB That’s simply not true, Correct me if I’m wrong but no one here says that Christians didn’t commit any atrocities every human being group has committed to atrocities, And I don’t know of anybody who has directly denied that not even BA77 What has happened is I have had to sit there and correct seversky on a lot of his claims towards Christians being the most awful people and most terrible people ever to exist Implying that the atrocities that he’s pulling up apparently far worse than what Joseph Stalin, the nazis, and Mao have done. Which I can’t see how because if you combine all the religious wars in history it doesn’t equal the number of people that were murdered between those three groups The biggest problem here is the finger-pointing Which to be honest gets kind of annoyingAaronS1978_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
it would have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.
LoL! There isn't any validity to any evolutionary theory. Evos are still struggling to try to find a way to test their claims.ET_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Sev
Not one of those are directly and solely attributable to Darwin’s theory.
And even if they were, it would have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. But what I do find amusing in these discussions of atrocities and religious beliefs (or lack there-of) is that Christians always claim that Christians never commit atrocities because if they did, they would not be true Christians.Brother Brian_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation of how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.
FAILed attempt. Natural selection has shown to be impotent with respect to the diversity of life.ET_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

EDTA @ 14
Just to add one small point to what BA77 has pointed out above: Hitler could not legitimately claim to be a Christian because when push came to shove, he acknowledged no power higher than himself. His actions made that clear, regardless of what his public-facing words were
What is apparent is that Hitler and the Nazis were ideological opportunists. They would quote whatever suited their purpose at any given time. Hitler would espouse Christian beliefs if he thought it would appeal to his audience of the moment and would then argue for survival of the fittest in another context. Probably, the only things he really believed in were himself and his version of a pagan German nationalism. The point, however, is that references to survival of the fittest are no more a legitimate criticism of the biological theory than his references to Christian belief are a legitimate criticism of the faith.Seversky_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

EDTA @ 7
It is correct that human beings can be extremely evil–all kinds of human beings. But when it comes to concerning myself with genocide, evil empires and so forth, it just makes sense to put more weight on the recent past rather than the distant past. I’m not living in the 1200s. I’d spend my time worrying about totalitarianism, Communism,…
If these atrocities are not attributable to any one ideology or faith but are symptomatic of absolutist beliefs of any kind then the problem is in us. Since there is nothing to indicate we are significantly different in the way we behave from people of 2,000 or 10,000 years ago, we should learn from the lessons of the past lest we repeat them.Seversky_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

> Hitler who said in a speech in Munich on April 12 1922,... Just to add one small point to what BA77 has pointed out above: Hitler could not legitimately claim to be a Christian because when push came to shove, he acknowledged no power higher than himself. His actions made that clear, regardless of what his public-facing words were.EDTA_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Seversky
Christian morality, like other moralities, prescribes how people should behave, mostly towards one another but also in respect of their religious beliefs and their relationship to the natural world.
Humans have different moral systems. Supposedly, these all emerged from biological processes. But the fact that humans attempt to create moral norms to regulate behavior, is an argument against evolutionary-origins, since there is no need for moral systems in the animal kingdom, for example.Silver Asiatic_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 9, You really have gone off the deep end. Trying to insinuate that Hitler was a true Christian in any way, shape, or form, is insane. I suppose you are next going to try and say that his concentration camps were really just soup kitchens in disguise. The truth of the matter is that Hitler was a keen politician and used Christianity in public merely as a means to gain power. But in private, away from the public eye, his true feelings about Christianity came out:
Was Hitler a Christian? Reasons to Disbelieve In fact, Hitler contemptuously called Christianity a poison and a bacillus and openly mocked its teachings. In a long diatribe ridiculing many core Christian teachings, Hitler told his colleagues that the Christian concept of heaven was insipid and undesirable. After scoffing at doctrines such as the Fall, the Virgin Birth, and redemption through the death of Jesus, Hitler stated, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine.” He followed this up with a hard right jab to any believing Catholic, claiming that a “Negro with his fetish” is far superior to someone who believes in transubstantiation. Hitler, in his own twisted mind, believed black Africans were subhumans intellectually closer to apes than to Europeans, so to him, this was a spectacular insult to Catholics. In February 1942, Hitler again scoffed at the basic teachings of Christianity, sarcastically relating the story of humanity from a Christian standpoint. He implied that God was responsible for original sin and commented that God’s method of redemption by sending his Son was a “murderous subterfuge.” Then, according to Hitler, when others did not accept these strange teachings, the church tortured them into submission. In the course of this anti-Christian diatribe, Hitler called the Catholic Church a form of idolatry and “Satanic superstition.” Another theme that surfaced frequently in Hitler’s monologues of 1941–42 was that the sneaky first-century rabbi Paul was responsible for repackaging the Jewish worldview in the guise of Christianity, thereby causing the downfall of the Roman Empire. In December 1941, Hitler stated that although Christ was an Aryan, “Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-Bolshevism. With its emergence the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost.” In fact, since Christianity was tainted from the very start, Hitler sometimes referred to it as “Jew-Christianity.” While Hitler often associated Jesus with Aryan traits and socialism, he consistently lambasted Christianity as Jewish and communist. He denigrated the “Jew-Christians” of the fourth century for destroying Roman temples and even called the destruction of the Alexandrian library a “JewishChristian deed.” Hitler thus construed the contest between Christianity and the ancient pagan world as part of the racial struggle between Jews and Aryans. In the end, the evidence is preponderant against Hitler embracing any form of Christianity for most of his adult life. Was Hitler a Christian? No. Even though he tried to palm himself off as a Christian when it served his political purposes, none of his friends and comrades considered him one. Even though he never officially left the Catholic Church, Schroeder claimed he promised to withdraw from the church immediately after the war to symbolize the dawn of a new historical era.125 All of Hitler’s close associates agreed with Schroeder, testifying that he was antagonistic toward Christianity. He admired the whip-wielding Jesus, whom he considered a fellow Aryan warrior fighting against the allegedly infernal Jews, but he had utter contempt for the Jesus who told His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He also did not believe that Jesus’s death had any significance other than showing the perfidy of the Jews, nor did he believe in Jesus’s resurrection. In private conversations and monologues he railed at Christianity because it had followed the lead of that insidious Jewish rabbi Paul. Despite Hitler’s disingenuous public statements, and despite his esteem for (his anti-Semitic version of) Jesus, it is abundantly clear that Hitler did not consider himself a Christian. https://www.historyonthenet.com/was-hitler-a-christian
bornagain77_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

