What is wrong with Penn state students???

[Kathleen in VA]

Why do you think "evolutionists and atheists" don't have moral standards? Why do you think morality is limited to a specific religious interpretation of a book whose various meanings and interpretations have been debated for centuries (and continues to be debated by very educated, pious, religious people today)? Why does morality depend on believing in God? And, especially, how do you account for the *many* Christians who have no difficulty reconciling the scientific theory of evolution and their religious beliefs? I think you've overreached and done a grave disservice to many, many people.

 

Go back and read it again. I never said E's and A's don't have moral standards. My point was that they do, but that evolutionary thinking does not support a moral standard so there is a disconnect between believing in evolution and also having a moral code.

 

ETA: Just reading the last part of your post. For those Christians who have no trouble reconciling the theory of evolution and Christianity I can just say they haven't read their Bibles very carefully - perhaps they are just trying to keep the peace or not appear "uneducated" to unbelievers they know. I really couldn't say. The Bible clearly teaches that God created the world and everything in it - if they missed that they can find it out by going back and rereading Genesis, the gospels, and several of the Epistles where it is stated clearly.

 

If man is just evolved from lower life forms how can he even trust his "reason"? Why depend on the mind of man to get it right? Are these the same men who lose their car keys and can't remember what they had for dinner last night. I think basing a moral code on the tenable, fallible mind of evolved man is unreasonable.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[justamouse]

.

 

You should have edited the other one, too.

[mommaduck]

Isn't she just giving her opinion of "What is wrong with Penn State students?"

I didn't realise it was a response to the question as 1) I took the question as rhetorical and 2) her response seemed more like using the situation to create a soapbox...thus dividing people that are all equally appalled on the issues at Penn State.

[LibraryLover]

I cannot speak for "all the good Bible-believing Christians' to whom you refer. I do not know any of them. I do know that many Christians claim to also believe in evolution. It's called theistic evolution and it is a false teaching. That's really an apple and oranges comparison anyway. One could make the argument that these woman are just out to ruin Cain politically. Were there eye witnesses to their claims? I have not been reading about it because I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If there are eyewitnesses then those Bible-believing Christians are wrong. I just don't know enough about that situation to really speak on it.

 

Again, I never said atheists and evolutionists have no moral code. I believe they do. But the idea of man evolving from lower life forms does not support a moral code. I am proposing that atheists and evolutionists are betraying their true belief in a higher authority.

 

 

Is it moral code or instinct when animals care tenderly for their young? What does it mean when adult male elephants introduced into a wild male herd calm the young ones and teach them how to behave?

 

I was at the Lowry Zoo in Tampa this spring when a baby gorilla fell from a height more than his mother could bear. I heard that baby's head hit the rock. The mother actually screamed and came running towards the baby and lifted him up into her arms and put him to her breast. An older female came running to check. She put her arm around the mother and held her. They both checked the baby.

 

The older sibling looked on and then when back to the place where the baby had fallen. He walked back and forth, back and forth, trying to make sense of the scene. He then went back to his sibling and mother. The older female remained with them.

 

Later, the baby was OK, and tried to go back and play. The mother kept grabbing him and pulling him back towards her. I spent the day there, checking back, and it was only much, much later in the day that she felt comfortable letting that baby leave her side.

 

How do religious folks explain this degree of tender & thoughtful animal behavior?

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Spy Car]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

Your posts in this thread are beyond insulting Kathleen. I like you and want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but wow! Just wow!!!

 

Bill

Edited November 11, 2011 by Spy Car

[Lady Florida.]

But the idea of man evolving from lower life forms does not support a moral code.

 

Yes it does.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

 

http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA20070034.pdf

[simka2]

I am human, I relate and empathize with other humans. I see suffering, I see suffering as bad. I have developed a moral.

[linguistmama]

But morals could be a destination in evolution, right? Having moral standards can help society as a whole, which could help the species survive etc. Protecting children would make sense.

 

My father is an atheist and die hard sports fan. We've discussed child rape and sexual abuse cases before and he is always outraged by what is sometimes done to children. He doesn't need a belief in God to know that this abuse is absolutely wrong. It comes from his very core and is instinctual as it can be for people who also believe in God. There is no disconnect for him!

[LibraryLover]

Your posts in this thread are beyond insulting Kathleen. I like you and and to give you the benefit of the doubt, but wow! Just wow!!!

 

Bill

 

 

I am floored. Totally floored. I am feeling that people, as nice as they may seem, are often not what they seem. I am not floored. I am shocked.

[simka2]

I am floored. Totally floored. I am feeling that people, as nice as they may seem, are often not what they seem. I am not floored. I am shocked.

 

I am in the same position. I am sitting here in absolute shock.

[Marylou]

Is it moral code or instinct when animals care tenderly for their young? What does it mean when adult male elephants introduced into a wild male herd calm the young ones and teach them how to behave?

 

I was at the Lowry Zoo in Tampa this spring when a baby gorilla fell from a height more than his mother could bear. I heard that baby's head hit the rock. The mother actually screamed and came running towards the baby and lifted him up into her arms and put him to her breast. An older female came running to check. She put her arm around the mother and held her. They both checked the baby.

 

The older sibling looked on and then when back to the place where the baby had fallen. He walked back and forth, back and forth, trying to make sense of the scene. He then went back to his sibling and mother. The older female remained with them.

 

Later, the baby was OK, and tried to go back and play. The mother kept grabbing him and pulling him back towards her. I spent the day there, checking back, and it was only much, much later in the day that she felt comfortable letting that baby leave her side.

 

How do religious folks explain this degree of animal behavior?

 

Instinct.

 

Just because a gorilla shows compassion to her young doesn't mean she is obligated to do it at all times. Does it?

 

What do you think?

[LibraryLover]

Instinct.

 

Just because a gorilla shows compassion to her young doesn't mean she is obligated to do it at all times. Does it?

 

 

What do you mean? I'm confused.

[justamouse]

Instinct.

 

Just because a gorilla shows compassion to her young doesn't mean she is obligated to do it at all times. Does it?

 

What do you think?

 

You think that's all it is? Instinct? Then why did she scream? Why the emotion? Why do elephants sometimes choose to die without their mates?

 

You're really cramming God in a teeny, tiny box.

[kalanamak]

If not, then why do you believe this behavior is appalling? What do you base that sense of right and wrong on?

 

The greater societal good. Wishing to act in a way that, if passed around the world, you believe would make life more pleasant and rewarding. Call it all selfishness, I really don't care, but if you simply don't steal, rape, demonstrate roadrage, etc because you want the world to be a better place for YOU to live in, fine. It works for me and mine. I get to decide if something is actually good, rather than just getting from a book, whose teachings have deluded people over and over that not only are they right, but they are DIVINELY right. That scares me a lot more than sharing monkey-genes. :)

 

I'm sorry, but what you've said about non-creationists is an insult to many people. But as long as you are "right", perhaps that doesn't matter. Or perhaps it is part of why being "right" feels so great.

[Kathleen in VA]

Well, as I understand your mindset from your previous posts, I can totally see how you believe that.

 

But I don't see atheists (or anyone) as evil, having no morals, or without God.

 

Because when you DO see people like that, you are limiting God. You are saying that God can only be within good people, creationist believers, when, God saw the whole world and saw that it was good. Every person on this earth has the capacity to choose right from wrong, and to give and receive love. That, in and of itself, is God within them. Now, whether that person sees it as God within them is another matter, but that still doesn't limit who God is.

 

Sorry, I'll pick the big God over the little one, every day.

 

 

You seem to have missed my point too. I never said atheists are evil and have no morals. Actually, I said the opposite. I pointed out that most of the folks pointing the finger at these guys are evolutionists, are obviously outraged and appalled, but that if you take evolution at face value there is no reason to actually be appalled. I believe they are appalled. Please understand me. I believe they are appalled and have a moral standard. What I don't understand is why, based on the fact that man is just an organism that evolved over time and by chance can state without equivocation that some act by some other evolved being is right or wrong. What if their moral code differs from yours? Why can't it? Why is yours the right one and theirs is the wrong one?

[justamouse]

You seem to have missed my point too. I never said atheists are evil and have no morals. Actually, I said the opposite. I pointed out that most of the folks pointing the finger at these guys are evolutionists, are obviously outraged and appalled, but that if you take evolution at face value there is no reason to actually be appalled. I believe they are appalled. Please understand me. I believe they are appalled and have a moral standard. What I don't understand is why, based on the fact that man is just an organism that evolved over time and by chance can state without equivocation that some act by some other evolved being is right or wrong. What if their moral code differs from yours? Why can't it? Why is yours the right one and theirs is the wrong one?

