>> Four things here. First only some of social consequences of
>> evolutionary theory are bad, not all. Presumably you would regard the >
need for careful use of pesticides and antibiotics that evolutionary
>> theory highlights as desirable.
Vernon wrote:
>Are you saying that these things would never have seen the light of day
>were it not for evolution?
Susan wrote:
no, I think Jonathan is saying that these things are dangerous to use
without knowledge of evolution and natural selection.
>Anti-God and anti-biblical views in were, of course, in existence long
>before Darwin (as Henry Morris points out in 'The Long War Against
>God'). However, there can be no denying that both Marx and Hitler were
>particularly inspired by Darwinian ideas
they were inspired by *what they thought* were Darwinian ideas.
.
>> Third, just because a theory can be misused says nothing about
>> its truth or falsity.
>
>But, describing his creation as 'good' surely seems rather odd if
>evolution were really the means!
there's nothing bad in changing to meet the needs of a changing environment.
There is no blame in failing to do so and going extinct. After all, all
creatures die.
>I believe I see the issues in our discussion very clearly. As I have
>argued elsewhere, evolution at root is unfalsifiable and hence,
>unscientific. It exists as a device whose prime purpose is that of
>reducing the standing of God in the eyes of those created in his image.
How can it do that? How is that necessary? Especially when you realize that
the rhythms of nature inspire reverence in the people who observe it. And
for those that believe in God, it inspires worship the author of nature.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb