The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

False to a deluded degree.Evolution presupposes Materialism to be true and Creationism-Design to be false. This is the philosophical foundation that natural selection is built upon. In other words, natural selection or perpetual material causation from living and non-living realities is postulated because Divine causation is assumed to be untrue.Evolution IS BUILT on a philosophical assumption that causation is linear and never vertical. Once the assumption is made no evidence can ever contradict because the decision has already been made that causation is linear and material and never vertical and Divine.Creationism-Design is just the opposite: we assume causation is vertical because the appearance of design says the same is the work of an invisible Designer.The point is: starting philosophical assumptions determine the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Evolution interpretation and explanation of evidence makes no sense and is false on its face, sustained by the needs of the Atheist worldview and hatred of God and Genesis.Nothing refutes the Cambrian explosion, it corroboates Genesis special creation (vertical) to be absolutely true. This proves natural selection interpretation and explanations to be exactly what they are: a list of facts (#1 thru #6), in and by themselves, and collectively, that do not and could not achieve the claim: the main mechanism that allegedly produced the wonder of nature that we see. The nature that we see is obviously Divinely designed; therefore, causation is vertical. Natural selection defies observation and is but a conglomeration of facts that in no way, shape or form, could have created the organized complexity of nature as a whole or any individual organism.Natural selection is akin to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the individual facts in tandem cannot create anything, but the same is classic rhetoric asserting that it can and has.Ray

From the OP (which I pasted in my original answer to the OP; color emphasis added): Jar: log off and take a nap.Ray

Subjective and sourceless TEist nonsense."Created" always means species did not evolve. "Evolution" always means species were not created.Your view says you are a victim of more smarter and pernicious evolutionists attempting to make Atheist evolution appear friendly to Christians. The objective claims of modern evolution do not allow a hybrid position.Ray

Your last response criticizes me for insulting you despite the fact that I did no such thing. Then, hypocritically, you insult me in the same breath. You also misrepresent by saying I was not civil when no such characterization applies.Logically, we can only conclude that the hypocrisy and misrepresentations were triggered by the inability to engage and/or refute.Again, it is not a matter of opinion: modern evolutionary theory has objective claims and the most basic 101 claim is that species were never the product of vertical or Divine causation. Evading this fact reveals your ignorance and refusal to learn, OR it reveals deliberate distortion of the issue via changing the subject to First Cause. Again, the official objective position of modern evolutionary theory says although First Cause is unknown it nonetheless had to be material in origin since the same produced everything else thereafter.Assuming you knew this, changing the subject to First Cause was an attempt to draw attention away from the brutal fact that evolution says causation is always linear or material. Insinuating that a Divine First Cause satisfies the needs of a Christian is a subjective and sourceless claim. Neither the Bible or Evolution allow your man-made scenario.Now we can see why you angrily misrepresented my original comments. My guess is that you will dig in your heels and corroborate my observation - again.Atheists, and the degree to which they support evolutionary theory, should tell any objective minded person that evolution has not a thing in the world to do with supporting any role for God - but just the opposite. This makes Christian evolutionists the biggest buffoons and fools on Earth. Of course you understand all this. That is why you replied the way you did, attempting evade the ugly truth through cheap equivocation.Since you are an evolutionist, we are not surprised, what else is new?Ray

Then why did you say evolution can accomodate both 'presuppositions'?Do I need to post the link?You are intentionally evading and misrepresenting (= inability to refute or admit mistake).Ray

Lol, because it make no claims about such issues and contradicts neither. Second request: Then why did you say evolution can accomodate both 'presuppositions'?Did you make a mistake or has your position changed during these exchanges?General Reader: This is a good example of why evolutionists are considered dishonest. I really do not expect to get a real answer, but more clowning pretending not to know. I think it is obvious that Larni is embrarrassed and is compounding his errors with each post. Like I said: what else is new? This is the Darwinian way: admit nothing even though it is beyond obvious.Ray