The View From 1776

Forbidden Discussion

In the liberal-progressive-socialist religion, evidence (or lack of evidence) that calls into question any of its tenets is to be dismissed as non-scientific.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/28 at 01:23 PM
  1. The post says,

    "Darwinian evolutionary doctrine denies the existence of any timeless standard of morality, asserting that morality (like the Constitution) evolves from day to day in response to the changing environment of public opinion."

    Biological evolution has no opinion about a "timeless standard of morality." It is a very, very simple concept.

    It says, in short, that:

    "If organism "A" produces more progeny than organism "B", over the long term the traits of organism "A" will become more prevalent in the population."

    That is it! No more, no less.

    How does one construct the contrary argument?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/28  at  06:02 PM
  2. Sorry, Mr. Jay, but the facts are against you.

    John Dewey, generally regarded as the most influential spokesman of the early 20th century for liberal-progressive-socialism had a standard lecture to his Columbia University classes in which he made precisely the argument that I stated.

    In the fierce debates about Darwinism in 1859 and after in England, Thomas Henry Huxley, called by newspapers of the time "Darwin's bulldog," expressly argued that there can be no such thing as sin or morality, that nature, including civil society, is a matter of survival of the fittest.

    Karl Marx's followers at that time in England happily embraced Darwinism. citing it as proof that political and economic society was evolving in the historically inevitable pattern forecast by Marx and his socialistic predecessors, Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte.

    It is undeniable that Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, made the argument that I stated.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/28  at  07:11 PM
  3. Once again I am confronted by mirror image cognitive dissonance. On the right I have people who believe in a top down universe and a bottom up society; on the left I have people who believe in a bottom up universe and a top down society. Evolution answers the questions why species produce more progeny than necessary for survival and no two progeny are the same. Thus we have descent by natural selection.
    Thomas please express this "timeless standard of morality" in the absense of human beings and provide examples of its expression upon nature. In addition, I would like to see an explanation of this "timeless standard of morality" from first principles. If you have science on your side surely you can provide the proofs.
    Linking evolution to certain people or ideologies in the past or present does not invalidate the theory. You must provide an alternate explanation for the evidence available and enable testable predictions about the future advance of knowledge.
    The Liberal Progressives seeks power and care little about the validity of scientific discovery. They use evolution as merely a means to eliminate those things in the civil society that stand in their way of remaking it into their own utopian vision. They will discard evolution as soon as if fails to be useful anymore.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/28  at  11:00 PM
  4. Again, The View makes a rubbish argument thinking that people who believe in evolution do not have principles or morals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why, such people have more compassion and sensitivity than traditionalists or conservatives who deny evolution.

    The View thinks Darwin made up the story of evolution. But he discovered something that was out there. God gave life to Darwin so that he might discover it. And if it wasn't to be Darwin it would have been somebody else. That's life.

    The View doesn't believe in evolution. But I get the feeling that as a conservative entity it believes in the idea of 'the survival of the fittest', a byproduct notion cultivated by conservatives about Darwin's theory of evolution. This idea, the survival of the fittest, is the other side of the eugenics coin The View and its followers find so nasty and horrendous.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/28  at  11:02 PM
  5. Mr. Brewton,

    Darwin's cousin Galton, Huxley, Marx, and hundreds of others have no doubt weighed in on the subject, but the principle of evolution itself is not freighted with questions of morality that you attach. It is a free standing description of a biological process.

    It may not be a pretty sight (and we may think it "immoral") when the savage lion kills the gentle, innocent lamb, but it is a process of nature.

    As Septagon (above)implied, consider the process of evolution occurring on a planet similar to earth in every respect except that no humans exist on it. Without humans present, "morality" has no meaning, and yet evolution would clearly take place on that alternate earth.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  09:59 AM
  6. Septagon- The universe is not society. There is no cognitive dissonance involved in undersatnding the difference. The 'timeless' principles are the principles of human conscience which is real, natural. Society is a creation of man and is based on certain assumptions regarding the nature of man. Man has two choices regarding the structure of society: The materialistic assumption or a natural law/rights view presupposing a Creator of the universe as well as conscience. The results of society organized around each assumption are observable and recorded through history. Without human beings, there is no society or history to measure the efficacy of choosing materialism over natural law which works only through HUMAN conscience, acknowledged and applied as more than an arbitrary construct but as something real, pre-existing. The universe requires human beings only as observers, it exists without us. Society does not. It's our choice and history shows which choice is right and which is wrong.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  12:15 PM
  7. Never forget...


    The human cannot invent (needful) criteria greater than self. The humanist is anchored in ego-mediocrity or worse. Small wonder they cannot rise above glandular secretions and whory appetites - and need justificatiion that corrupts even more. Only transcendent criteria will function as criteria. No one can invent it. Opinion won't sub.

    Patty-cake? Still? Grow up.
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/29  at  03:28 PM
  8. Tom C,
    I did not equate the universe, the natural world, with society, man's world. Society exists within the natural world so one cannot ignore that fact. The dissonance comes from the incompatible views of how society is organized versus the natural world within the mind of the individual. If you believe in evolution and that the natural world came about without a creator how is that compatible with the Progressive's desire to control society top down?
    The "timeless" principles cannot be timeless if they are the principles of human conscience. Without humans these principles do not exist as you have formulated them.
    While society is a result of man it is not the product of a man. No one made "certain assumptions", nor was any one given the false dilemma of how to structure society by the two choices you propose. These observations are part of the science and study of history noticed only after the fact.
    You will need to explain how natural law and materialism can only work through human conscience but be independent of it and pre-exist it. If so then you should be able to state this "timeless moral standard" without reference to man and do it from first principles
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  05:40 PM
  9. If man posseses a conscience and is created in the image of God then that inherent understanding of right and wrong supplied by that conscience pre-exists man since it is a charecteristic of the Creator. Conscience only confirms the existence of a 'natural' law. Materialism rejects natural law and insists, absolutely, that there are no absolutes or first principles. Certain assumptions were in fact, made in founding this country as you can see by reading the Declaration. Human beings were directly involved in it's establishmnet. The assumption was that man is created by God and endowed with natural rights pre-existing the state. Rights are not grants of the state but of an eternal God. Without a power above the state ther are no limits on that state while conscience can now be seen as only a human construct reflecting, as Marx would say, class interest rather than any first principles.

    You ask, "If you believe in evolution and that the natural world came about without a creator, how is that compatible with the progressives desire to control society from the top down?" Again, read the declaration. Rights are from God, not the state. The exclusive belief in 'materialism' could not be more compatible with progresive top down control, and yes, the theory of evolution is framed as a belief rather than as a testable hypothesis.

    The natural law priniples embodied within the founding documents of the American rep[ubli stand in stark contrast to the materialistic principles on which all statist societies have been constructed. The materialistic 'scientism' of Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao et., etc., was the basis for constructions reflecting a rejection of those timeless principles which assume the existence of a Creator. A belief in God is probably essential to maintain a system based on limited governmnet, equality under the law and ordered liberty. How can such a society exist without the self-control and basic virtue encouraged by religious based morality? Without the power of individual self-control there is only the police power of the state and coercion. American's have always belived that those powers should be limited by a 'virtuous republican' kind of citizenry, largely capable of controlling themselves. The progtresives want a dependent citizenry, liberated from religious based morality so as to become worshippers of the the state which answers to no power higher than it's own.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  07:17 PM
  10. Tom,
    Man's consciousness does not inherently understand right or wrong. Anyboby attempting to raise moral children can attest to this. You stating that it is a characteristic of the creator neither adds to the discussion nor explicates any understanding of this "timeless moral standard". How conscience can confirm natural law is left unexplained and how materialism absolutely rejects natural law because it states there are no absolutes is contradictory.
    You conflate the founding of the government with the civil soceity. The settlers in the new world brought their civil society with them. The founding documents established the structure of a new government not the civil society. Progressives are only interested in power and they will use what ever means useful to them to gain and maintain that power. They care not for your trite arguments about natural law and materialism. They would discard evolution and materialism and adopt religion and natural law if it furthered their vision anointed.
    So once again the cognitive dissonance is restated by you: The left holds to evolution, bottom up, and materialism, top down, while the right holds to natural law, bottom up, and "timeless moral standard", top down. How is this consistent?
    I am still waiting for a dissertation of this "timeless moral standard" from first principles. This should be easy since science is on your side.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  11:28 PM
  11. Not consciousness, conscience. Only sociopaths are without a conscience. History disproves your point regarding the Progressive attachments to whatever means to power. They won't share power with the divinely inspired moral absolutes provided by the Judeo-Christian tradition which is the foundation on which this country was built (bottom-up, I suppose). The progressives attached themselves to 'rationalism' and scientism years ago rejecting the religious based morality of tradional western civilization. Moral relativism, statism need to displace the original foundation of '..and endowed by their Creator..' with rationalism replacing the divine foundation with one designed by man. That's the progressive program. If one takes the words of the Declaration seriously all rights are endowed by the Creator, not the state. This top-down/bottom-up 'contradiction' is not a contradiction at all only arbitrary categories without much meaning in this discussion particularly since the founding documents designing the governmnet were merely a reflection of the mores of civil society. The British common law tradition was the basis for the American rejection of what became British economic tyranny. Is that top-down or bottom-up?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/30  at  08:40 AM
  12. Sociopaths have no conscience? I guess you better rethink that "created in image of God then that inherent understanding of right and wrong ..." statement.
    Progressive is what these leftist statist call themselves today. They have no coherent philosophy except to gain and keep power. They will use religion and that "timeless moral standard" if it works. That British economic tyranny was run by a king. He ruled by divine right and was also the head of the Anglican church. Then we have Islamic states which have a "timeless moral standard" of there own and they reject evolution, materialism, and rationalism. Do you find it strange that leftist of the West have not problem embracing these Islamic statist? A brutal secular statist like Saddam Hussein would never work with religious fanatics like Al Qaeda. Not. Then there is the classic leftist Robespierre who preceded both Darwin and Marx, but that did not stop him from trying to remake the civil society.
    The point is that leftist do not need any particular ideology to impose their vision anointed upon society. Their use of evolution is a sad attempt to give them a patina of scientific validity where none exists. They will ditch evolution as soon as it fails to prove useful.
    By believing evolution has built the natural world but insisting on remking the civil society in their image they setup a inconsistency which dooms their purposeful societal changes to failure. Evolution bottom-up, Statism top-down.
    With a Creator making the world and providing it with a moral order is the ultimate top-down universe, but yet you seek a society built from freedom and ordered liberty which is bottom up. This contradiction will ultimately hobble the civil society because certain area of innovation will be closed off by default.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/30  at  09:10 PM
  13. Every individual human being was made in the image of the Creator. That is an incomplete description of Godly and/or successful human beings who cannot choose better than their pre-chosen criteria.

