dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/15/85)
This article is being posted for Ray Miller --- /* Written 12:21 am May 13, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "War and Peace" ---------- */ Several evolutionists wrote notes on creationist or Christian beliefs leading to war; I take a portion of one note as representative for a reply: > Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } > Imagine Reagan, for a moment, sitting with his finger over "the button". > He is someone who believes in the Bible and Christianity and etc... He > might say to himself, "Gee, if I push this button, God would have known > and planned it that way. If not, He will stop me or stop the electrical > signals or the missiles themselves etc. Now, the Bible says that the > end of the physical world is coming, and that there will be a great > battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. The Soviet > Union is an empire of evil. We are obviously a Christian nation, and > hence, good. The good Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson all say that > the events leading to Armageddon is shaping up. Oh, what the heck ... " > Click. This is a two-edged sword in that I can also fabricate an equally ridiculous scenario for evolutionists. Try this one: As we all know, the life expectancies for Russian leaders has been less than satisfactory recently. Suppose Gorbachev comes down with one of those infamous Soviet "colds". He, then, about to kick off and feeling a tad grumpy about it, begins to reassess a few things. He notes that, when it comes right down to it, the bottom line of reality is physics. Are we not, after all, chemical machines (extremely complex ones, granted)? Do we have a responsibility or morality towards physics? Should we feel guilty about stopping the chemical reactions in the state we chose to call a burning candle? No? Why then should we feel guilty about stopping the chemical reactions in the state we chose to call homo sapiens? Other than the complexity of the reaction, is there really any objective difference between the candle and humans? Why should I (Gorbachev) care about the survival/improvement of the species/planet? WHY?? I'm about to bump off. WHY? Who cares that others will be hurt? I won't be around. They're just complex chemical reactions anyway, to which I have no responsibilities. Physics, that's all it is, just physics. Oh what the heck ... Click. (insert vast amounts of physics here, ala boom) Later, the note contained this interesting sentence: > I cannot think of a reason to survive. It is just my general attitude. Perhaps the writer or some other secular evolutionist (no theistic evolution- ists, please) could elaborate on this topic? Why indeed should we as a species survive? 1,000,000 years from now no one we know or care about will be alive, nor is anyone likely to remember anyone on this net. We'll all be dust, as will those 1,000,000 years in the future also soon be dust. Eventually, the universe itself will expire in heat death (maximum entropy) and the materialistic reality will neither know nor care. One more comment: such allegations that creationists are more likely to start a nuclear war has another side effect. An inference can be drawn that the Soviets are much more likely to be kind, thoughtful, futuristic thinking peace lovers, while the Americans (corrupted as they are by the creationists) are much more likely to be blood thirsty, war seeking, crazed swine who want to blow up the world and get on with the kingdom of God. The only course of action, then, is to unilaterally and immediately disarm the US, and welcome the generous humanistic Soviets over to quickly set up some "reeducation centers". A. Ray "more than just physics" Miller Univ Illinois /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */ -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | In the human instantiation, the image is the substance. |