LOL Seversky, you state,,,
You don’t get Christianity off the hook by trying to argue they killed fewer. If they were true to their beliefs, they shouldn’t have been killing any at all.
That's exactly what I said. Thanks for admitting I was right!
even if you add up all the murderous atrocities that were listed by Seversky (that were committed by those who falsely claimed to be Christians even though they were killing people in direct contradiction to the commandments of Christ), the number of murders is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of murders committed by those who followed the morality enshrined in Darwin’s maxim ‘survival of the fittest’, (as well as those hundreds of millions of murders committed by Muslims following the murderous teachings of Mohammad):
Moreover, besides you agreeing with me that those who killed in the name of Christianity were not being true to the teachings of Christ, when a Darwinist murders he is staying true to the (a)morality inherent within the teaching of Darwin, i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. As Hitler stated:
“The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler
Compared that to what Jesus said about taking care of 'the least of these',,
Matthew 25 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The difference between Darwin and Christianity could not be greater. I also noticed that you quoted Matthew 10:34-36 to try to insinuate that Christianity is a murderous religion.
Matthew 10 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
But, if you would have taken the time to try to actually understand the verse that you yourself cited you would have understood that the 'sword' that Jesus is speaking of in that passage is certainly not a physical sword as you are trying to insinuate but is a spiritual sword. ,,, As the concluding line in the following article states, "In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that.
I read constantly that Christians should not be proud of a verse attributed to Jesus. The verse reads: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change. It is time to set the record straight about that verse. The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the "lost sheep of Israel," not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city. Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or "Jesus movement" (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a holy war with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jews—say, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was "out of his mind" (Mark 3:21)? Next, those cultural facts explain the immediate literary context, which shows division among family members. The context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 (bold print): 32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6] 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword," and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them, because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently. Furthermore, we can reference the larger textual context in the Gospel of Matthew. In the Garden of Gethsemane, during the hour when Jesus was betrayed and arrested, Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest in order to protect his Lord. But Jesus tells him to stop. Matthew 26:52-53 says: 52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (NIV) Jesus denounces violence to accomplish the will of God—at least as Peter imagines the will of God. Then Jesus says that he has more than twelve legions of angels at his disposal. He did not come to crush the Roman Empire. Instead, he willingly lays down his life and dies for the sins of the whole world. Will it accept this wonderful gift? Now we can appeal to even a much larger textual context. The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke. Luke 12:49-53 reads: 49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." It is entirely possible that these two parallel passages in Matthew and Luke represent two different occasions. After all, when I teach the same topic in two different classes, I also change the wording a little. Neither class knows about the slight change, but this does not matter, for the meaning is essentially the same. Likewise, in the three years that Jesus taught, he most likely repeated this call to commitment several times to different audiences (though recorded only twice in the Gospels), as he crisscrossed Israel. He issued such radical calls often, telling his listeners to pick up their cross and to follow him (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27). Whatever the case, the proper way to interpret Scripture is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. And now Luke 12:49-53 confirms our interpretation of Matt. 10:34. Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one’s own family, but he warns people about possible family division. So what does all of this mean? History demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition, even as far as taking up his cross—another metaphorical implement for the disciples. It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. It is true that the Roman Emperor Constantine, Medieval Crusaders, and Protestants and Catholics have used the sword against unbelievers and each other. However, none of them is foundational to Christianity—only Jesus is, and he never endorses the sword to spread his message. Also, Christianity has undergone Reform (c. 1400-1600) and has been put under the pressure of the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), which demanded peace. Be that as it may, Jesus himself never calls for military holy war, and only he sets the genetic code for his movement. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that calls the Church to commit violence to spread the gospel or to plant churches or to accomplish anything else. Rather, the New Testament hands the sword over to the State (Rom. 13:1-6). In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that. https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/matthew_10_34.htm
Moreover Seversky, you really should honestly answer Silver Asiatic's question to you in 6. You cannot bemoan moral injustice when your Darwinian worldview, as you yourself admitted, does not even recognize moral injustice. i.e. "that was neither right nor wrong, it’s just what happened."bornagain77_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 6
Seversky
When the dinosaurs became the dominants clade of animals on Earth for billions of years, that was neither right nor wrong, it’s just what happened. If you think it was right or wrong then you need to explain by what measure you are deciding that. …looking at the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by the so-called Christian states of Europe for centuries before Darwin published.
Can you see a contradiction in those two ideas? In one case, evolution cannot be right or wrong. It is just what happens. In the next case, you bemoan certain “atrocities” and blame them on Christians. I think you have to pick one or the other. Christian morality or evolution which “can’t be wrong about anything”.
That's not the way I see it. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation of how the diversity of life on Earth came to be. It says nothing about whether or not it should be that way. It's just the way it is. Christian morality, like other moralities, prescribes how people should behave, mostly towards one another but also in respect of their religious beliefs and their relationship to the natural world. There is no obvious contradiction because they are addressing different issues.Seversky_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply