>Steve Clark wrote:
>
><<The bottom line, Randy, is that in order to be logically consistent, if you
>argue against evolution science because Hitler abused it, you need to be
>prepared to argue against Christianity because it is mistakenly used to
>promote racial purity.>>
JB
>You've misstated the argument. Hitler did not ABUSE evolutionism. He followed
>its logical consequences.
Come on Jim, you, Hitler, and Randy may believe this, but it is NOT a
necessary conclusion from evolution science as evidenced by the large number
of evolutionary creationists, and even most secular evolutionists who do not
believe that Hitler's belief in racial superiority is a logical consequence
of evolution science. You ignored the rest of my argument in making your
narrow point.
Evolutionism is not the same thing as evolution science. The metaphysical
extension that some people make of evolution science is NOT a necessary
conclusion from the science. Hitler's philosophy primarily was based on a
metaphysical worldview rather than on any science. It is more correct to
claim that Hitler followed the logical consequence of a flawed metaphysical
paradigm (lets call it Secular Naturalism or SN) that was grounded on
something other than evolution. To be sure, an adherent to SN can in fact
invoke Darwinian evolution to support his belief--evolution is certainly
consistent with this viewpoint. However, evolution does not invariably lead
to Hitler's brand of SN. He easily could have reached the same end without
having to resort to a misuse of natural selection for justification.
Hitler's viewpoint that the Aryan race was evolutionarily more advanced than
other races was not based on science, but on a warped philosophy and
psychology.
>So the logic is consistent. Evolutionism is unable to distinguish between good
>and evil; Christianity can.
The logic is consistent only if you make the illogical assumption that SN is
a necessary result of evolution science. If you believe this, then you need
to explain the great number of people who are willing to consider evolution
science, but who flat-out reject SN.
Nevertheless, YOUR logic here is seriously flawed. You make a normative
statement which, in effect, says that Christianity and evolutionism deal
with different things, then you derive the conclusion that, therefore,
evolution MUST be responsible for Hitler's philosophy. Take, for example,
the following parallel example of logic, to paraphrase Jim:
"Football is unable to distinguish between good and evil;
Christianity can."
We can draw no logical conclusion from such a premise.
To argue from a different perspective, note that the fact that evolutionism
(SN) is unable to distinguish between good and evil is not a problem with
the point I make here. In fact, this helps to illustrate the
epistemological flaw of those who try to make evolution science into a
metaphysical paradigm. It is important to keep in mind the distinction
between "physics" and metaphysics. One can disagree with the metaphysical
extension that is evolutionISM, but then one needs to examine evolution
science on its own merits. Rejecting the metaphysics of evolutionism does
not mean that evolution science is wrong.
JB
>A simple way to prove this is to try, based on evolutionism alone, to prove
>Hitler was wrong. Give it a whack.
Why should I? I don't adhere to the metaphysical paradigm and the science
does not address this question any more than biochemistry does. The point
is illogical.
Shalom,
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
____________________________________________________________