Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? Scientists discuss ethical boundaries, but it's difficult to want to accept those from people who do not have an absolute moral foundation and believe that we are just another animal.


What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? They're making modern "chimeras" from various embryos, including human.
Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
In mythology, a Chimera (or Chimaera) was a vicious critter made of parts of several other critters. Depending on the myth, some were fire-breathing dragons of sorts. Nowadays, you can hear the word in serious scientific material. This is due to CRISPR genome editing. It's one thing to be tampering with making hybrid animals, but scientists are also adding human embryos to the mix. Since they have subjective morality, they are asking for changes in legal limits so they can experiment a bit longer on creatures they develop.

People have an admiration/distrust relationship with scientists and science in general, but some people are strict empiricists. That is, with materialism as a foundation, all knowledge (therefore, all truth) is to be obtained through the empirical scientific method. If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that it's self-refuting: the idea itself cannot be obtained from empirical methods, it's abstract in nature. The adoration of science is scientism, which is materialistic and atheistic in nature.

I disremember where I read it, but I thought that an atheist had proposed not only doing away with "religion", but to have an atheistic "benevolent dictatorship". Sounds similar to what Neil deGrasse Tyson is promoting in his concept of "Rationalia". Well, having professing atheists in charge based on their version of "reason" has been tried. Just look up "Reign of Terror".

video

The religion of chimera-makers and advocates of scientism have materialism as a foundation. The reject the authority of God's Word, as well as the scientific evidence for recent creation. Instead, they prefer to saddle up and ride the old nag of evolution, and the trail takes them — and us — to some mighty dark places. Especially when they have political power, and we already know that we don't fit. Do we want their ethics and boundaries? This child says, "Not hardly! We need freedom from atheistic scientism."

What made me put the bit in my teeth and gallop away with this article was a podcast I heard from Albert Mohler called "The Briefing". It has a Christian perspective on various news and political items, so I was startled when the podcast was on my own homestead. It's only 22 minutes, and I really hope that you'll listen to it. Free to listen or download, just click on "Will our brave new world include human-animal chimeras? NIH proposal erases ethical lines".

Labels