Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FaithandEvolution.Org

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This just in:]

New Website on Faith and Evolution Explores
if the Two are Friends or Foes?

Find out at FaithandEvolution.Org

SEATTLE – In recent years, debates over faith and evolution have continued to intensify. On the one hand, “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins have insisted that Darwinian evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. On the other hand, “new theistic evolutionists” like Francis Collins have assured people that Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with faith and need have no damaging cultural consequences.

Who is right? And why does it matter? A new website being launched today at www.faithandevolution.org by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute explores the issue in-depth.

“FaithandEvolution.Org is for anyone who wants to dig deeper into the scientific, social, and spiritual issues raised by Darwin’s theory, but who is tired of the limited options they are currently being offered by the media,” says Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center.

“Increasingly, the only voices being heard in the faith and evolution conversation come from two wings of the evolution lobby: atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, and a handful of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins. But there are a lot of thoughtful scientists and scholars who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory whose views aren’t being heard.”

“Thus, the first goal of FaithandEvolution.Org is to present the scientific information about evolution and intelligent design that is typically left out of the discussion,” says West. “A second goal is to tackle tough questions that are usually ignored about the consequences of Darwin’s theory for ethics, society, and religion.”

Visitors to FaithandEvolution.Org will find information addressing such questions as: Does evolution undermine belief in God? Are there scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution? What is the scientific evidence for intelligent design? And does Darwinism devalue human life?

FaithandEvolution.Org is packed with free tools and resources, including:

* Audio, video, and articles featuring leading scientists and scholars, including biologists Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, mathematicians William Dembski and David Berlinski, and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer.
* A questions page answering people’s top questions about evolution, intelligent design, and related issues; and topics pages addressing key topics such as theistic evolution, evolution and science, evolution and ethics, and evolution and culture.
* Curriculum ideas and discussion questions for small groups, Sunday School classes, adult educational programs, and private school science classes.
* A searchable database of thousands of articles about evolution and intelligent design, and a glossary of key scientific terms.

West notes that unlike most pro-Darwin sites dealing with faith and evolution, FaithandEvolution.Org contains a prominent section titled “Debates” highlighting the views of both supporters and critics of Darwin’s theory on a variety of contested issues.

“It’s ironic that many of the pro-Darwin groups that claim to be promoting ‘dialogue’ about science and religion are really offering only a monologue,” says West. “They do their best to exclude those who disagree with them. But we have nothing to fear from a free and open exchange of ideas. That’s why we decided to have a section of our site where people could explore divergent views on such issues as the evidence for intelligent design, the limits of Darwin’s theory, and the connection between Darwin’s theory and Social Darwinism.”

West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication, and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

For more information:
www.faithanevolution.org
www.evolutionnews.org
www.intelligentdesign.org

For Immediate Release
Contact: Anika Smith
Discovery Institute
(206) 292-0401 x155
asmith@discovery.org

Comments
PaulN, If a teacher posted Dr. Benjamin Rush's letter on the classroom bulletin board the ACLU would, well . . .tribune7
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Tribune7, I know a quote that plays on the irony of your statement =P "Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." -Dr. Benjamin Rush (In an open letter to the citizens of Philadelphia.)PaulN
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
No origins narrative that discounts God as creator is compatible with the gospel message. If God did not create the heavens and the earth—if there is no logos in being—then “the way” does not exist. The meek do not inherit the earth. The last will not be first. The admonition to remain “completely meek and humble” is muddle-headed madness.allanius
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Here's something to consider with regard to free speech, censorship and the ACLU: If a school taught the God Delusion, the ACLU would either not oppose it or join in accusing those trying to remove it of censorship. If the school taught the Bible, well. . .tribune7
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
herb (#44) reports on "The ACLU, America’s Taliban... Pat Boone has an excellent piece under this title..." The Taliban are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic religious law. Christian Reconstructionists want to impose the Old Testament, replacing the Constitution - they are much closer to being "American Taliban." Pat Boone (or any other fundamentalist) equating the ACLU with religious fundamentalism is as absurd as those fundamentalists who insist that evolution is a religion or that atheism is a religion. And the ACLU has defended American Nazis right to parade, as well as Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy in his recent drug abuse case. Pat Boone somehow didn't mention that the ACLU also defends the rights of right wingers.PaulBurnett
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
At 82,700 words of 17th century English, I need persuading! It is rewarding :-) And it doesn't have to be taken all at once.tribune7
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Graham, You seem to think that we on this thread who are of a different philosophical persuation than you don't accept the survival instinct. We do - we just don't think that it's a good explanation for how morality and altruism exist. I sense that a lot of your answers are based on speculation about how evolution might have happened - which is not really a satisfying answer either. I don't think organisms ever had a death wish as you say. I think survival has always been a part of nature, and it didn't develop from natural selection. Something else gives species the will to survive, and it is something that is outside of the explanatory abilities of Darwinism. This is because Darwinism narrows all possible explanations to purely natural processes. Any attempt to explain even survival by Darwinists, therefore, is lacking in any real eplanatory power. The will to survive could not have developed as you infer, because where does the will to develop the will to survive come from? It's a problem with infinite regresses again. True logic 101 tells me that a species that naturally has a death wish does not develop through natural processes into a new species with a will to survive - and that a will to survive is the driving force behind that development. Can you not see the logical fallacy behind that? "I have a natural death wish, but I'm going to overlook that because I want to develop a survival mode, and I can't survive if I die. I think I'll therefore, selectivly turn of my death instinct." That's essentially what you're saying.CannuckianYankee
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
To CannuckianYankee (#59) Why don’t some organisms have a drive towards death In the past Im sure some did, and thats just what they did ... die. That why we dont see species with a death wish. A species with a life wish, however, will survive. Further, the species with a stronger survival urge will survive better, thats what evolution is all about. Its not some 'desire' or 'plan' that comes from anywhere, its just logic 101.Graham
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Graham wrote:
I see the usual stuff about how we must all be amoral if evolution is true. However, some quite recent research suggests (yet again) that other animals have morals (just like us) which is exactly what you would expect from an evolutionary model. Being nice to others in our group is good for our survival. Whats so hard about that ?
You are making a category mistake, in my opinion. Animals are born with a huge repertoire of preprogrammed social behaviors that are tuned to their survival. As an example, some birds are born with the ability to recognize predators even if they had never encountered them before. Likewise, territorial animals are born with an innate mechanism for population control whereas humans are not. We will multiply ourselves to extinction unless we are forcibly regulated. Now, whether or not this is due to evolution is besides the point I want to make. The point is that humans are not born with this huge genetic behavioral programming. Our morality is learned during the course of a lifetime and even then, a huge proportion of humanity are either morally bankrupt or have fallen short of perfection. Evolution cannot explain morality in humans for the same reason that it cannot explain their inordinate enfatuation with music and the arts. Evolution is only partially true, and only a very small part of it at that.Mapou
