NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15973

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.2 KB | 111 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!nntp1.radiomail.net!fernwood!aurora!isaak
From: [e-mail] (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:39:46 GMT
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (news) writes:
>Basically,  I was trying to point out the fact that evolutionism, as
>presently taught, offers man precisely nothing. . .

What is evolutionism?  Where is it taught?  And, since it apparently
has nothing to do with evolution, is this the proper forum for
discussing it?

> as well as the far
>lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
>realm which most normal people believe in and can sense, once existed at
>least in part on this earth.  At present we cannot perceive this other
>realm directly or with our senses. . .

What is this spiritual realm?  To me, nothing can be spiritual unless
I experience it in the present.  Perhaps "mythical" would be a better
word for what you're talking about?

>Suppose evolutionists are right, that man is
>simply a freak accident, the final end product of a long chain of events
>governed by random and chance processes, originating with single-celled
>creatures . . . which somehow simply got lucky.

So what?  Being spiritual requires living in the present, not judging
one's worth based on negative propoganda about the past.  Suppose Ted
Holden was once a slobbering weakling who couldn't talk, sit up, or
control his bowels.  What difference does that make now?

>Then basically, you're saying to the common
>man, "Abandon hope!  You're going to die in thirty or forty years, and
>like as not, nobody will give a damn about anything you ever did 30
>years later, and that's every bit of it. . . .

Now you're living in the future.  Being spiritual requires living in the
present.  Why can not your life have meaning TODAY?

>Is it any wonder that the common man does not buy any of this?

Of course not.  The common man doesn't even know anything about
evolution, and many don't even recognize its noninvolvement with
religion and morals.  You're not helping.

>And then consider that the empire which Jesus established is still with
>us, that the best architecture on earth is still the collection of
>temples built in his honor.  Consider that the esteem in which Christ is
>still held is so great, that even the phoniest con artist on this earth,
>a man like Jim Baker or Oral Roberts, can make money almost in any
>desired amount almost effortlessly simply preaching his gospel.

After recently experiencing the horrors of Christmas shopping, I hardly
think what's around today is Jesus' empire.  Paul's maybe, but not
Jesus'.  Also, I believe any temples built to Jesus dishonor him, when
the money could have been given to the poor instead.  Still, you make a
good point.  Religion (most any religion, not just Christianity) offers
means of dealing with the pains of everyday living which evolution
doesn't address.  But so what?  Copper mining, hang gliding, and
hairdressing have as much to do with religion as evolution does.  Why
are you not complaining about the lack of hope which they offer mankind?

>That has to be what gets to the Throops of the world.  How much money
>did you make preaching evolution this year, Throop?

Are you saying that it is desirable to be in the same company as Jim
Baker and Oral Roberts?

>The fact that man's entire existence becomes utterly meaningless
>under this system. . .

How does it become meaningless?  Meaningless to whom?  Are you empowered
to judge humanity and under what circumstances human existence has
meaning?  My life, at least, has meaning, and the fact that I believe
evolution doesn't diminish that meaning at all.

>You're offering mankind    N - O - T - H - I - N - G.

Oh, we're offering a little more than that.  When was the last time
religion has offered mankind frost-resistant crops, or methods for
increasing the effectiveness of pesticides to the target pests while
making them safer for other life, or realiable hope for treating genetic
diseases, or plans for conserving endangered species and ecosystems?

Besides that, we're offering truth.  Granted, this truth covers only a
small part of the universe as a whole, but it is truth nonetheless, for
it can be, and often has been, repeatedly tested.  Most people prefer
hope instead, and if that hope is contrary to the truth, they cling to
the hope and avoid the truth.  Have you noticed how the creationists who
attack evolution here don't know the first thing about biology, geology,
or paleontology?  But it is the truth which will set you free, even if it
hurts like hell in the process.  Most people don't have the faith to let
go of their old hopes and look for something better, perhaps finding more
truth and even greater hopes in the journey.  Those people will miss a
great deal of beauty, glory, and, I believe, spirituality.

>I am recommending Richard Heinberg's "Memories and Visions of Paradise"

I, on the other hand, recommend reality.  There's so much more to see there.
--
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
[e-mail]      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin