Wednesday, October 4th, 2006


Can you imagine if I actually believed such a thing?! And yet that sort of logic is employed by abortion-choice advocates all the time.

I recently moved from Long Beach to San Jose. Would anyone think my change in physical location can deprive me of my value (or give me value if I had none before)? Of course not. So why, then, do abortion-choice advocates think the unborn’s location deprives him of value? Furthermore, why do many abortion-choice advocates think a fetus’ change in location from inside the womb to outside the womb gives him value? Why is a fetus in the womb a non-person deserving of no right to life, whereas that same fetus, once outside the womb, is now a person deserving of the right to life? This (excuse the crudeness) “magical-vagina” view of personhood—in which the birth canal confers personhood on a fetus like the king’s sword confers knighthood on a man—is rationally foolish. There is no ontological difference between the intrauterine fetus, and the extrauterine newborn. If there is no ontological difference, neither is there a moral difference.

From the pope’s 9-12-06 homily address at Regensburg:

 

We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success – inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth – I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!

Just one more nail in the coffin to the argument that Darwinism and theism are compatible. Agnostic/atheist scientists such as Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge claim the realm of science and the realm of religion are entirely separate. The twain shall never meet, and thus can never contradict one another. One can believe in Darwinism and embrace theism. Don’t believe such an absurdity! Darwinism is the creation story of materialistic philosophy: a way of accounting for existence without a supernatural creator. Even if God exists, they argue, He was not necessary to bring the universe into being, let alone into its present form. But if God is not necessary to explain our existence, then He is equally unnecessary in our lives as well. Although Darwinism does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God’s existence, it definitely excludes God’s involvement with the cosmos. And if God is not involved with the cosmos, then Christianity is false, and God is useless to us. We have no contact with him, and he has no contact with us. In fact, he doesn’t want to. This sort of deism is not reconcilable with the Christian conception of God.

Barry A (from William Dembski’s blog) wrote:

 

Many people say Darwinism is a scientific theory, and as such does not speak to morality or ethics. Strictly speaking, this is true, but like ID, Darwinism also has profound implications for morality and ethics. It is not for nothing that Dawkins said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. And as Nietzsche was honest enough to admit, an atheist is compelled to say that morality, ethics and justice are illusions. The only thing that exists is a brutal competition of wills. There is no right and wrong. There is only strong and weak. The 20th century was one long bloody lesson in the practical application of Nietzsche’s ideas.

We must always be very careful to distinguish between our science and our metaphysics. ID is science and Darwinism is science. Neither ID nor Darwinism addresses morality, ethics or justice, but both have implications for these matters. ID is consistent with my hope that a loving God exists Who has established a transcendent moral order. Darwinism is consistent with atheism, which in turn is inconsistent with the very idea of objective morality.

“Salvation obtains when accurate knowledge is combined with active trust.”—Greg Koukl, “Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be”