 

I don't think you thought through what you wrote. At all.

 

I answered this in my previous answer.

[brehon]

Go back and read it again. I never said E's and A's don't have moral standards. My point was that they do, but that evolutionary thinking does not support a moral standard so there is a disconnect between believing in evolution and also having a moral code.

 

I read your posts several times and am still stunned by what you've written. Believing in evolution (with or without a belief in God) does not preclude having a moral code. You seem to assume that evolutionists don't or can't also believe in God.

 

I realize in your belief system this may be the prevalent belief. As a Christian who was married in the RCC, is raising my kids in the RCC, and is deeply immersed in RC teachings and beliefs (to say nothing of my own beliefs) I catagorically reject the thought that having a moral code depends on rejecting evolutionary theory (using the scientific meaning of the term). I believe to do so limits God. And the human understanding of God is finite enough without additional man-made constraints.

[Kathleen in VA]

The greater societal good. Wishing to act in a way that, if passed around the world, you believe would make life more pleasant and rewarding. Call it all selfishness, I really don't care, but if you simply don't steal, rape, demonstrate roadrage, etc because you want the world to be a better place for YOU to live in, fine. It works for me and mine. I get to decide if something is actually good, rather than just getting from a book, whose teachings have deluded people over and over that not only are they right, but they are DIVINELY right. That scares me a lot more than sharing monkey-genes. :)

 

I'm sorry, but what you've said about non-creationists is an insult to many people. But as long as you are "right", perhaps that doesn't matter. Or perhaps it is part of why being "right" feels so great.

 

Define "greater societal good." Who decides what that is?

Define "a better place". Who decides what's better and what isn't?

 

Hitler thought the greater good was to put to death a lot of Jews, Gypsies, Christians, and others. He was wrong. He convinced a lot of people that he was right. I don't want just anyone defining the "greater good" for me.

 

What, particularly, did I say that was insulting to non-creationists?

[Marylou]

What do you mean? I'm confused.

 

I guess I'm the one who is confused. What point were you trying to make about the gorilla incident?

[kalanamak]

:confused: No moral basis? Plenty of non Christians have a personal (or corporate other-than-Christian) moral code.

 

Heck, my dog had a more pleasing moral code than some people I've known. In her case I believe it had been bred into her from the underpinings of a social species (wolves), with the selection done by another social species (humans).

 

Now then, given the high correlation of violent anti-social behavior in the sons of men who have violent anti-social behavior (even when removed from them before birth), I would also argue that a tendency to "moral" behavior could also be inherited. I'll even go so far as to say a tendency to religiosity is also inherited. Look at the anatomical neurological abnormalities that can cause such a change in people's whole personality.

[Marylou]

You think that's all it is? Instinct? Then why did she scream? Why the emotion? Why do elephants sometimes choose to die without their mates?

 

You're really cramming God in a teeny, tiny box.

 

Cramming God in a box???? :001_huh: We're talking about animals :confused:

 

Why did the gorilla scream? IDK. Why do dogs lick ice cream cones?

 

What are you trying to say . . . Animals are people, too :confused:

 

I'm just trying to understand the gorilla story!

[justamouse]

Can I call Godwins Law?

Edited November 11, 2011 by justamouse
tooo many oooos

[LibraryLover]

I guess I'm the one who is confused. What point were you trying to make about the gorilla incident?

 

Why do you think the mother's care and tenderness towards her baby would be limited?

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[redsquirrel]

I don't want just anyone defining the "greater good" for me.

 

and I don't want you or your bible defining it for me. And I don't want you 'defining' me at all. You don't know me. Yet, you judge why I make the decisions I do.

 

I thought we could have something in common, feeling sadness at the misguided actions of those students who are letting their passion for a game cloud their judgement.

 

Instead, I get told because I am not a christian I have no moral compass and the teachings of science bring about the abuse of children.

 

So, I guess that means we don't get to stand side by side in sadness over what has happened, because you have decided that I am a part of the problem.

 

Well, now that I know what you think of people who think differently than you, I guess I am ok with that.

[Lovin Learnin]

Can I call Goodwins Law?

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

I have never heard of this before. Interesting.

[LibraryLover]

I agree with you Justamouse.

