Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Hello David, You wrote,
>>Hello Mark, Well, I think it important to distinguish between the main schools of thought: (1) Creationism - Gish, Parker, Morris, Safarti, etc. (2) Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design - Behe, Denton, Johnson, et. al. (3) Atheistic Evolution - the dreaded Dawkins & Co. My point was that many (but not all) of the people you've quoted as authoritative lack qualifications in life sciences - Hoyle was an astronomer-cosmologist, not a biologist. And some, like Hitching and Eisenhower, have no recognised scientific credentials at all. If you wanted an expert opinion on, say, a medical question, would you go to a lawyer? Would you consult a physician for a professional opinion on a legal matter?<<
Are “Behe, Denton, Johnson” ‘theistic evolutionists’? They reject evolution on scientific grounds and are qualified. The fact Hoyle is an astronomer presents no problem, he's recognized worldwide as an authority. We see heaps of material on astronomy in books about evolution, explaining the origin of the universe. The solar system “...remains one the greatest questions in science” [pg.52 Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science] Obviously evolutionists don’t have a good answer.
Your “point” about “lack” of “qualifications” is silenced by my last email and that list of “highly qualified” intellectuals. If you checked (as the others) you'll discover all have “recognised scientific credentials”. For “an expert professional opinion” I’d consult them before those who construct stories without proof or facts. You will find "experts" from all fields of science reject evolution - PhD’s in “Biology” Physics, Genetics, Organic Chemistry, Mathematics, Zoology, Meteorology, Botany, Biochemistry, Medical, Geology, Paleontology, Astronomy, etc. Eg. have a look at my short list. If you have any proof for evolution, contact Dr Kent Hovind of Florida. He’s offering US$250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution www.drdino.com I mentioned the Bible doesn’t incite anyone to commit cruelty or murder (in fact it says "You shall not murder” Ex. 20:13). You respond,
>>I beg to differ. To give but one example, the commandment to kill witches (Exodus 22:18) excited a horrible amount of cruelty and barbarity particularly in the Middle Ages.<<
So humanism says it's alright to 'kill' babies but not "witches"? In Bible times witches sacrificed children [Lev.20:2 Jer.19:5 32:35 Am.1:13], so that ‘commandment’ was given to Israel. On the Internet there's a Satanic Web site with an article “Abortion as a Sacred Rite” by 'Nevada Kerr' suggesting there's benefits devouring aborted babies. Today some countries base their laws on the Bible and some have a ‘death penalty’ for murder. They decide punishments and enforcement of their laws.
But I wonder if your ideas of ‘cruelty and murder’ change with the wind. If the Bible is mentioned, it must be ‘cruelty and murder’. But if atheistic evolution is mentioned, then of course, “evolution is (just) a blind force, (and) doesn't recognise” such things.
Those who read the Bible correctly will find no command for them to “commit cruelty” or murder. Christians base their practice on guidelines found in the 'Church letters' (Romans – Jude). They emulate God’s love, in that while we were His enemies by nature, He didn’t treat us as such but His Son died for us.
>>And Psalm 109 is just one long prayer for the destruction of one's enemies. See also Psalm 139:19-22. By the way, you never answered Conrad's original question about what your PhD is in?<<
My doctorates? ask him :-) I say again, “one can prove anything from the Bible (or any book) by quoting selectively and remain ignorant”. There’s basic rules for interpreting literature, the Bibles no exception.
Ps.109 and Ps.139:19-22 are in harmony with the age they belong. They relate to Israel’s calling. The enemies of the psalmist and of Israel are first and foremost the enemies of God. The psalmist is more concerned for God’s honour than his own (cf. 9:16ff; 79:9ff; 83:16f, 139:21f). God has decreed that sowing and reaping, sin and penalty are always related. Yet the Christian doesn’t adopt such language regarding his own enemies, he has a better example to follow (cf Mt.5:44ff Lk.23:34. Ac.7:60 Rom.12:14 1 Tim.2:1-4). So contrary to your "differ", the Bible doesn’t incite anyone to commit ‘cruelty or murder’ (nor abortion, rape, euthanasia, suicide, or immorality). These proceed from evolutionary philosophy and apparently encouraged by humanism (according to their own words). You wrote,
>>Evolution (if true!) is a blind force, it doesn't recognise "good" or "evil", which are concepts of human morality. In fact, humans often find it necessary to "defy" evolution, for example by practising birth control, abortion - and even by shaving. Even if rape could somehow be attributed partially or wholly to an evolutionary mechanism, this does not automatically justify rape in terms of human morality.<<
“Evolution (if true)” you have doubts? Yes with no ultimate truth all is confusion. The problem with ‘humanistic morality’ is that its foundation is a 'falsehood' - 'blind evolution'. A “blind force” that "doesn’t recognise good or evil." Concepts of right and wrong change like the wind and human's are only animals. If there's no God, nothings "good or evil", murder is circumstance and opinion. “Abortion” (also cruelty and murder) doesn’t "defy evolution"; its excused and rape ‘justified’ if it enhances reproductive success. But the “concepts of human morality” in humanism encourage murder without reason and killing innocent, sick and “unwanted” without any end or any reason.
So “if all ideals are equal and your opinion is as good as mine [classic humanism] why 'attack' those who believe life is valuable?” You reply -
>>Actually, this is classic Postmodernism, not Humanism - you've set up a "straw-man" here. Our Association has a long track record of opposing Postmodernism because we believe it is a system based on falsehood. I'm sure you and I both agree that *any* system that is based on falsehood is not a good thing, but a bad thing. :)<<
But humanism “attacks those who believe life is valuable”. How can you people quibble about a ‘straw-man’ yet blindly endorse murder? “Strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”? [Mt.23:24] One mans opinion is as good as another in atheistic evolution there’s no exceptions, unless you have a gun [then the 'fittest survive']. When God’s existence is denied, ‘falsehood’ is all a matter of opinion. And to talk of ‘a good thing and bad thing’ is equally flimsy.
Interesting, the aims of “NZ Humanist Association” are supposedly “to encourage open-minded enquiry into matters relevant to human coexistence and well-being.” And “promote a tolerant, responsible, and open society” [Intro to NZ Ass. Pg.2]. What nonsense!!! It has “fought for” a culture of death, it’s not “open-minded” but diametrically “opposed” to Christianity. It blithely dismisses all religious philosophy and all evidence in support of the existence of God and so does not settle the matter of God’s existence. You wrote,
>>Some final questions: do you oppose contraception?<<
I can understand why pro-life groups oppose it. About 240,000 women in NZ take Oral Contraceptives - a cost to the taxpayer per annum of $9,000,000 – over 30 years, that's approx $270,000,000 of tax dollars that have literally disappeared into the bloodstream. We have a society that wants rather than needs them, it’s a ‘life-style’ drug mentality. What concerns me is that sexual desire and the concomitant wish to avoid pregnancy has successfully been justified as a legitimate public health issue and should be funded by the government through the taxpayer. There’s no demonstrable clinical condition, it is simply sexual promiscuity dressed up as a human rights issue. And now we are seeing the birth rate decline in many countries relating to widespread use of contraception & abortion.
>>Do you want abortion outlawed altogether?<<
The relevant NZ Legislation says "abortion" is illegal except under certain circumstances. The fact is, abortion is illegal and only legal by exception. And so to say abortion is legal is half true, it has allowed misuse of the law and the “full regard to the rights of the unborn child” ignored. If you read the Crimes Act, headed “Crimes Against The Person” you will see what NZ law says about abortion. It follows then that 99% of abortions in this country according to the Crimes Act are “unlawful”. In 1977 there were 5800 abortions, in 1997 15,000, last year over 16,000 abortions.
>>Or should it only be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger?<<
A recent radio report indicated that 1% of all abortions in USA were due to incest, rape, or threat to the mothers life. While the other 99% were “literally human sacrifices on alters of a word we call choice”.
In the first 20 weeks of pregnancy abortion is unlawful unless “serious danger” “seriously handicapped” “severely subnormal” “Age - end of child-bearing”. After the first 20 weeks of pregnancy abortion is unlawful unless “serious permanent injury”.
Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says every member of the human family has an inalienable right to life. It appears we are constantly in breach of our own law and of international instruments, which reflect the natural law written in the human heart.
The Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion said in 1977 “...the unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable, and most defenseless forms of humanity, should receive protection.” The intention of the CS&A Act was to provide protection for unborn babies yet today we have abortion-on-demand. The law is at fault and needs to be reviewed to establish why.
>>What about the morning-after pill?<<
We are fooling ourselves if we think a technological fix is going to get rid of our dilemma of high rates of pregnancy and abortion. The prime reason for the abortions last year was said to be “Psychological damage” to the mother [Mother’s don’t blame lack of contraceptives or lack of sexual knowledge].
Increasing contraception doesn't reduce abortions. In the history of NZ, there has never been a time when contraceptives are available as today, yet abortion levels have never been so high. The evidence is that the greater availability of contraception, the greater increase in abortions. It's interesting the Japanese Health Dept. gave permission for the sale and production of contraceptives so they “...may revive men’s interest in sex and lead to an increase in the birth-rate”. Crazy because oral contraception can pose a threat to a women’s health and cause abortions.
>>What should happen to unwanted babies? Adopt them out? Put them into welfare homes?<<
With most abortions, bearing a child is not convenient and they don’t want parental responsibilities. Or the child is a product of a relationship that began and ended in the heat of passion. Invariably most abortions in NZ are simply a matter of ‘choice’.
For years our Humanist Government has showed little concern yet so many good people are willing to give these babies a life. Abortions increased by 59% in the last 10 years yet adoption rates are insignificant. In 1994 there was just 683 adoptions and there is still many who would love to adopt a baby. If Politicians are concerned, why ignore the many New Zealanders willing to give these unborn babies an opportunity to live?
>>Do you think over-population is a myth? Have a good weekend, David<<
You answer these questions, then I'll answer that. Easy for a bloke to argue for abortion. So are you absolutely sure there’s no God? Have any proof of evolution? Where did space and the universe come from? Or the laws of the universe come from? And matter get so perfectly organized?
Which evolved first (how and how long did it work without the others) – the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? – DNA or RNA to carry the message to cells part? – The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? – The nervous system, repair system or hormone system? – The immune system or the need for it? – The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
P.S. Was going to wish a Merry Christmas but of course you don’t believe in all that.