Physics

[JamesG]

.
jasoncran

The idea of aliens seeding the earth is an old Science Fiction idea. I heard one interview where Richard Dawkins mentioned the matter of aliens seeding the earth. He said he definitely didn’t believe that a God created the earth. He doesn't say that it isn't possible, he says that it isn't probable. He would be more apt to believe that aliens seeded the earth. Basically, he believes that a Science Fiction idea has more credibility than what the Bible says is true. And I do remember an interview where he said that he believed in the current idea of the existence of the universe, the Big Bang Theory. According to those who believe that theory, our knowledge of the existence of the universe only goes back to the beginning of the Big Bang or approximately 14 billion years ago. What happened before that is considered conjecture and a matter of individual opinion.

As far as looking at the universe and seeing God, it all depends on ones point of view. Those who believe in the existence of the one Creator God see the hand of God in the universe as its creator. Those who do not believe in the existence of God do not. Those who believe that God is the universe and the universe is God see that kind of God in the universe. We all see what we want to see. That has nothing at all to do with what is true or not true. It is merely that we all see what we want to see according to our personal bias. The existence of the universe with its laws is often used by well meaning Christians to prove the existence of God. And these Christians are always perplexed when those who don’t believe in God can’t see what to them is just obvious. Then they throw out the straw man that the Atheists love their sin so much that it blinds them to the truth. While that may be true for a small minority, it is not true for all. I know that it wasn’t true for me. Sin had nothing at all to do with not believing in God or that God created the universe. The existence of God just didn’t seem logical to me at the time that I was an Atheist. It was just a matter of narrowness of vision. The Spirit of God had to expand my narrow vision before I could believe that God exists and see the connection between God and the universe.

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

i was going to get into that idea of the aliens seeding the universe sooner or later with this thread.

its been on star trek, stargate, and a few others.

 

[izzy]

Sorry it took a while to get back to you, logicalbob.

Absolutely. But suppose you have two events, event A and event B. There are situations in which an observer in one position will see A happen before B, a second observer in another position will see them happening at the same time and a third will see B happen before A. What this means is that there is no correct, objective answer to the question of which happened first - it's relative to the observer.

It's been a while since I've taken relativity. If I remember correctly, time stops for anything traveling at the speed of light and slows correspondingly for anything traveling less than the speed of light. It is correct to say that one observer will see something happening at a different time because of time dilation. But isn't this because time is a variable in the equation and not a definitive number, so that it is kind of redundant to ask at what time something occurred for both observers?

Anyway, you're honest in saying that you've made up your mind a priori, but isn't the answer supposed to come at the end of the inquiry, not the beginning?

There was one philosopher, Descartes, who tried to find some conclusions about reality starting with no assumptions whatsoever. He did not even assume that what he sensed was real or that other people existed. This world could very well be an illusion brought upon by something else acting upon his mind. The only conclusion he could come up with is "I think, therefore I am." He could only be sure that his mind and thoughts, and therefore, the essence of himself, existed.

Basic assumptions about reality, such as that the world we sense is real, are needed to come up with any significant conclusions about our world. All scientific endeavor assumes that there is orderliness in the universe, that what we observe can be comprehended, that nature is uniform and follows certain laws, and that math and numbers exist and are applicable to the study of the universe. DUH! Or maybe these are not so obvious because we take them for granted.

What about God? If the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is one of my basic assumptions, it had better not contradict any other basic assumptions and should logically apply to all areas of study. Our assumptions are the basis of our worldview - a system of basic beliefs in which all our experiences, beliefs, desires, and hopes can be rationally explained and interpreted. Evidence for the existence of God should be visible in all areas from science to history to sociology to philosophy.

I don't think you should expect to derive morality from science. These are two very different sets of questions and past attempts to mix the two have resulted in unfortunate things like social Darwinism and eugenics.