    That choice is offered to each one by God to insure that free will and opportunity must be present to validate a just judgement as to eternal life or eternal death.

    Our Maker desires fellowship with creatures of Liberty, self-controlled, and personally responsibile. Nothing less will fulfill His desire. But, it cannot be force-fed.

    No one can choose better than their criteria. Logic and reason can function no better than criteria. And, no one can invent criteria greater than self. You will have to look elsewhere than self.

    Based on the fact that The Bible is a portion of many folks' ignorance, we know that it is purposefully ignored. Willfully maintained ignorance rules - without excuse.

    Everyone must, and will, choose...
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/30  at  11:53 PM
  14. With Septagon and Tom C. locked in a philosophical struggle to the death, let me just inject a question on the original point.

    Does the validity of the concept of evolution hang on whether or not it supports "A timeless standard of morality?"

    We are reminded every day by those no longer believing the earth is flat that evolution can stand on its own merits. Most of us now actively rely on the principles of evolution to maintain our very existence.

    Case in point.

    By genetic analysis, science has determined that the virus causing the so-called swine flu is of recent origin. In other words, it just evolved from other strains of flu. It has not been lurking harmlessly somewhere in the woods for a couple of thousand years (since getting off Noah's Ark) and waiting, patiently, until March of 2009 to manifest itself. And it is with our current understanding of the evolution of viruses that an effective vaccine will, we hope, be developed.

    It would be refreshing if, to demonstrate a true faith, those who dispute the validity of evolution would graciously decline to accept inoculation developed and furnished by a heretical and false science.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/01  at  04:33 PM
  15. Interesting point Jay. You make a solid case. But I think that non-believers of evolution will still stand their ground and say that this flu virus was newly send down by the Creator as a form of punishment, or cleansing.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/01  at  05:35 PM
  16. I find it interesting that conservatives and traditionalists can accept Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to free market economics but not when it comes to how humans and nature came to be.

    But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.

    Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.

    These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.

    Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.

    How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/02  at  12:35 PM
  17. Hypocrisy has never been a big issue with traditionalists.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/05  at  10:55 PM
  18. Self-justification rules all humanists. It is the first truth for self-worship and carnal appettes cloaked with 'intelligent' oxymoron drapery.

    Humanists cannot name one Transcendent Criteria of their own initiative. It has never worked. It never can. A variety of cannibalism uniquely marks its history of groups & individuals.

    Only the Creator is thus empowered. He is the only Rule-maker and favors individual human beings regardless of a limited knowledge in a vast universe of their ignorance.

    Faith and trust are the only worthy alternatives left to a mankind bereft of full knowledge of an infinite GOD.

    Your historical humanistic motives are questionable, suspect, and unworthy of further humanistic patty-cake...

    Happy with self "justification?"


    Your choice.

    "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision, for the day of the Lord is nigh in the valley of decision." Joel 3:14 kjv
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  05/06  at  09:55 AM
  19. Jim,

    Your arguments are unanswerable.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/07  at  09:41 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.