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Graham, I appreciate your attempt at giving an explanation. However, I sense that your answer does not really have any explanatory power that gives Darwiniism an advantage over any other explanation. When I hear the typical Darwinian explanation, I can't help thinking "why survival?" Why do biolobical organisms have this innate drive to survive? I know that Darwinians have an explanation for this, but only within the accepted assumption-mold of Darwinian thinking. You can't go outside that mold and give an explanation for where the need for survival comes from. All you can really say is that the "survival instinct" is something that developed in species, but you can't state exactly where it comes from. I find all of your answers frustrating and circular regarding this one issue. Why don't we have a drive to not survive? Certainly an unplanned natural process would give us either of these two drives if the beginning of evolution were a random process. I know you're going to tell me that it isn't random, but it is. Random processes don't select survival over non-survival. Why don't some organisms have a drive towards death and destruction? I know it's an absurd question, but that's the point - there is no real explanatory power to the notion of survival from a Darwinian standpoint, because survival is the only option that makes any sense, no matter what your viewpoint, and Darwinism does not really explain it. All Darwinism says is "see, things survive. Let's use that to explain how natural selection can lead to their survival." It's "just-so" story telling at its best. And all of the explanations regarding morality and altruism stem from this sort of baseless argument of survival. ID offers a much better place to start. ID does not offer a non-explanation like "survival." It offers information. It is information that is the driving force behind complexity in nature, not survival. Survival says absolutely nothing about how complexity develops. Survival just is. Survival is not so much a value, but a simple dead-end fact. Information, on the other hand leads us to ask many more questions. Thus, it is Darwinism that is the true science stopper, because we can answer all questions in context with a survival drive. ID is the true science expander, because the information ID seeks is (potentially) infinitely vast, and we've only hit the tip of the iceberg. You say that I and others on this thread attribute moral behavior to the "Bible or something." No, I think most of us attribute morality to something more than just a suvival instinct, which has no explanation. I think most of us believe that morality comes from information - the same as complexity comes from information. As such, there must be an information giver. That's all. You want to say the Bible is the source of that information - fine. you want to call God the information giver - fine too, but ID doesn't start there, it starts with the observation that information is needed for all of this, and that information seems to be intentional, not random. As such, morality based on intentional information, is not relative, but has some absolutes. Not all morality is absolute, but all morality is based on certain absolute truths about what is right and what is wrong. All Darwinism can give us is a non-answer like "survival instinct."CannuckianYankee
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Mr Phineas, Please be patient with me. I think your questions deserve some thoughtful and carefully worded answers, so I am going to have to cite a lot of your text. I apologize for the length of my response. I’m not sure if this is presented as a method for grounding “nice” actions, but if it is then the “in your group” part seems problematic. No, just a little cat-herding to try to stay on topic! In an earlier post I said I don't think morally judgemental words are particularly helpful to apply to other animals (or plants, or bacteria, etc). I think in-group resource sharing (including risk taking) is well established, and there is a solid theory to explain it. It is just enlightened self interest on the part of shared genes. Ethnocentricity isn’t usually seen as a very “nice” thing. You seem to recognize this when you later post: It is a wonderful triumph of our minds over our genes that we have been able to expand the “in-group”, and constrain the inclination to kill which we sadly share with other primates. But this is rather confusing to me. If survival of genes is the basis for “nice” behavior, then in what way can mind’s (or anything’s) triumph over the gene be said to be a wonderful thing? How is it a wonderful thing? We can look down on ethnocentricity today, but it was not so long ago that even nation-state level fraternal feeling was not a given. "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately!" Our ability to think beyond our genes is slow and gradual in coming. And why should the inclination to kill (provided it increases one’s own gene’s survival) be constrained? Nature, in doing a blind and contingent search, can only acheive a local optimum. Nature evolved feet, we invented the wheel. Nature evolved flapping wings, we invented the propeller. Our minds can invent solutions that nature cannot arrive at. In this case, we can start from in-group sharing that we share with other primates, and by processes of abstraction and analogy expand that in-group. That is what a phrase like 'we are all brothers' is doing, trying to convince you to use your genetic predisposition at a higher level. So humans could live in a Hobbesian world of a war of all against all, living lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. Our genes might urge that. But this trick of fooling our genes into smelling brotherhood where none exists is doing a damn fine job of preserving genes also! Is it just as wrong for a primate to kill, or is it only sad? You seem to indicate the latter: I would be wary of calling this “moral” or “good” behavior, when it occurs in animals. These words have too much excess baggage. Is it “good” when bees sting, killing themselves for the good of the hive? I think this is part of the problem of reading agency into nature. Sad. Sad is a description of my internal feelings, not a moral judgement of the world. I know there is research on "animal morality", but I don't know it well enough to say more. Did you mean, “…when it occurs in animals [other than humans]?” Yes, other than humans. Also, what is meant by “nature” in the last sentence? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as agency to be found in nature? Or did you mean the anthropomorphized Nature? I meant our tendency to project our own humanity onto both inanimate nature, and other living things. Everything from Zeus throwing thunderbolts to bees and ants as models of thrift, economy and hard working industriousness. Or perhaps you meant the nature that doesn’t include humans? It just seems odd to me how you implicitly set man up as an exception (and not just one of degree), but I can see nothing in the materialistic worldview that would ground such a stance. But I do think it is one of degree. We can think better than our nearest relatives, and everything else. If fewer of our relatives were extinct, the shading of ability might be clearer. It is like looking at fossil whales, and then blue whales. We can outwit our genes. That is a marvelous thing. Not only can I love my neighbor as myself, I can love Iraqis as myself. I can love endangered species as myself. I can love aliens from another planet as myself. (And they don't even have DNA!) Wow!Nakashima
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
To Cannuckian Yankee (#50) Morality is something that you wouldn’t expect if our makeup is generated by unplanned, natural selection. Even a survival need does not really explain morals and altruism But thats exactly what the survival need does produce. If I eat the babies in my group, the group doesnt survive. The social group is widely observed (humans, dogs, Elephants etc etc etc) because it is a succesful survival strategy. Now, to function properly, individuals in the group need to moderate their behaviour to satisfy the groups survival (rather than the individuals survival), because that, in turn, enhances the chances of the individuals survival. The end result is that we have evolved a pattern of behaviour that encourages us to respect others, nurture babies, defend the group etc. I think you and others have split off some of this to some higher esoteric form called 'moral' behaviour that cant be explained by nature, and must have come from the Bible or something. I would suggest that it is just another expression of the same innate behaviour.Graham
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
No, not read it. At 82,700 words of 17th century English, I need persuading!
You will get ammunition for your position too,...
I don't really have a position to defend, I first became aware of ID in early 2005, and followed the events at Harrisburg with interest. I am curious to see how things pan out for the ID movement, but the issues don't affect me personally.
...with regard to how Bacon addresses using Genesis and Job as a basis for the study of nature (see chapter LXV in Book I)
He seems to share my opinion of Aristotle, quote:
Aristotle, who made his natural philosophy a mere bond servant to his logic, thereby rendering it contentious and well-nigh useless.
Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Alan, the fellow who brought us modern science demanded a fidelity to the acceptance of a designer. I don't know if you've ever read Novum Organum -- and I'll grant that it is not Shakespeare -- but it is fascinating as to how little some things change. You will get ammunition for your position too, with regard to how Bacon addresses using Genesis and Job as a basis for the study of nature (see chapter LXV in Book I)tribune7
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
45 tribune7 05/28/2009 8:27 am Sorry, Tribune7, I don't get the joke. Though reading the linked essay, I wonder why Bacon was ever proposed as the "real" Shakespeare!Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Upthread Christiacrof and Tibune7 correct my misconceptions of Christian altruism. I blame Nietzsche and lack of diligence in Sunday school classes.Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
