Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade
Regular commenter Alan Matheson emailed me to give me the heads up on an article he had written. I found it online and thought some here might want to discuss it.
“The debate about creationism and intelligent design (ID) is more than a debate about whether or not God did it.
The issue of evolution is but one dimension of a broader Christian agenda concerned as much with theocracy as democracy. Evolution has been on the periphery of Australian church concerns until the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) injected new life into the debate.
While commentators noted that CCC had met with Brendan Nelson and other politicians, and that following those meetings and his support, it would begin distributing thousands of ID DVDs into schools, little information was given about CCC.”
Read the full article here
January 12th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
“if you were able to travel back in time to ancient Japan, would it make it morally ok to commit paedophilia?” -
Yes in Japan it would have been according to law and custom.
Is it right for a baby kookaburra to kill its sibling in the nest?
January 13th, 2006 at 7:28 am
I believe that Abtruth is right, that if something is morally wrong, then it always wrong. I would suggest a simple rule of thumb, that anything that harms another person is morally wrong and will always be morally wrong. Yet I don’t see that as being proof that there is a God. Admittedly that rule lines up pretty well with Jesus’ golden rule and with most religious teachings, but it would also fit well with a humanistic world view.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Dear oh dear Chuck
Would you believe it would be morally right for you?
Were the Nazis wrong… ? by your logic you would be an apologist for Hitler!
These kind of moral absolutes are not available to be voted on or agreed on by cultures to change.
If they are, then we can have a referendum to kill all aboriginals/homosexuals/lefthanders/leftwingers etc etc…
Imagine this, a referendum has been held that decides that Australians are morally OBLIGED to kill lefthanders on sight and it has been passed with a 95% yes vote. If you see a lefthander and you do not kill them you are being IMMORAL!
Nilmot - the problem here is that under a humanistic worldview, where humans are the highest arbiter of right and wrong, the above is possible. A moral law that holds for all humanity over all time demands some sort of moral lawgiver over and above humanity, if there is none then its to the cultural polling booths. This moral lawgiver would by definition be our God. This gives us a peek at its character as well!
All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Charles - about the kookaburra… this explanation in regards to morals as opposed to survival of the fittest/evolution etc depends soley on a Christian Worldview… Christians believe that at the fall of man (whether a literal Adam or not) corrupted fatally humanities relationship with its creator and that nature which was under ‘mans’ dominion fell as well so animal instincts are not necessarily what they were designed to be. Although I can do nothing about it i believe in the uncorrupted world originally envisioned by God, the Kookaburra would not kill its sibling. As to the finer points of the morality of such an act, i would also like to point out that they are birds not human and as such are not obliged to follow a moral compass such as we have being ‘made in the image of God’.
Man you guys havent touched me yet and your only on my first proof! Come on you bunch of pansies, put some effort in…!!!
January 13th, 2006 at 10:52 am
AbTruth, so you are saying that morality and the benefits of good moral conduct do not apply to animals?
January 13th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Hi abtruth
Perhaps you could explain it better, but I don’t see how your Ontological and Telelogical arguments hold up.
The way you’ve worded it, your Ontological argument could be applied to anything, ie.
If Jedi exist then their existence is necessary
If Jedi do not exist then their existence is impossible
Jedi existence is possible
Therefore Jedi exist
The first two phrases are just definitions of what it means to exist and not exist, for to exist by definition means to have an existence. Also, I’m not sure how make the jump from the possible to absolute in the last phrases. The existence of aliens is possible, but that doesn’t mean they exist. Perhaps you need to explain it further.
Also, the Telelogical argument. You missed out a key point that ‘there are exists in nature things that can only [yet] be explained by design’. Just because currently the best explanation is design, that does not indicate a better explanation can’t be found. The structure of an atom could once upon a time only be explained by John Dalton’s Billiard Ball Model, but most recent studies explain it using the Electron Cloud Model. There could quite possible be further refinement of the model required. Just because you, or the world, can only envisage one possibility, that does not mean there couldn’t be other possiblilities. Just because you can’t see something, that does not mean it doesn’t exist.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:26 am
The fool says in his heart ” There is no God” - psalm 14:1
January 13th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
AbTruth,
Does morality apply to apes that do sign language?
January 13th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Chuckybaby…
I don’t think so… there is a verse in the bible that mentions dogs having to give an account of themselves in some way (Genises 9?) animals were made with certain abilities but not in the image of God as such… this could easily be a redherring though…
Ratcliffem…
Close but no cigar.
If God exists then he is actually the creator of the universe and nothing would exist out of his devine will, therefore his existence (if possible) would be necessary. If he exists then our existence depends on him.
If Jedi existed there existence wouldn’t be necessary…
your right about the teleological proof.. i did leave that out and saw it for the first time that way yesterday… #@&*!!!
Intelligent Designers put forward bacterial flagellum as being an example of the ‘irreducibly complex’ or ‘mousetrap example’ and the beauty of these examples is that once you see their point, it doesn’t really matter how much more intricately we know construction of the components they will always be irreducible
January 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Well Done AbTruth. WOuld be good if you could flesh out those arguments in more details (say a five page synopsis).
I just wanted to walk on the ‘wild side’ for a few days.
Lionfish
January 14th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I knew it!!! ROFL i had extreme suspicions and when i got on your blog and put it to you that you were and you didn’t reply?????
Morality for apes that do sign language! Ha!
January 14th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I should ad that morality does definitely apply to party animals!
come on you philosopiles put up your puny cerubellums and let me have it in the kisser…