b6d84257   
   XPost: alt.atheism, alt.messianic, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: lordofal...@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity   
   >   
   >by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.   
   >   
   >   
   >It sometimes is claimed that one can be both a Darwinist and a   
   >Christian (Miller). Others argue that religion and Darwinism are   
   >incompatible because they are separate fields that should not be   
   >intermixed (Gould). In fact, the Darwinism worldview leads directly to   
   >certain clear moral and religious teachings about the origin, purpose,   
   >and ultimate meaning of life that are diametrically opposed to the   
   >Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths. The problem is that Darwinists,   
   >   
   >    can in good conscience say at one moment that they do not deal   
   >with God or religion, and then in the next breath make sweeping   
   >pronouncements about the purposelessness of the cosmos (Johnson, p.   
   >118).   
   >   
   >Some scientists are more open and forthright than Miller and Gould,   
   >some even concluding that "there is something dishonestly selfserving"   
   >in the tactic claiming that "science and religion are two separate   
   >fields" (Dawkins, p. 62). Most evolutionists fully understand what is   
   >at stake in the creation/evolution controversy. Futuyma admits that   
   >anyone who "believes in Genesis as a literal description of history"   
   >holds a "worldview that is entirely incompatible with the idea of   
   >evolution . . ." (pp. 12-13). Futuyma then claims that Darwinists   
   >insist on "material, mechanistic causes" for life but the "believer in   
   >Genesis" can look to God for explanations.   
   >   
   >Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has   
   >had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on   
   >theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of   
   >Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis   
   >account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole   
   >house of theistic cards to tumble:   
   >   
   >    If the Bible was wrong in the very first chapter of Genesis, then   
   >the veracity of the entire enterprise was called into question.   
   >Evolution was not just a scientific idea, it was a bombshell . . .   
   >welcomed by atheists, feared by theists (Raymo, p. 138).   
   >   
   >As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian   
   >moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was   
   >"keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of   
   >his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to   
   >lose . . ." (Raymo, p. 138).   
   >   
   >Numerous scientists have noted that one result of the general   
   >acceptance of Darwinism was acceptance of the belief that humans "are   
   >accidental, contingent, ephemeral parts of creation, rather than lords   
   >over it" and humans are not "the raison d'etre of the universe" as all   
   >theistic religions teach (Raymo, p. 163).   
   >   
   >The Darwinism belief that humans (and all living things) are nothing   
   >more than an accident of history, "cosmically inconsequential bundles   
   >of stardust, adrift in an infinite and purposeless universe" is a   
   >belief that is now "widely embraced within the scientific   
   >community" (Raymo, p. 160). Darwinism was a major factor in causing   
   >many eminent scientists to conclude, in the words of Nobel laureate   
   >Steven Weinberg, that the "more the universe seems comprehensible, the   
   >more it also seems pointless" (p. 154). Darwinism teaches "that our   
   >lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of   
   >things" (Raymo, p. 110), and that life has no ultimate purpose because   
   >there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and "nothing we know about life   
   >requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial   
   >spirits, or a special creation of species" (Raymo, p. 42). Raymo   
   >concludes:   
   >   
   >    Everything we have learned in science since the time of Galileo   
   >suggests that the [universe is] . . . oblivious to our fates [and]   
   >that the grave is our destiny (Raymo, p. 66-67).   
   >   
   >One of the most eminent evolutionists ever, Harvard paleontologist   
   >George Gaylord Simpson, taught that, "Man is the result of a   
   >purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" (p.   
   >345).   
   >   
   >Raymo concludes that Darwin's theory was "not what we want to hear"   
   >because it is difficult for humans who have long thought of themselves   
   >as "the central and immortal apex of creation—the apple of God's eye—   
   >to accept that" we are, "unexceptional, contingent, and ephemeral in   
   >the cosmological scheme of things" (p. 129).   
   >   
   >Raymo adds that since Darwinism has demolished the belief that the   
   >universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational   
   >system must inculcate young people in "cold and clammy truths like   
   >descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors," Raymo then suggests that   
   >although it,   
   >   
   >    would be comforting to think, as did our ancestors, that we live   
   >in a nurturing universe, centered upon ourselves. . . . The truth,   
   >however, is . . . Evolution is not warm and fuzzy. It can even be   
   >capricious and sometimes cruel (p. 144).   
   >   
   >Cruel or otherwise, Raymo states that Darwinism "is a fact by every   
   >criterion of science" and that our "school kids do not need   
   >intellectual security blankets" (p. 144). The implications of   
   >Darwinism "perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the history of human   
   >thought" are clear.   
   >   
   >    We are small, contingent parts of something that existed long   
   >before we appeared on the scene. . . . We are as incidental to the   
   >cosmos as are ephemeral mayflies to the planet Earth. At first glance,   
   >this was shattering news. Indeed, the majority of us have not yet come   
   >to terms with it. . . . Our lives are brief, our fate is oblivion (p.   
   >222 emphasis his).   
   >   
   >Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively   
   >about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's   
   >Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher   
   >purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish   
   >genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are   
   >going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for   
   >it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).   
   >   
   >Dawkins believes that people who believe life was created for a   
   >purpose not only are mistaken, but are ignorant: "Only the   
   >scientifically illiterate" believe we exist for a higher purpose. The   
   >scientifically literate know there is no reason "why" we exist, we   
   >"just do" as an accident of history. Dawkins also teaches that no   
   >evidence exists to support theism, and that "nowadays the better   
   >educated admit it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).   
   >   
   >The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)