Evolution is oppossed to Love

  • Thread starter Thread starter TruthisBeauty7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TruthisBeauty7

Guest
. This theory is pure rubbish poison. If one believes in such a theory then he must understand the world even today in a evolutionary mindframe. So when he confronts his fellowman he judges were exactly the other is in the evolutionary pyramid. The world elite is currently setting up its eugentics program. This is why you see such a push into the evolutionary field. They too believe like hitler there is a superior race of humans and inferior race. Think a moment of the implications of what the world would be like if we adapted evolutionary principles in our moral construct? It would become a very Evil and cruel world. Were already seeing some of the effects of this philosophy in abortion,euthanizing,Stem Cell research. Could you imagine a world in which they have expiration life dates?Where the set a day for you to die, once you become to old or to useless. This is entirely possiable if the world was giving to evolutionary principles.

Hitler Killed 6 million jews based on a evolutionary philiosophy. What would it be like if the New world Order in which were hearing more and more about adapted the same philosophy?
 
Take it up with Benny.

benedettoxvi.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_36.pdf
Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism”and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.
Click to expand...
 
I havent read this , I will when I get back from work and then comment on it .

But I will say the harm in evolution doesnt come from its scientific theorical basis but rather from its necessary philosophical implications.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
I havent read this , I will when I get back from work and then comment on it .

But I will say the harm in evolution doesnt come from its scientific theorical basis but rather from its necessary philosophical implications.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the implications you stated are “necessary.” To look at another perspective on evolution, for instance, check out the work of the priest-scientist Teilhard de Chardin, who regards evolution (if I’ve understood properly) as the historical process of God’s revelation of Himself through the creation of successive generations of creatures, culminating in humankind, which are becoming more and more capable of comprehending His glory.

That’s just one theory, of course. Regardless, if evolution is the truth, then it can’t have necessary anti-love implications, because God doesn’t set love and truth against each other. As St. Augustine writes, “Nothing conquers except truth, and the victory of truth is love.”

You may be right that we need a Christian way of understanding evolution (i.e., without the eugenic implications). But this isn’t to make a statement of the intrinsic worth of evolution. After all, any ideology can be put to wicked ends if understood poorly, can’t it? Why, Christianity itself has often been used as an instrument of hatred. Look at the sad centuries of violence against Jews in the Church’s history, all because some of our forefathers imagined that once Christ came to earth, humankind evolved, and those Jews who didn’t accept him lacked perfection to such a degree that they were regarded as worthy of condemnation and even death. Talk about eugenics! 😦

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
josie_L said:
I think the OP may be refering to “Darwinian Evolution” as espoused by Richard Dawkins and et. al. and its social implications, rather than the process or mechanism known as evolution.
Click to expand...
That’s a very charitable observation but I am doubtful. Also, I don’t think you want to use the word “Darwinian” there, because a) the scientific theory of evolution has progressed since Darwin, b) Darwin’s works themselves do not contain the non-scientific dogmas to which you are referring.

What looks like “natural selection” to science and to history can obviously also be construed as an unfolding of a divine plan. The (Darwinian) theory of evolution by natural selection does not require an explicit denial of this interpretation.
 
josie_L said:
I think the OP may be refering to “Darwinian Evolution” as espoused by Richard Dawkins and et. al. and its social implications, rather than the process or mechanism known as evolution.
Click to expand...
There is no process or mechanism of evolution that is known…
 
Heck yeah, evolushun is apposed to love. It is from the debil.

Peace

Tim
 
geometer said:
There is no process or mechanism of evolution that is known…
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Known evolutionary mechanisms include natural selection, sexual selection, founder effect and neutral drift. All have been observed. I suggest that you treat the creationist source from which you got this nonsense with much caution in future. They were lying to you.

rossum
 
DavidHume said:
That’s a very charitable observation but I am doubtful. Also, I don’t think you want to use the word “Darwinian” there, because a) the scientific theory of evolution has progressed since Darwin, b) Darwin’s works themselves do not contain the non-scientific dogmas to which you are referring.

What looks like “natural selection” to science and to history can obviously also be construed as an unfolding of a divine plan. The (Darwinian) theory of evolution by natural selection does not require an explicit denial of this interpretation.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however, I did specify "as espoused by Richard Dawkins . . . "; he states that evolution (as per his interpretation of it) has ipso facto made God obsolete. This is not true as Science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence.

I think that to a certain extent the OP has a point, in that, the sociological/philosophical ramifications of “Darwinian Evolution” can have a deleterious effect (if taken to its extremes) on society. Here is what I mean:

"His own apt and carefully chosen title is rarely given in full. It is “On the Origins of Species by mean of Natural Selection”. There was also a subtitle, which has since, for all who were alive and alert in the late 1930’s and early 40’s, acquired a sinister ring: “or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life.”

books.google.ca/books?id=pYzh6HE7VNIC&dq=darwinian+evolution&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=a-U4bpSxEu&sig=wKe8okIF1G3bB1_tPes8QqRPbTE&hl=en&ei=owMXSrqAEtLemQec97TwDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA11,M1
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect. Known evolutionary mechanisms include natural selection, sexual selection, founder effect and neutral drift. All have been observed. I suggest that you treat the creationist source from which you got this nonsense with much caution in future. They were lying to you.

rossum
Click to expand...
Evolution is not hard science. That was said to me recently by a teacher of biology. I took the introduction to biology for biology majors at nice community colledge. No hard science was presented with regard to evolution.
 
If Evolution is scientific Fact as many are proposing then we must for the sake of Congruency accept its moral Ramifications. This means we should as a people endorse Natural Selection as our moral code with all the consquences attached. In my opinion when it comes to the question of are origins, which is the foundational question of are very essense , you cannot accept the theory of evolution merely in the realm as a scientific catergory alone but it must penetrate all aspects of man’s existence. This is why I say that to accept Evolution is to accept the ethics of evolution. Which naturally opens up mankind to a variety of evils. Which bends man’s mind to even accept the greatest moral evils since its based on the laws on th animal kingdom rather then on the Kingdom of God.

If evolution is true, that we climbed out of the primordial slime and through many other transformations from species to species, then who is to say were still not going to change into something all together unhuman. This puts man in a unstable position in which he has no stable grounding in what he is or what he will be .

We can say , as many Catholics say…Evolution is true but God was behind it so he exists, he directed it . To me this conclusion is more of a step closer to deism rather then Christianity. Rather then simply accepting the incrediable were so easily enticed to conclude a more so called sophicated position. This is why I say its a step towards a watering down, a deistic approach to God.

If Evolution is true… Couldn’t it be morally justified according to the tenets of evolution for a man to simply Kill another man because he lusted after the other mans wife? The Killer was stronger, he’s smarter, he has better instincts for Survival ,he can better protect her offspring, so shouldnt t he have claim to the other mans wife for her own survival and her children? This is the Evolutionary ethic when applied to human beings, that we must accept if will have a full Congruency on the truth of evolution. Because if its true, then its true for today as well. We should begin weeding out the old, the sick, the poor, those who have weak genetics for those with the strong, We should begin the eugentical process of building the perfect human.

This is why I disagree with the Church endorsing Evolution.
 
…If Evolution is true… you should act , think and behave just like an animal.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
…If Evolution is true… you should act , think and behave just like an animal.
Click to expand...
No, not true, for God created us in his image (we are different than the rest of creation). So, Evolution does not have to effect us in the manner for which you state. I think you confuse how some interpret Evolution, such as men like Richard Dawkins, as opposed to, for example, others, like Francis Collins who believe in “Theistic Evolution”.

May I recommend you read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins (he is the head of the Human Genome Project, and one of the world’s leading scientists. He also happens to be a practicing Christian).
 
The creation of the physical universe was an act of love on God’s part, and how He did it–whether by a strict interpretation of Genesis, or by evolution–doesn’t matter to me.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
…If Evolution is true… you should act , think and behave just like an animal.
Click to expand...
Is this a joke? It’s clear not only that you haven’t grasped what evolution entails, but that you haven’t yet learned the difference between ethics and facts.

Evolution, in itself, does not prescribe the existence of anything; rather, being a scientific theory, describes something. In other words, no “should” statements are to be found in the theory. Evolution is not an ethical system or lifestyle as you seem to believe.

And as others here have noted, God could still be directing this process for all we know.
 
TruthisBeauty7

As Oreoracle stated, the theory of evolution describes how things are, not how things ought to be.

Your claim that it justifies eugenics is false because it does not make assertions concerning the moral implications of natural phenomena.
 
Michaelo said:
TruthisBeauty7

The theory of evolution describes how things are, not how things ought to be.

Your claim that it justifies eugenics is false because it does not make assertions concerning the moral implications of natural phenomena.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not a scientific theory, and it is not a scientific fact as Walter Cronkite had once told the nation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top