 

If there is a God, it's a God far bigger than any tiny box people would like to cram him/it/her into. (Please do not sing the preposition song. lol)

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Rivka]

I am floored. Totally floored. I am feeling that people, as nice as they may seem, are often not what they seem. I am not floored. I am shocked.

 

Yeah. After everything else I've been reading and thinking about in the past few days, for some reason this just feels like a punch in the gut. I am usually better at rising above things like this.

[justamouse]

Cramming God in a box???? :001_huh: We're talking about animals :confused:

 

Why did the gorilla scream? IDK. Why do dogs lick ice cream cones?

 

What are you trying to say . . . Animals are people, too :confused:

 

I'm just trying to understand the gorilla story!

 

You're equating an ape, who mothers her children as close to a human as possible, with a dog who mothers her puppies for 8 weeks? A dog pushes out a litter, an ape has one, perhaps twins. An ape uses tools, can sign language, and ommunicate. Granted, dogs are amazing, sniffing out cancer, can communicate to an extent, but not with the depth of an ape.

 

Why not just make a snake and ape equal?

 

They are animals that God created. He saw that they were good. They're not here for use to use an abuse, they're not at our disposal. We, as humans, are the ultimate animal husbands. I'm not saying that animals are people at all, I'm saying that your limited view of God is blinding you to the idea that animals CAN have emotions and higher thought.

 

To follow that through, your limited view of God says that all people who don't agree with all of your beliefs, have no good within them. You are limiting God.

Edited November 11, 2011 by justamouse

[Marylou]

Why do you think the mother's care and tenderness towards her baby would be limited?

 

I wasn't saying that it is. Would it matter if it was limited in some way?

 

Is anyone going to send her to jail if she stops caring for her offspring? Is anyone going to be appalled? No, because she is an ANIMAL.

 

Just because an animal has certain instincts which look like compassion to us doesn't mean she has a moral code that she is following.

 

Is that what you're saying? Animals show emotion and do compassionate acts b/c they have morals?

[LibraryLover]

I'm not saying that animals are people at all, I'm saying that your limited view of God is blinding you to the idea that animals CAN have emotions and higher thought.

 

Thank you. There is a certain care, a certain higher thought/morality, if you care to see it that way, that allows a gorilla mother to fear for the life of her child. Without that greater thinking, why try to comfort or save the infant at all? I'd rather share a common ancestor with the likes of her than with some of my fellow humans.

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[elegantlion]

Why do you think the mother's care and tenderness towards her baby would be limited?

 

:confused: confused as well. Have you ever watched the compassion that elephants show for their babies? I've seen multiple videos that have brought me nearly to tears. How about a mother cat that continues to retrieve her babies from a burning building until she has them all nearly killing herself. Animal instinct would tell her to stay out of the fire.

 

Animals absolutely can display conscious compassion. They mourn too. I have seen animals mourn the loss of an owner, the loss of another pet. Mourning is not just instinct.

[mommaduck]

I wasn't saying that it is. Would it matter if it was limited in some way?

 

Is anyone going to send her to jail if she stops caring for her offspring? Is anyone going to be appalled? No, because she is an ANIMAL.

 

Just because an animal has certain instincts which look like compassion to us doesn't mean she has a moral code that she is following.

 

Is that what you're saying? Animals show emotion and do compassionate acts b/c they have morals?

Who is to say that some don't? Even Balaam's @$$ tried to save Balaam's arse.

[Kathleen in VA]

I read your posts several times and am still stunned by what you've written. Believing in evolution (with or without a belief in God) does not preclude having a moral code. You seem to assume that evolutionists don't or can't also believe in God.

 

I realize in your belief system this may be the prevalent belief. As a Christian who was married in the RCC, is raising my kids in the RCC, and is deeply immersed in RC teachings and beliefs (to say nothing of my own beliefs) I catagorically reject the thought that having a moral code depends on rejecting evolutionary theory (using the scientific meaning of the term). I believe to do so limits God.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me - not sure. You said not believing in God does not preclude having a moral code. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I don't think I said that. What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I think perhaps you (and others who are Christians but who believe in evolutionary theory) haven't quite thought it all the way through. Books have been written about this topic so I don't think I can adequately address it here, but I will just get the ball rolling with this idea.

