FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: They're Made Out of Meat
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

I posted this once a loooong time ago, and thought I'd do it again because I just used one of my often-used phrases about modern-day folks being told they're nothing but "glorified monkey meat." And that is the case. We're told we're the mere result of random chemicals having gotten together somehow, millions of years ago, and then mutating and undergoing the forces of natural selection 'til you've got what we are today: conscious (somehow!) bags of meat with a sick and ridiculous religious impulse that needs to be eradicated in order for sanity to ensue. Whattaworld to grow up in.

They're Made Out of Meat


(09-04-2013, 12:49 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]I posted this once a loooong time ago, and thought I'd do it again because I just used one of my often-used phrases about modern-day folks being told they're nothing but "glorified monkey meat." And that is the case. We're told we're the mere result of random chemicals having gotten together somehow, millions of years ago, and then mutating and undergoing the forces of natural selection 'til you've got what we are today: conscious (somehow!) bags of meat with a sick and ridiculous religious impulse that needs to be eradicated in order for sanity to ensue. Whattaworld to grow up in.

They're Made Out of Meat


Natural selection.

Hilariously, I've actually become a bit of a Darwin advocate in several respects, and not just in the theistic evolution way.  I find myself appealing to his notion of "survival of the fittest" when discussing pro-life issues and same-sex "marriage".  Abortion, same-sex "marriage", and birth control all have the exact *opposite* impact of allowing a species to continue and thrive.

I'm waiting for someone to raise the counter argument with that if we aborted disabled children or euthanized them, that would be Darwinistic - but then you can catch them into a bio-ethical quandary.
(09-04-2013, 12:58 AM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]Natural selection.

Hilariously, I've actually become a bit of a Darwin advocate in several respects, and not just in the theistic evolution way.  I find myself appealing to his notion of "survival of the fittest" when discussing pro-life issues and same-sex "marriage".  Abortion, same-sex "marriage", and birth control all have the exact *opposite* impact of allowing a species to continue and thrive.

I'm waiting for someone to raise the counter argument with that if we aborted disabled children or euthanized them, that would be Darwinistic - but then you can catch them into a bio-ethical quandary.

I absolutely believe that there are genetic mutations, and that nature "selects" for mutations depending on whether they're beneficial for an organism's survival in a given environment, etc. The Wikipedia definition of "evolution" is: "the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." I think that's a no-brainer. If that's the definition, then I'm an "evolutionist." At least I believe in the mechanisms of evolution (genetic mutation, natural selection, etc.). But I don't believe that things "change for the better" (which the word "evolve" seems to intimate, and all of which raises the question "What does 'better' mean?") or become more complex, that a few random chemicals got together and "evolved" into all the species we see today, that God did not create us and the other critters as we are for the most part.  It seems to me that the word "evolution" is used sort of in the same way "Vatican II" is. It isn't specific enough, it means too many things at once. And I think it's another of those things that people have to be careful talking about, needing to define terms carefully, etc. We can easily come off as scientifically stupid if we, out of hand, say "I don't believe in evolution" when what is meant are the mechanisms of evolution, for ex.