Re: Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view?

[lordofal...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
<soundof...@dcemail.com> 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
>the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has
>"no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
>indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins even admitted that his
>best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what
>he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in
>popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act
>for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that
>needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with
>it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the
>gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The
>Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth"
>about why humans exist, namely humans,
>
> . . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish
>genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't
>sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that
>the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had
>a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).
>
>Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have
>on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern
>Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp.
>187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a
>human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the
>conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is
>considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis
>his).
>
>In Futuyma's words, "if the world and its creatures developed purely
>by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has
>no purpose or goal" (pp. 12-13). Furthermore, he notes that the
>creationist,
>
> in contrast, believes that everything in the world, every
>species . . . was designed by an intelligent, purposeful artificer,
>and that it was made for a purpose . . . the human species was not
>designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material
>mechanism . . . seems to be the message of evolution (pp. 12-13).
>
>Is this pessimistic, antitheistic, and nihilistic view of humans
>widespread? One researcher claimed that "ninety-nine percent of the
>scientists whom I met in my career . . . support the view expressed by
>Dawkins [that anyone] . . . who denies evolution is either ignorant,
>stupid, insane or wicked" (Rörsch, p. F3). This oft' made claim is
>totally false: an estimated 10,000 scientists in the USA and about
>100,000 creation scientists in the world reject Darwinism, and hold
>instead to a creation worldview (Bergman). A question every concerned
>parent and grandparent should ask is: "Do we want our children taught
>that life has no ultimate purpose, and that our minds are merely a
>computer made of meat?" The fact is:
>
> . . . the philosophy implied by Darwinism, that life may have no
>"purpose" in the traditional religious sense, and that life is
>ultimately a random process . . . Darwinism is unique among scientific
>theories because it attempts to explain man's origins . . . (Leith, p.
>9, emphasis his).
>
>Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and
>depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that
>science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many
>scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting
>creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view
>common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis argues that:
>
> It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as
>Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg
>has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . .
>This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical
>notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic
>religion (pp. 42-43).
>
>Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a
>worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often
>have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax
>and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells).
>
>Acknowledgments:
>
> Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Clifford L. Lillo for their insight.
>
>References
>
> * Bass, Thomas. 1990. Interview. Omni, 12(4):58-89.
> * Bergman, Jerry. 1999. "The Attitude of Various Populations
>Toward Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools." CEN Tech J,
>13(2):118-123.
> * Dawkins, Richard. 1999. "You Can't Have It Both Ways:
>Irreconcilable Differences?" Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, pp.
>62-63.
> * Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness."
>Science, 277:892, August 15.
> * Futuyma, Douglas. 1983. Science on Trial. NY: Pantheon Books.
> * Gould, Stephen Jay. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in
>the Fullness of Life. NY: Ballantine.
> * Johnson, Phillip. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington, D.C.:
>RegneryGateway.
> * Leith, Brian. 1982. The Descent of Darwinism. London: Collins.
> * Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's
>Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. NY: Cliff Street
>Books.
> * Raymo, Chet. 1998. Skeptics and True Believers. New York, NY:
>Walker.
> * Rörsch, A. 1999. "Mutation Research Frontiers: Challenges to
>Evolution Theory." Mutation Research, 423:F3F19.
> * Shallis, M. 1984. "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist,
>January 19, pp. 42-43.
> * Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970. The Meaning of Evolution. New
>Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
> * Weinberg, Steven. 1977. The First Three Minutes. NY: Basic
>Books.
> * Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth.
>Washington, D.C.: RegneryGateway.
>
>* Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State
>College in Ohio.



Reflections on the Passion

13 - "You cannot better appreciate your worth than by looking into the
mirror of the Cross of Christ; there you will learn how you are to
deflate your pride, how you must mortify the desires of the flesh, how
you are to pray to your Father for those who persecute you, and to
commend your spirit into God's hands."
--(St. Anthony of Padua, Doctor of the Church)

14 - "We love a thing in proportion to what it has cost us. You may
judge by that of our Lord's love for our soul, which has cost him his
Blood." (St. John Vianney)

<<>><<>><<>>
23 June - Madonna del Sasso, Bibbiena, Arezzo, Toscana, Italy

(1347)
The little seer, Caterina, 7 years old, while her mother was washing
clothes in the Vessa stream, moved away a little, placing herself near
a stone. Here she saw a beautiful lady dressed all in white who,
having entered the nearby field of beans, collected several and placed
them in the bosom of the girl. Meanwhile, the mother was busy and the
little girl ran to tell her of the lady and showed her the beans she
had received but the mother paid no attention to her daughter’s
meeting.

Returning to the village, Caterina complained to her mother because
the beans had grown so much that their weight was difficult for her to
bear but her mother told her to be patient as they would soon be home.
In the evening, the mother wanted to cook some of those beans but she
noticed that they were full of blood. The whole country ran to see the
prodigy. The following morning, everyone went in procession to the
stone and here they decided to build a Chapel in honour of the
Madonna.

The apparition of the Madonna del Sasso was preceded and followed by
two further miraculous events.

Also in 1347, shortly before the vision, a white dove appeared on the
top of the stone and was approached only by children and an old
hermit, Beato Martino da Poppi, a Camaldolese Monk, who had his
hermitage nearby. When the children approached it, the dove pecked at
their fingers and hands but if adults approached, it flew away. In
1444, several people saw golden-blue light globes inside and outside
the Church; these appeared for about three months. The podestà,
together with some family and friends, returning from a hunting party,
about 300 meters away from the sacred stone, saw a crowd of
white-dressed young men heading in procession to the Church.

A small Chapel was immediately built next to the boulder, later
enlarged to include the entire boulder. It now hosts the beautiful
image of the Madonna del Sasso, painted by Bicci di Lorenzo in 1435.

This image miraculously remained intact in the fire that completely
destroyed the Church in 1486.

The Dominican Fathers were custodians of the Sanctuary since 1468.
They immediately worked on the construction of the current Sanctuary,
in pure Renaissance style, based on a design by Giuliano da Maiano. A
great amount of funds for the construction of the Sanctuary and
Convent, came from Savonarola in 1495, who solicited help from noble
families of Florence and from the Medici in particular.


“We give glory to You, Lord,
who raised up Your Cross to span the jaws of death
like a bridge by which souls might pass
from the region of the dead to the land of the living. ..
You are incontestably alive.
Your murderers sowed Your living body in the earth
as farmers sow grain but it sprang up
and yielded an abundant harvest of men
raised from the dead.”
St Ephrem (306-373)

“I am the vine, you are the branches.
Whoever remains in me and I in him
will bear much fruit
because without me,
you can do nothing.” John 15:5-6