Ask the Lorax

[The Lorax]

Onetiggerroo, I'd like to give your post a detailed response, but I'm off to work, so give me a few hours.

I have explained this to you in the past and I can go over it again. Not all evolutionists are Darwinists but all Darwinists are evolutionists. You and I are both creationists (we believe God created). We are both evolutionists in that we understand and accept biological evolution to be part of science. Our disagreement involves the acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical elements of Darwinism. I reject those metaphysical elements as being non-scientific.

You believe in evolution? Tell me more. Oh, and we agree in another way as well: I too reject metaphysical claims as non-scientific.

If you will go back and look at the title of the essay written by Michael Ruse you will see what he is trying to accomplish – “Saving Darwin from the Darwinians”. He realizes that many Darwinists are polluting Darwin’s theory (ToE) by turning it into a “secular religion” – a religion that has become a “full-fledged alternative to Christianity”.

Every powerful idea is misused by some. The idea itself (in this case, the ToE) is not the problem. The problem is caused by the people who seek to incorporate scientific ideas into their non-scientific ideology and then try to sell their whole ideology as science. You and I both resent this. We only differ in that I don't claim any non-scientific ideology is inherent to Darwin's theory, but rather it is tacked on. We disagree on semantics, then, and little more. If you used the expression "metaphysical naturalism" in the place of "Darwinism", I would agree with most of what you have to say.

As I have mentioned before I oppose teaching “creationism” in public schools and I have no problem teaching the ToE as long as both its strengths and weaknesses are taught. I do have problems with the teaching of the Darwinian religion that is being passed off as science in public schools or on this board.

If Darwinism were taken as a religion, with faith-based metaphysical positions, it would be unscientific. It would also cease to be Darwinism, since Darwinism equates directly with the theory of evolution, a scientific concept which does not have metaphysical positions of any kind. I know you've disagreed with this definition but it remains the status quo and I stick to it.

[onetiggerroo]

Onetiggerroo, I'd like to give your post a detailed response, but I'm off to work, so give me a few hours.

Lorax, thanks...I will be looking forward to reading your post. May the LORD bless your day of work.

[Guest]

Want Wisdom - Read The Bible - Ask God - See The Rock

And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Luke 20:17-18

I do have problems with the teaching of the Darwinian religion that is being passed off as science in public schools or on this board

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10:9-10

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:8

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:23-24

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:23

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Revelation 21:1

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[The Lorax]

Lorax

Every powerful idea is misused by some. The idea itself (in this case, the ToE) is not the problem. The problem is caused by the people who seek to incorporate scientific ideas into their non-scientific ideology and then try to sell their whole ideology as science. You and I both resent this. We only differ in that I don't claim any non-scientific ideology is inherent to Darwin's theory, but rather it is tacked on. We disagree on semantics, then, and little more. If you used the expression "metaphysical naturalism" in the place of "Darwinism", I would agree with most of what you have to say.

I can drink to that – I can use "metaphysical naturalism" in the place of "Darwinism". In my post I simply used Ruse’s nomenclature in his title - “Saving Darwin from the Darwinians”. I certainly think he has metaphysical naturalism in the guise of science in mind when he refers to “Darwinians” who turn the ToE into a “secular religion”.

We agree on something? Stop the presses!

Do you agree with me (and Ruse) that certain “Darwinians” incorporate metaphysical naturalism with Darwin’s theory making it a secular religion to replace the Christian faith just as the Darwinian “prophet”, Julian Huxley preached before his departure?

This is the gist and core of Evolutionary Humanism, the new organization of ideas and potential action now emerging from the present revolution of thought, and destined, I prophesy with confidence, to become the dominant idea-system of the new phase of psychosocial evolution. ~ Sir Julian Huxley

Do you agree with the Supreme Court which ruled that "secular humanism", which lacks a “supernatural element”, is a bona fide religion?

It seems you've asked these questions in order to advance an argument of some kind, not to earnestly seek my opinions on the criteria of religion, the ideology of Huxley, etc. But there's no need for circumlocution. State your argument plainly and I'll gladly address it.

[The Lorax]

I will say that my questions are directly related to your comments in post # 40 – especially your comments pertaining to (1) the nature of “evolution”; (2) what does and does not constitute a “religion”; and (3) your assertion that the “evidence leaves little room for faith” regarding Darwinian evolution.

Are they related?

In post #40, I explained how evolution is unlike any religion in several ways.

But your questions have concerned Darwinism, something which you acknowledge is *different* from evolution. Your idea of Darwinism includes evolution, but it ropes in abiogenesis hypotheses and atheism too! In essence, you've been talking about secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism, which are religious, but which are not evolution, and thus are not related my post.

Answer the questions advanced thus far and we can take the discussion to the next level.

In order for us to take this discussion to the next level, we must start on the same page. Throughout and following my post #40, I've been on evolution, the process of systematic shifts in gene frequencies in populations. Find this page and I'll be here to take you up on it.

Good luck with your job, btw.

[ted]

Amen, and amen....

A breath of fresh air!

t.

[ladypeartree]

how can we get Ted to behave himself and when are you going to sort out your garden ?

[The Lorax]

and when are you going to sort out your garden ?

Ahh! I totally forgot. The funny thing is I forgot to water my offline garden today, too! (I didn't plant it, my gf did and I watched. She'll be pleased to know I've been taking great care of it despite having a not-so-green thumb.)

If you could be any kind of animal what would you be and why-

Canis lupus, the Gray Wolf! It's not because I'm big and mean--wolves aren't either! Wolves get a bad rap and it's 100% mythical. (There isn't a single documented case in the history of North America in which a non-rabid wolf harmed a human.) They are amazingly intelligent, caring animals. Wolves are socially adept, but they can also fly solo for years at a time. They don't have any terribly special abilities like sonic blasts or heat vision, but they are fast and strong and intelligent. Few other animals have so many human qualities, which led the Chinook Indians to believe wolves were people hiding in fur coats! Of course, this humanness didn't stop us from driving them near extinction in the 1800s. And it doesn't stop us now when, still today, one of the very first lessons most children are taught is that wolves are out to get them. OK, done ranting.

How about you, zoe?

[Guest Biblicist]

If you could be any kind of animal what would you be and why-

Canis lupus, the Gray Wolf! It's not because I'm big and mean--wolves aren't either! Wolves get a bad rap and it's 100% mythical. (There isn't a single documented case in the history of North America in which a non-rabid wolf harmed a human.) They are amazingly intelligent, caring animals. They can be independent, but also socially adept. They don't have any terribly special abilities like flight, but they are fast and strong and intelligent. Few other animals have so many human qualities, which led the Chinook Indians to believe wolves were people hiding in fur coats! Of course, this humanness didn't stop us from driving them near extinction in the 1800s. And it doesn't stop us now when, still today, one of the very first lessons most children are taught is that wolves are out to get them. End rant.

How about you, zoe?

Lorax, we just bought a Wolf/Husky mix from the pet store last Friday. She is silver gray, her photo is in my profile. Her story is in Bib's Room.

I LOVE wolves, my daugher writes stories about them all the time. I'll have to tell her.

You are very right about wolves, they do get a bad rap!

[Guest Biblicist]

Lorax, we just bought a Wolf/Husky mix from the pet store last Friday. She is silver gray, her photo is in my profile. Her story is in Bib's Room.

I LOVE wolves, my daugher writes stories about them all the time. I'll have to tell her.

You are very right about wolves, they do get a bad rap!

Did you set out to get that breed from the beginning?

Yes, we certainly did. If she was not wolf we would never have paid for her from a pet store. In our opinion, a bad choice for a place to get a puppy.

Her mom is 100% wolf. Her dad is 100% husky. That's the closest I'll ever get to owning a real wolf. She's fantastic. Very smart! And extremely loving. She gets along with our other dogs famously. You can read all about her in my thread. . .