The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

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.

Sure it does. It promotes its own ethics and its own philosophy. Everything sociological in nature must, out of necessity, be ultimately explained by evolution. Think about it.

For instance, we've had debates at EvC on morality. The singular answer I receive back from those of an atheistic persuasion is that we evolved feelings of altruism, empathy, etc for a survival-of-the-fittest reason.

Even if that is so, it all ultimately comes back to nature, does it not? You can't escape that part unless you start attributing intent to God. That seems more than self-evident.

Only if morals are absolute and you know what that absolute moral is absolutely.

Okay, fair enough. Not necessarily God. But not to humans.

Jar, you can't use a moral to explain why morals exist. I'm sure can guess why that is. Therefore evolution, or more explicitly, naturalism, has to ultimately rely on natural phenomena to explain anything.

There are only two other cases of mass death that I know of that beat Hitler in terms of total dead--Russia and China.

Not too diminish what we did, but do we have accurate population figures? Or death figures?

And did we kill as many in the same period of time as those three managed?

And is South America one country?