One question often raised by the religious is why ID doesn’t integrate into religion. Why doesn’t ID get with all the truth? Why this Big Tent that embraces agnostics and disparate religions and religious heretics? Well—besides the obvious answer that ID is a limited empirical investigation—there are good sociological reasons as well. Those on the left often pursue ecumenism that ends up a pabulum—in fact, isn’t that what the TEs have done? In the interest of just getting along they have to choose with whom to get along, and that somehow never means the Darwin doubters. So does ID’s Big Tent represent a similar compromise? Is there a danger that we are ceding too much to the other side in the culture war? I say not! At the apex of the culture war is the question of whether we will concede the possibility of purpose, the legitimacy of even looking for design. All the principles that traditionalists would want to uphold, all the doctrinal squabbles of the doctrinaire, all of it means absolutely nothing if there is no design. All is but politics if there is no purpose, just the drive for power and prestige by who possess that drive. If we see design as the central issue and refuse to compromise on it, then we end up not some bland pabulum of the politically correct, but rather an interesting menagerie of characters with the chutzpah that’s required "to speak truth to power." You want to question authority? Then question Darwin! Question the "Christian right" and you can bathe in praise. Without purpose there is only politics and demagoguery and disrespect for the traditions that have given us our liberty. Those traditions were rooted in religion, in the notion that our rights are not conferred by the state but rather by God. It is a tradition that sought to limit politics and maximize the freedom of the individual, a tradition for which a great many have paid with their lives. Nobody is saying that materialists cannot be moral—not at all! But history has proven that an officially atheistic state will not respect individual rights. Let me suggest that the way folks divide over Darwin is a pretty good indicator of where they stand on abortion, cloning, euthanasia, individual liberty, moral responsibility, infanticide, marriage, postmodernism, property rights, statism, and almost any other “hot button” issue you can name. Why would that be?Rude
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Should be: "Is it just as wrong for (other) primate(s) to kill, or is it only sad?Phinehas
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
I meant to say "just-so" story.CannuckianYankee
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Graham: "I see the usual stuff about how we must all be amoral if evolution is true. However, some quite recent research suggests (yet again) that other animals have morals (just like us) which is exactly what you would expect from an evolutionary model. Being nice to others in our group is good for our survival. Whats so hard about that ?" The typical response to this on this thread seems to be to call into question weather animals have morals. It's a moot point. Graham has just given us another Darwinian so-so story. Everything fits a Darwinian framework, even when it doesn't. That's what makes Darwinism bankrupt as an explanatory paradigm. "It's exactly what you would expect from an evolutionary model" is the new mantra of the Darwinists, because they really can't explain anything. The circularity of such arguments is apparently not apparent to them. Even if animals have morals in the same way that humans do, in no way strengthens the Darwinian model. It in fact weakens it. Morality is something that you wouldn't expect if our makeup is generated by unplanned, natural selection. Even a survival need does not really explain morals and altruism. If it's survival of the fittest, then it's every man (or creature) for him/herself. That's what I would expect. This is why I'm always puzzled by Darwinian explanations.CannuckianYankee
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san:
I think we should circle back to Mr Graham’s point - helping other animals in your group can increase your own genes’ survival.
I'm not sure if this is presented as a method for grounding "nice" actions, but if it is then the "in your group" part seems problematic. Ethnocentricity isn't usually seen as a very "nice" thing. You seem to recognize this when you later post:
It is a wonderful triumph of our minds over our genes that we have been able to expand the “in-group”, and constrain the inclination to kill which we sadly share with other primates.
But this is rather confusing to me. If survival of genes is the basis for "nice" behavior, then in what way can mind's (or anything's) triumph over the gene be said to be a wonderful thing? How is it a wonderful thing? And why should the inclination to kill (provided it increases one's own gene's survival) be constrained? Is it just as wrong for a primate to kill, or is it only sad? You seem to indicate the latter:
I would be wary of calling this “moral” or “good” behavior, when it occurs in animals. These words have too much excess baggage. Is it “good” when bees sting, killing themselves for the good of the hive? I think this is part of the problem of reading agency into nature.
Did you mean, "...when it occurs in animals [other than humans]?" Also, what is meant by "nature" in the last sentence? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as agency to be found in nature? Or did you mean the anthropomorphized Nature? Or perhaps you meant the nature that doesn't include humans? It just seems odd to me how you implicitly set man up as an exception (and not just one of degree), but I can see nothing in the materialistic worldview that would ground such a stance.Phinehas
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
May I make a proposal? I noticed that the Web page http://www.faithandevolution.org/topics/key-thinkers.php listed some key thinkers in the various camps. At present, Francis Collins is the only theistic evolutionist listed. A more complete list of theistic evolutionists can be found here . So who's next? Obvious candidates include Kenneth Miller (too big to ignore, no matter what you think of his views), Simon Conway Morris (whose 2005 Boyle lecture can be found here) and Alister McGrath, whose Gifford Lectures for 2009 are here .vjtorley