 

If theistic evolution were true, then many, many living organisms had to die before man came on the scene. That means that death entered the universe and world long before Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, mankind in general, if you think of Adam and Eve metaphorically or symbolically). Theologically speaking that means that death was already a fact of life (sorry, no joke intended there) and that the whole idea of man sinning and falling from God's grace (literally or metaphorically) and thereby bringing suffering and death into the world is moot. If the fact that sin does not cause death is no longer tue than we do not need a Savior. If we do not need a Savior, then we do not need Christ and we do not need Christianity.

 

However, if God really did create man on the 6th day of creation and all of creation up to and including that point was good, even very good, according to scripture then there were no eons of years filled with death. Death was a consequence of Adam's and Eve's rebelliion against God's one simple command in the Garden of Eden and the first death happened after mankind was on earth - it was the death of Abel. If our sin causes suffering and death and separates us from a Holy God, then we do need a Savior. We need someone who can save us from the wages of sin - death.

 

I don't see how evolution and Christianity are compatible in any way just from examining that one aspect of the argument. There are many books out there that explain it much better than I can though and I encourage you to at least examine the topic. Don't take my word, or Ken Ham's or John Whitcomb's or any theistic evolutionists' word. Search the scriptures as the Bereans did to see whether or not these things be so.

[kalanamak]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

I have never heard of this before. Interesting.

 

Yup, some drags Hitler into the conversation, and TWEEEEET -- everyone out of the pool.

[regentrude]

Thank you. There is a certain care, a certain higher thought/morality, if you care to see it that way, that allows a gorilla mother to fear for the life of her child. Without that greater thinking, why try to comfort or save the infant at all?

 

From a purely evolutionary point of view, one could make the argument that the behavior is purely instinct, developed in order to preserve the species. Instincts that cause a mother to care for her young are definitely beneficial for survival, and species that are lacking this trait would not have possessed the fitness to survive.

So, an anthropomorph interpretation is tempting, but not the only explanation.

[LibraryLover]

I wasn't saying that it is. Would it matter if it was limited in some way?

 

Is anyone going to send her to jail if she stops caring for her offspring? Is anyone going to be appalled? No, because she is an ANIMAL.

 

Just because an animal has certain instincts which look like compassion to us doesn't mean she has a moral code that she is following.

 

Is that what you're saying? Animals show emotion and do compassionate acts b/c they have morals?

 

Is it upsetting to you that animals can show higher thinking, emotion and compassion?

[elegantlion]

I wasn't saying that it is. Would it matter if it was limited in some way?

 

Is anyone going to send her to jail if she stops caring for her offspring? Is anyone going to be appalled? No, because she is an ANIMAL.

 

Just because an animal has certain instincts which look like compassion to us doesn't mean she has a moral code that she is following.

 

Is that what you're saying? Animals show emotion and do compassionate acts b/c they have morals?

 

Then maybe that makes the primates more evolved than us.:tongue_smilie: If they don't have to have a defined moral code to act with compassion and with emotion.

[simka2]

Kathleen, I will meet you halfway.

 

God is love. If someone or something experiences love, they experience God (as per my beliefs). That love can become the basis for a moral code and you "could" make the argument that way down deep atheists have a "higher power" on which they base their morality (love).

The morals are based on an understanding of love which is in no way seperated from a belief in evolution.

Edited November 11, 2011 by simka2

[Spy Car]

Oh never mind

Edited November 11, 2011 by Spy Car

[justamouse]

I think you are misunderstanding me - not sure. You said not believing in God does not preclude having a moral code. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I don't think I said that. What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I think perhaps you (and others who are Christians but who believe in evolutionary theory) haven't quite thought it all the way through. Books have been written about this topic so I don't think I can adequately address it here, but I will just get the ball rolling with this idea.

 

If theistic evolution were true, then many, many living organisms had to die before man came on the scene. That means that death entered the universe and world long before Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, mankind in general, if you think of Adam and Eve metaphorically or symbolically). Theologically speaking that means that death was already a fact of life (sorry, no joke intended there) and that the whole idea of man sinning and falling from God's grace (literally or metaphorically) and thereby bringing suffering and death into the world is moot. If the fact that sin does not cause death is no longer tue than we do not need a Savior. If we do not need a Savior, then we do not need Christ and we do not need Christianity.

 

However, if God really did create man on the 6th day of creation and all of creation up to and including that point was good, even very good, according to scripture then there were no eons of years filled with death. Death was a consequence of Adam's and Eve's rebelliion against God's one simple command in the Garden of Eden and the first death happened after mankind was on earth - it was the death of Abel. If our sin causes suffering and death and separates us from a Holy God, then we do need a Savior. We need someone who can save us from the wages of sin - death.

 

I don't see how evolution and Christianity are compatible in any way just from examining that one aspect of the argument. There are many books out there that explain it much better than I can though and I encourage you to at least examine the topic. Don't take my word, or Ken Ham's or John Whitcomb's or any theistic evolutionists' word. Search the scriptures as the Bereans did to see whether or not these things be so.

 

You can't see the difference, because you're so steeped in your POV.

 

Genesis is not a science text. Death did not 'enter' the world, death is a part of life. There was no eternal in the garden, then they got booted out and death entered. The eternal in the garden part is talking about our not yet evolved free will and emotion. We were without God consciousness. We 'ate' the fruit, we evolved to having an ego. And with ego, disharmony entered the world. Humans are the only creatures that cause disharmony in the world. Disharmony is sin. THAT is 'death'.

 

You CAN have Christ centered theology without believing in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is new. It's not old. The bible is only 1400 years old--what did people use for Sola Scriptura before then? What did they believe before then?

 

So, even in you believe in a young earth, what did people do all those years without the bible?

 

You seem to think that us who believe in Theistic Evolution haven't read these things, or have yet to journey to where you are.

 

Many of us have been where you are an journeyed out.

Edited November 11, 2011 by justamouse

[Marylou]

Off to bed.

 

I think it's a tad funny that a thread that started out bemoaning the fact (sorta) that people were acting like animals, turns completely around into animals act like people :001_smile:.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Can't we just review all the old threads in which the old saw re: atheists/poor misguided evolutionists=amoral is discussed? :glare:

 

 

The pot has been sufficiently stirred for the evening, Godwin's Law and everything! ;)

[Marylou]

Is it upsetting to you that animals can show higher thinking, emotion and compassion?

 

I am not upset. But I am tired. Good night!

[LibraryLover]

From a purely evolutionary point of view, one could make the argument that the behavior is purely instinct, developed in order to preserve the species. Instincts that cause a mother to care for her young are definitely beneficial for survival, and species that are lacking this trait would not have possessed the fitness to survive.

So, an anthropomorph interpretation is tempting, but not the only explanation.

 

I think it was the depth of care and emotion shown; the entire response scenario of elder, sibling, and mother that made it so powerful. I have never questioned that we share a common ancestor, and that day, I knew it with all of my heart. The way the elder put her head on the mother's shoulder and caressed her. The way they both gently turned the baby over and upside down to check. The way they kept him near them. The little sibling returning again and again to the spot where the baby fell. It was amazing. It went beyond instinct. Far beyond. It was higher order thinking, it was tender care, it was not simply 'anthropomorphic interpretation'. It would be easy to brush it away with that sort of language, but it was a glimpse into a past we share.

 

ETA: I can see why some would be confused by how the Lowry Zoo story might fit here, and in the morning with my coffee, I say this: To me it illustrated care and higher order thinking, coupled with compassion...done by animals...animals related to humans, animals who don't read the bible and yet still act with care and tenderness. It far more than mere 'instinct.'

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Kathleen in VA]

I didn't realise it was a response to the question as 1) I took the question as rhetorical and 2) her response seemed more like using the situation to create a soapbox...thus dividing people that are all equally appalled on the issues at Penn State.

 

Well, I can only say that you are wrong about why I said what I did. I did not intend to insult anyone, I did not see the opportunity to create a soapbox, I was not trying to divide people. I read the title to the post and actually have been thinking about those students all day after reading the headlines. I truly believe what's wrong with those students is exactly what I stated in my first post and was simply stating my perspective and opinion. I don't understand why that is seen as some kind of problem. Folks are certainly allowed to disagree - I have no problem with that. I certainly expected it. I realize there are many differing viewpoints on this board. Am I not entitled to mine?

 

As to insulting people. Well, the way I see it people can choose to be insulted or not. I have no control over that. I am not going to tiptoe around what I believe to be true to avoid offending people. I am not the type to be politically correct and worry about everyone's feelings. Many people read my post and completely misunderstood it and were insulted. I have tried in several posts to correct that misunderstanding. I'm not insulted or hurt that a lot of you here do not agree with me. That's to be expected on a public forum. Isn't that what the Greeks did in ancient times? Discuss ideas, put ideas out there to discuss and consider?

 

From my vantage point it seems that it's okay to have an opinion here as long as it's acceptable to everyone here. Sorry, I can't do that. I have my opinion. Take it or leave it. I imagine most of you will leave it. That's fine. But I do believe I'm entitled to it nonetheless. I suggest that if you find that you are insulted it is because you misread my post. If you truly think you got it and are still insulted please forgive me - it was completely unintentional.

 

I am only stating what I believe to be true according to my beliefs based on the Bible. I have no problem with others differing with me. But I do believe I have the right to state what I think is true.

[dirty ethel rackham]

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard.

 

Where do you get the idea that only young earth believing Christians are the only people on Earth who can have a moral standard? There have been moral standards long before Christ, long before Abraham heard God's call. As a Christian who believes in theistic evolution who has many moral, ethical, non+Christan friends, I am highly offended by your comments.

[Avila]

You can't see the difference, because you're so steeped in your POV.

 

Genesis is not a science text. Death did not 'enter' the world, death is a part of life. There was no eternal, then they got booted out and death entered.

 

You CAN have Christ centered theology without believing in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is new. It's not old. The bible is only 1400 years old--what did people use for Sola Scriptura before then? What did they believe before then?

 

So, even in you believe in a young earth, what did people do all those years without the bible?

 

You seem to think that us who believe in Theistic Evolution haven't read these things, or have yet to journey to where you are.

 

Many of us have been where you are an journeyed out.

:iagree:

 

And Ken Ham? Really? That is what you want to go with here?

 

Plenty of people, lots and lots, have read all the same things you have and come to a completely different conclusion. Not because they haven't read the Bible or because they haven't researched, studied and thought about it. They read all those things and they fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of them. Because yours IS only an interpretation. You read and interpret it one way, and we read and interpret it another. To say that anyone who disagrees hasn't put forth the same effort as you have or hasn't read the text is insulting. Just as saying that belief in evolution inevitably leads to the moral breakdown of society. It isn't that simple, and I am SO glad my faith doesn't hinge on it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Asenik

[Kathleen in VA]

and I don't want you or your bible defining it for me. And I don't want you 'defining' me at all. You don't know me. Yet, you judge why I make the decisions I do.

 

I thought we could have something in common, feeling sadness at the misguided actions of those students who are letting their passion for a game cloud their judgement.

Instead, I get told because I am not a christian I have no moral compass and the teachings of science bring about the abuse of children.

 

So, I guess that means we don't get to stand side by side in sadness over what has happened, because you have decided that I am a part of the problem.

 

Well, now that I know what you think of people who think differently than you, I guess I am ok with that.

 

Please tell me where I said that. I do not believe I did. I think it's obvious that if someone is appalled by the men involved in this scandal and these particular students' response to it, they certainly do have a moral compass. I think I've stated that many, many times in several different posts. I am simply amazed at how many people have missed my point entirely. What confuses me is how can someone who believes man is only a more evolved life form than animals can also say he has a moral code as well? I believe you have one. I just don't think that having a moral code - especially if you are going to hold others to your moral code, thereby making it some kind of universal moral code - is compatible with the theory of evolution.

[Annie Laurie]

Well, as I understand your mindset from your previous posts, I can totally see how you believe that.

 

But I don't see atheists (or anyone) as evil, having no morals, or without God.

 

Because when you DO see people like that, you are limiting God. You are saying that God can only be within good people, creationist believers, when, God saw the whole world and saw that it was good. Every person on this earth has the capacity to choose right from wrong, and to give and receive love. That, in and of itself, is God within them. Now, whether that person sees it as God within them is another matter, but that still doesn't limit who God is.

 

Sorry, I'll pick the big God over the little one, every day.

 

:iagree: Awesome post.

[chiguirre]

I think you are misunderstanding me - not sure. You said not believing in God does not preclude having a moral code. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I don't think I said that. What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I don't want to debate because I'd like to keep my "never been banned" record intact. I think you'd learn a lot by reading Adam Smith's (yeah, that Adam Smith) Theory of Moral Sentiments. He explains it very clearly and is a lot easier to read than Kant.