What are the logical philosophical conclusions of Darwinism? Here's my list:

• Man is another animal - no more, no less
  There is no need for a God
  There is no afterlife - only annihilation
  There is no right and wrong - these are merely programmed into the human mind as is any religious notion
  Nature is the ultimate reality (extreme environmentalism or nature worship is justified then)
  Man is only a complex machine descended from goo. No soul.
  Only the fittest survive (or are worthy of surviving)

I don't like these conclusions, do you? Also, I'm not sure how you can disassociate Darwinism from social Darwinism as social Darwinism is the playing out of the conclusions of Darwinism. Why not try to create a superior human race (eugenics) by eliminating "genetic rubbish" and getting rid of the unworthy if Darwinism is correct?

 

[kpd560]

What are the logical philosophical conclusions of Darwinism? Here's my list:

• Man is another animal - no more, no less
  There is no need for a God
  There is no afterlife - only annihilation
  There is no right and wrong - these are merely programmed into the human mind as is any religious notion
  Nature is the ultimate reality (extreme environmentalism or nature worship is justified then)
  Man is only a complex machine descended from goo. No soul.
  Only the fittest survive (or are worthy of surviving)

I don't like these conclusions, do you?

I don't want to step on Logical Bob but two quick comments.
First, nice list and second, the truth doesn't care if it's liked or not.
Best.

 

[jasoncran]

then if that's the truth why bother living. the universe doenst need us and then death would entail happiness and bliss.
no one dead suffers by that viewpoint.

 

[logical bob]

Sorry it took a while to get back to you, logicalbob.

Hey, there's no rush.

But isn't this because time is a variable in the equation and not a definitive number, so that it is kind of redundant to ask at what time something occurred for both observers?

I said there's no correct objective answer and you said it's redundant to ask. I think we're in agreement there.

What about God? If the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is one of my basic assumptions, it had better not contradict any other basic assumptions and should logically apply to all areas of study. Our assumptions are the basis of our worldview - a system of basic beliefs in which all our experiences, beliefs, desires, and hopes can be rationally explained and interpreted. Evidence for the existence of God should be visible in all areas from science to history to sociology to philosophy.

You seem to be saying that on the one hand you assume the existence of God and that on the other hand you expect to find evidence for it. Which is it to be? Assumption or conclusion?

What are the logical philosophical conclusions of Darwinism? Here's my list:

• Man is another animal - no more, no less
  There is no need for a God
  There is no afterlife - only annihilation
  There is no right and wrong - these are merely programmed into the human mind as is any religious notion
  Nature is the ultimate reality (extreme environmentalism or nature worship is justified then)
  Man is only a complex machine descended from goo. No soul.
  Only the fittest survive (or are worthy of surviving)

I'd nitpick over the inclusion of "justified" and "worthy" as these are value judgments which don't follow from a factual premise. Other than that, it's a good list.

I don't like these conclusions, do you?

What has our like or dislike got to do with anything? Why is evolution always singled out for this treatment? Do you like the theory of electromagnetism? Do you feel good about the physical chemistry you studied?

Our likes are irrelevant. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

Also, I'm not sure how you can disassociate Darwinism from social Darwinism as social Darwinism is the playing out of the conclusions of Darwinism.

Can you disassociate Einstein's work from Hiroshima? The atom bomb is the playing out of Einstein's conclusion.

Why not try to create a superior human race (eugenics) by eliminating "genetic rubbish" and getting rid of the unworthy if Darwinism is correct?

Darwinism tells you that this might be possible (though actually it's not that simple). It's silent on the question of whether it would be moral to do it. Darwin himself was motivated by his theory to oppose slavery because he saw that all humans are fundamentally the same.

then if that's the truth why bother living

You have to work that one out for yourself.

 

[jasoncran]

no, you tell me. all we do is in vain. sooner or later we will die out and all is nothing under the sun.

is that what you truly believe.?

if i truly did then i would do what i want and not care about anyone else.

 

[logical bob]

I love the peope around me. I do my best to raise my children well. I try to help people and, in my own little way, make the world a better place. Every day is filled with beauty, joy, pain, anger and laughter in endless combinations. Is this without meaning because one day we'll all be dead? Of course not.

 

[EVILution]

Hello all,

Recently I have become quite troubled with some things that I am exposed to at my school. I thought that it would be a good idea to take an advanced philosophy course at my college in order to expose myself with "educated" opinions, if for no other reason as to solidify my own faith in god. I think that I have made a terrible decision, I need help. My philosophy teacher has taken it upon himself to publicly bash some of histories greatest minds like St. Anslem and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I am terrified because according to the rules of philosophy, his logic is sound! I know that God is real in my heart and that there must be a way to prove it in the real world! I'm asking for you help to refute some arguments that he has posted on the College website for our class, they are as follows: (please note that I do not hold any of these beliefs and the only reason that I post them is to disprove them!)

St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs: 1-3 refer to the creation of the Universe and how God was the first creator because there must have been something at the beginning of time to start every reaction (just like newtons law: for every action there is a reaction, etc...). To this my professor stated that God would be subject to the same regress that the Universe was, "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?"
4. Because god created all things, including good, he must be the most good being in all of creation, but that also means that he is just as evil. Accounting that nigh everything has an opposite, God would cancel himself out.

That is all that I have the heart to type. It feels as though I'm betraying my faith just typing this down. I am very sorry if this offends anyone, but I feel that I need answers and I do not have the strength to explore this on my own. God Bless you ALL!

 

[jasoncran]

I love the peope around me. I do my best to raise my children well. I try to help people and, in my own little way, make the world a better place. Every day is filled with beauty, joy, pain, anger and laughter in endless combinations. Is this without meaning because one day we'll all be dead? Of course not.

no, you tell me. all we do is in vain. sooner or later we will die out and all is nothing under the sun.

is that what you truly believe.?

if i truly did then i would do what i want and not care about anyone else.

so then if it do the opposite, and live like hell and abuse others and find joy in that, we both die. what the difference? nothing.

but society would be hell as one cant say your are right and i'm wrong. and vice versa.

then who is man to tell another man what is right and wrong. all its opinions then. nothing more.

 

[logical bob]

if i truly did then i would do what i want and not care about anyone else... live like hell and abuse others and find joy in that, we both die. what the difference? nothing

Dude, if you ever lose your faith warn me and I'll take cover!

Seriously, are you for real? Is God really the only thing holding you in check? Sorry, but some of us are able to live like civilised people without the promise of heaven and the threat of hell.

 

[jasoncran]

if i truly did then i would do what i want and not care about anyone else... live like hell and abuse others and find joy in that, we both die. what the difference? nothing

Dude, if you ever lose your faith warn me and I'll take cover!

Seriously, are you for real? Is God really the only thing holding you in check? Sorry, but some of us are able to live like civilised people without the promise of heaven and the threat of hell.

i was a bisexual, and also commited crimes.(bad checks) never caught.

i did overexaggerate some on that statement, but i was rather , how shall i say. i made a bad friendship in my youth and he influenced me. before him i wasnt into that stuff.

not sure what i would be like if i returned to my vomit. i dont want to know.

 

[AbdielAbiram]

Hello all,

Recently I have become quite troubled with some things that I am exposed to at my school. I thought that it would be a good idea to take an advanced philosophy course at my college in order to expose myself with "educated" opinions, if for no other reason as to solidify my own faith in god. I think that I have made a terrible decision, I need help. My philosophy teacher has taken it upon himself to publicly bash some of histories greatest minds like St. Anslem and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I am terrified because according to the rules of philosophy, his logic is sound! I know that God is real in my heart and that there must be a way to prove it in the real world! I'm asking for you help to refute some arguments that he has posted on the College website for our class, they are as follows: (please note that I do not hold any of these beliefs and the only reason that I post them is to disprove them!)

St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs: 1-3 refer to the creation of the Universe and how God was the first creator because there must have been something at the beginning of time to start every reaction (just like newtons law: for every action there is a reaction, etc...). To this my professor stated that God would be subject to the same regress that the Universe was, "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?"
4. Because god created all things, including good, he must be the most good being in all of creation, but that also means that he is just as evil. Accounting that nigh everything has an opposite, God would cancel himself out.

That is all that I have the heart to type. It feels as though I'm betraying my faith just typing this down. I am very sorry if this offends anyone, but I feel that I need answers and I do not have the strength to explore this on my own. God Bless you ALL!

Okay this is my first post on this site so I apologize if its not any good.

There are a number of things I recommend, because your professor has a laughable understanding of Aquinas and Anselm and anyone else. I recommend reading Aquinas, by Frederick Coppleston, Aquinas by Edward Feser, Aquinas by Eleonore Stump, and the Metaphysical Though of Thomas Aquinas by John F Wippel, and the Metaphysics of Theism VOL I, by Norman Kretzmann.


Now I will answer your questions (which you don't need to worry because the professor is attacking mere strawmen). "St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs: 1-3 refer to the creation of the Universe and how God was the first creator because there must have been something at the beginning of time to start every reaction "

Not at all, none of the first 3 proofs are remotely similar to this. In the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas briefly expounds on Aristotles argument from change, he writes "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "

Think of it like this. Imagine a train, with many carts, but no engine, will there be any motion? Well certainly not, because the source of motion does not exist within the carts. However, it is said correctly that each cart moves another cart, however, there is an ultimate source of motion in the engine. What this argument is saying is that the change we see in the world, is all immediately dependent upon something else. The argument is not saying that some time in the past there was a first mover who got everything starting up, but rather, a first mover that moves everything RIGHT NOW. Therefore, whatever criticism your professor had was absolutely irrelevant.


""If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?""

Aquinas solves this as well. What we mean when we say God is all powerful is that we mean that God has no limit to his power, that he possess every strength that one could possibly have. However, one of these strength's is to have complete knowledge, that is, to know everything. Being all powerful means in the case of God, that God can do everything logically possible. And it is obviously not logically possible to do something that is logically impossible (like God contradicting himself). Therefore, there is no problem in this at all if one uses Aquinas' definition of omnipotence.


" Because god created all things, including good, he must be the most good being in all of creation, but that also means that he is just as evil. Accounting that nigh everything has an opposite, God would cancel himself out."

I am honestly surprised that anyone could say such a thing with a straight face. There is absolutely not reason at all to believe that everything has an opposite, in fact, this is proven false by our every day experience. You exist I presume, but for this to be true, that would mean that there has to be an evil twin version of you existing somewhere, which obviously there isn't. Therefore, this objection is completely absurd.

So I hope you can see that these objections are based on pure strawmen and extremely faulty reasoning. I hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[logical bob]

My philosophy teacher has taken it upon himself to publicly bash some of histories greatest minds like St. Anslem and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I am terrified because according to the rules of philosophy, his logic is sound!

Hi and welcome. I'm probably not the person you really want to hear from because I'm an atheist, but I do know some philosophy. Your teacher's right I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong, Aquinas was a genius and will always stand as one of the landmarks in philosophy, but the Five Ways don't cut it. Most of them are based on Ancient Greek philosophy and how people thought the world worked in the thirteenth century and they're very dated now. And Aquinas himself refuted St Anselm's argument for the existence of God!

Seriously though, don't worry about it. All the Christians on this forum seem to agree that you can't prove the existence of God and that you need faith. If you believe, then believe. Don't tie yourself in knots thinking old philosophical arguments have to be correct. Use your course to learn why Anselm and Aquinas were wrong and you'll gain skills in critical thinking which will serve you well.

 

[Andrew]

My philosophy teacher has taken it upon himself to publicly bash some of histories greatest minds like St. Anslem and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I am terrified because according to the rules of philosophy, his logic is sound!

Hi and welcome. I'm probably not the person you really want to hear from because I'm an atheist, but I do know some philosophy. Your teacher's right I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong, Aquinas was a genius and will always stand as one of the landmarks in philosophy, but the Five Ways don't cut it. Most of them are based on Ancient Greek philosophy and how people thought the world worked in the thirteenth century and they're very dated now. And Aquinas himself refuted St Anselm's argument for the existence of God!

Seriously though, don't worry about it. All the Christians on this forum seem to agree that you can't prove the existence of God and that you need faith. If you believe, then believe. Don't tie yourself in knots thinking old philosophical arguments have to be correct. Use your course to learn why Anselm and Aquinas were wrong and you'll gain skills in critical thinking which will serve you well.

Bob's right, you shouldn't listen to him.
Your professor(s) are the product of a lie that has enveloped the world.
I recommend you DON'T look to argue or debate with them, as their logic will do nothing but prove they have no grip on truth.
Truth, which must remain a constant unchangeable foundation, is God who does not change. God, who said that there would be those who worship the created things rather than the creator, also said that they exchange the truth for a lie. See Romans 1:18-32 (A perfect explanation for Darwinism).
These people cannot think outside the box. The cosmic box they live in does not have a creator, so anything you might try to do to change them is futile. All false beliefs can only have there "truth" in the box because they fall apart outside the box.
I'm concerned for your faith and hope you will put on the full armor of God by holding your tongue. Your very concern is evidence of your faith, stand in that. Know that the Holy Spirit is here with us in the box, but Jesus Christ and God the Father are OUTSIDE the box. Everything in the box dies and or is dying. Your life is in Christ, who will not abandon you to remain in the box.
The Kingdom of Heaven is PURE because it is NOT contaminated by what is in the box.
The box was created to put all that contaminates the purity of God's TRUTH into it. Let them have their way in their thinking, let them live in their cosmic box; you keep your eyes on Jesus Christ and continue in the faith. Keep thinking outside the box.

 

[JamesG]

.
EVILotion

""My philosophy teacher has taken it upon himself to publicly bash some of histories greatest minds like St. Anslem and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I am terrified because according to the rules of philosophy, his logic is sound!""

Listen to William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias on UTube. Perhaps you will see that the logic of your philosophy teacher is not so sound after all according to "the rules of philosophy". Learn the rules of logic from a source other than your philosophy teacher. Sometimes it is good to supplement our education with sources other than the teacher, especially if the teacher is biased as this one obviously is. Arguments about God have been bantered about for centuries. Do you really think that would be the case if the matter was so certain as your philosophy teacher has presumed? A good teacher is supposed to present all sides of the case. Teachers in our age have decided that teaching is something to be used to present personal understandings of reality. And in some cases, even the State has decided that they are right to do so.

For the Christian, the source for knowledge about God is the Bible, or at least it is supposed to be. I don't say don't listen to your philosophy teacher. I am saying that there are other sources for understanding the arguments presented by Anselm and Aquinas besides him. I'm an old fella, so I really enjoy works by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a French author in the last century who explained Aquinas, and whose works have been translated into English. Maybe the college library has copies. I hope that you have time to check out other teachers of philosophy other than the one you have to listen to in your philosophy class.

JamesG

 

[izzy]

[quote:36x7lwdy]What about God? If the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is one of my basic assumptions, it had better not contradict any other basic assumptions and should logically apply to all areas of study. Our assumptions are the basis of our worldview - a system of basic beliefs in which all our experiences, beliefs, desires, and hopes can be rationally explained and interpreted. Evidence for the existence of God should be visible in all areas from science to history to sociology to philosophy.

You seem to be saying that on the one hand you assume the existence of God and that on the other hand you expect to find evidence for it. Which is it to be? Assumption or conclusion?[/quote:36x7lwdy]

Evidence probably wasn't the right word. I was thinking more along the lines that my basic assumption about God should hold up to logic, should not entail conclusions that contradict human experience, and should be livable. For example, a worldview that does not assume that what we sense is real might be logical, but it defies human experience and cannot practically be lived out. In any case, I do not necessarily expect to find empirical scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian God. I do think, however, that there is solid empirical evidence for the existence of a Creator (the size of the Intelligent Design movement would certainly indicate that there are numerous scientists with that view).

[quote:36x7lwdy]What are the logical philosophical conclusions of Darwinism? Here's my list:

• Man is another animal - no more, no less
  There is no need for a God
  There is no afterlife - only annihilation
  There is no right and wrong - these are merely programmed into the human mind as is any religious notion
  Nature is the ultimate reality (extreme environmentalism or nature worship is justified then)
  Man is only a complex machine descended from goo. No soul.
  Only the fittest survive (or are worthy of surviving)

I'd nitpick over the inclusion of "justified" and "worthy" as these are value judgments which don't follow from a factual premise. Other than that, it's a good list.[/quote:36x7lwdy]

Ya, the stuff in paragraphs are my own thoughts on the conclusions and not the conclusions themselves.

[quote:36x7lwdy]I don't like these conclusions, do you?

What has our like or dislike got to do with anything? Why is evolution always singled out for this treatment? Do you like the theory of electromagnetism? Do you feel good about the physical chemistry you studied?

Our likes are irrelevant. Those are the facts. Deal with it.[/quote:36x7lwdy]

I guess what I mean is whether you can live with these conclusions or whether your inner core rebels against them. I know that the thought of annihilation is quite distressing to me. It would make everything in life utterly meaningless.

[quote:36x7lwdy]Also, I'm not sure how you can disassociate Darwinism from social Darwinism as social Darwinism is the playing out of the conclusions of Darwinism.

Can you disassociate Einstein's work from Hiroshima? The atom bomb is the playing out of Einstein's conclusion.[/quote:36x7lwdy]

These are two completely different things. The discovery of nuclear fission did not lead to the philosophical conclusion that a nuclear bomb must be built and deployed. It made a nuclear bomb possible, but not necessary. Darwinism, on the other hand, has some serious philosophical conclusions in which it appears the only significant undertaking of the human race would be to find a way to beat death through genetic manipulation and technology. In other words, people ought to be electing governments who will pour money into research for this end instead of spending so much on helping the needy and peacekeeping missions, etc. In this view, stem cell research should be unleashed and genetic material from unborn, unwanted fetuses should be harvested if it will further humanity's goal to beat death. I think you can see now why Christians are so opposed to Darwinism. The philosophical conclusions of Darwinism and the practical outworking of them are in direct contradiction to Christian beliefs.

then if that's the truth why bother living

You have to work that one out for yourself.

A typical relativist postmodern statement.

 

[jasoncran]

izzy thank you.
there has to be a set standard.

if theres really nothing did this universe. why are we looking for life on the moon and moons europa and io. and mars?

if they seeded us then ... we can call them daddy? and they aint much of one.

 

[logical bob]

I guess what I mean is whether you can live with these conclusions or whether your inner core rebels against them. I know that the thought of annihilation is quite distressing to me. It would make everything in life utterly meaningless.

Again, as you're a scientist you know that how we feel about these things has no bearing on their truth or falsehood.

But for the record, yes, I'm fine with them. I'm sorry that your own mortality troubles you so much. As I was saying to Jason, it seems stange to me that you think death renders life meaningless. Take helping someone who needs it, for example. Isn't that just a good thing to do? I might die tomorrow, but it's still a good thing. I find your attitude very puzzling.

These are two completely different things. The discovery of nuclear fission did not lead to the philosophical conclusion that a nuclear bomb must be built and deployed. It made a nuclear bomb possible, but not necessary. Darwinism, on the other hand, has some serious philosophical conclusions in which it appears the only significant undertaking of the human race would be to find a way to beat death through genetic manipulation and technology. In other words, people ought to be electing governments who will pour money into research for this end instead of spending so much on helping the needy and peacekeeping missions, etc. In this view, stem cell research should be unleashed and genetic material from unborn, unwanted fetuses should be harvested if it will further humanity's goal to beat death.

I answered that in the one part of that post of mine that you didn't quote.

Darwinism tells you that this might be possible (though actually it's not that simple). It's silent on the question of whether it would be moral to do it. Darwin himself was motivated by his theory to oppose slavery because he saw that all humans are fundamentally the same.

Like all scientific theories, Darwinism has no moral component one way or the other. It certainly doesn't supply humanity with a goal. Darwinism isn't about beating death. Medicine is about beating death, yet you often find doctors involved in helping the needy, not shunning this to concentrate on research.

 

[JamesG]

.
logical bob

““Like all scientific theories, Darwinism has no moral component one way or the other.â€â€

Christians tend to forget that the concept of Evolution itself is non-moral. The people who believe in it, many of whom are Christians, add their own morals to it. But there is something else out there that is not just the concept of Evolution. It is Evolutionism and it does have a moral component as a part of the concept. The two concepts, Evolution and Evolutionism, are often confused. Darwin himself sometimes confused the two, especially in his letters. Richard Dawkins is one who believes in Evolutionism. He is an extreme militant Atheist, of course. He is the logical reaction to the extreme militant Christian Creationists. It is unfortunate that extremism is often the tendency of humans, whatever form of ideology they may believe.

JamesG