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
#12 Nakashima
Mr Uoflcard, I’ve met Michael Bloomberg, while he was merely a billionaire entrepreneur, not a clueless politician. Believe me, he is not clueless.
I didn't mean clueless in general. I'm sure he is a very intelligent man, fully capable of understanding the issues we despute. But I seriously doubt he actually knows what the true issues are (correct me if I'm wrong). Heck, go to Pharyngula - even the majority of the people there don't know what the issues are! 4 out of 5 posters just assume ID is some type of "fundy" attack on the public school system, and they spend hours each day cussing out and berating "xians". As I said earlier, I would be willing to bet that 99% of the general public does NOT know the issues at the heart of the debate. Plenty disagree with Darwin, but most are based on theological grounds, or an "incomplete fossil record", or something else like that. Rarely would you hear someone talk about how random mutations, filtered through selection, is incapable of producing complex (much less extremely complex), highly functional information. Bloomberg proved that he's clueless on this issue (or he just decided to issue a generic public statement even though he knows better). He said the fossil just proves Darwin's theory, when it has ab-so-lutely nothing to do with the contentions of IDuoflcard
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
What useful contribution has Intelligent Design made to scientific endeavour? Scientific endeavor :-) tribune7
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
And who is primarily responsible for keeping Jesus out of our public classrooms? The ACLU, America's Taliban of course. Pat Boone has an excellent piece under this title at WND today: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98916herb
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Alan Is Christian charity altruistic? Surely, it is delayed self-interest, with the expected reward of salvation. Not to be theological, but the salvation occurs before the charity. I can't think of any denomination that would claim that one can be saved by works. Not even pre-reformation Catholicism.tribune7
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san I’m not sure what your point is about it, though. Literature is a poor lens for nature. I think I was reacting to the word "nice" (not one I chose). I think we should circle back to Mr Graham’s point - helping other animals in your group can increase your own genes’ survival. Maybe, although that is not the traditional way of considering it via Darwinism, and leaving it solely to Darwinism, "let the strong survive" is still the more persuasive argument, I think. I guess you can say that charity only makes sense after a revelation. But I have seen many Godzilla movies!! I've always wanted to see him fight Ultra-Man :-) And speaking of Japanese culture, it is my understanding that the Japanese tradition is one of devolution-- a near perfect world degrading into chaos. That makes more sense to me.tribune7
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
DATCG,
Many women unfortunately have joined the infanticide bandwagon at the urging of their sophisticated Darwinian believing males.
It's tragic how many of today's women seem to emulate their Darwinist brethren. I blame a lot of this on the expulsion of Jesus from our public classrooms. As William Holmes McGuffey said:
The Christian religion, is the religion of our country. From it are derived our prevalent notions of the character of God, the great moral governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions.
herb
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Mr DATCG, In Japan, evolution is not seriously challenged, unless you go to some seriously far right sites that venerate the Emperor as descended from the gods. instead we have woo like blood type based personality tests, and New Age cults. But no Shinto YECs arguing that the national creation myth should be taught in science class! The big scandal of education in Japan is right wing suppression of the true history of WWII.Nakashima
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
As to nature... Tribune7 has a good point that cannot be knocked down so easily as some think. Why must females protect the offspring all the time? Males of all variety kill offspring every season, routinely as if it is a matter of doing daily business. It doesn't just happen sometimes. It happens all the time. To pull morality out of jackals, lions or hyenas is silly. But what can materialist do? They're stuck in a hole of immorality. Thy must fabricate stories. They are master story tellers. But attributing conscious morals or altruism to a beast on some failed, magic Darwin tree is not an answer. It is a story. Natures Morality On the otherhand, human males have helped murder over 45 million babies in America thru the Margaret Sanger Darwinian Eugenics program for the unfit, poor and minority races. Her program has succeeded wildly at great cost to minorities, especially blacks whom she hated. And according to most Materialist, this murder is ok and moral. Just like lions, human males help murder babies. They don't murder the little cubs themselves today. They've "EVOLVED" to using "Doctors" to murder the babies by escorting the woman to Planned murderers Non-Parenthood row. Many women unfortunately have joined the infanticide bandwagon at the urging of their sophisticated Darwinian believing males.DATCG
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply