He has in the other thread declared that since Crandaddy hasn’t answered his question [!!!], he has walked away. (Of course, Cran answered properly starting with the original post and has passed the ball to me.)

Also, on the Dutch DOI, here is an interesting point from the US founders:

“In his Autobiography, Jefferson indicated that the “Dutch Revolution” gave evidence and confidence to the Second Continental Congress that the American Revolution could likewise commence and succeed . . . John Adams said that the Dutch charters had “been particularly studied, admired, and imitated in every State” in America, and he stated that “the analogy between the means by which the two republics [Holland and U.S.A.] arrived at independency… will infallibly draw them together.”

Worth a thought or two, not only on what was going on back then, but on why this has been filtered out from what we have been taught . . . what design may this evince?

GEM of TKI

Thanks for the kind words.

On Delusional: I once had an exchange of emails and posts with a professor that would make you shake your head. Sad.

Bob: No surprise . . . but maybe he has answered just now, at least on one thread I have seen? [I would certainly like to hear back from him on the above, and note that from other threads he seems to be some sort of evo pop geneticist or something, so maybe he was not deeply aware of the underlying epistemology issues, publication on Phil of Sci notwithstanding? Of course this is now off the top page . . .]

GEM of TKI

BTW, a response from Bob is now being awaited on another thread.

Actually, it is seriously arguable that not only Mr Jefferson but also his client were Creationists.

He wrote not as an author on his own hook but as an advocate for the Congress and people of the emerging United States, at that time overwhelmingly Protestant [well over 90% as I recall], with Catholics most of the remainder and Jews a good fraction of the what was left. For instance, think about a then common word for describing people, animals and plants: creatures, or in the colloquial form: critters. [Even the semi-Deists [Jefferson, Franklin come to mind) were biblically-influenced Creationists and the few atheists were simply not detectable within the statistics.]

Further to this, the Judaeo-Christian frame — on fairly easily accessible [but too often overlooked or improperly dismissed] evidence — decisively shaped the emergence of the the rise of modern liberty and democracy. This appears of course int he opening phrases of the famous 2nd paragraph of the 1776 DOI, which in turn strongly reflects the Calvinist Dutch DOI of 1581, and in fact may be partly dependent on it! (Cf the just linked.)

[Such is of course hotly denied and fallaciously dismissed by the same ones who are ever so quick to reel off a litany of the real and imagined sins of Christendom, in their eagerness to indict Christians as inherent enemies of liberty. Thus, yet again a propaganda agenda stands exposed, and those who don't fact-check before spouting it, show their want of carefulness on facts.]

You also observe that inalienability of rights is a specifically Creation-anchored concept.

This is correct, and more to the point, historically, modern liberty and democracy emerged form the Judaeo-Christian frame, once the Bible was put in the hands of the ordinary man, as well as the means and Bible-anchored framework to resist tyranny.

We must also note that of course such a framework can be abused and exploited to oppress by finite, fallible, fallen creatures such as we all are — as can any ideology [a point well-made by McGrath in rebuttal to Dawkins' latest fulminations against God]. But, historically, modern liberty by and large grew up in Biblical soil.

Further to this, there is a fairly serious argument that the loss of respect for an inalienability framework for rights led to the rise of the unprecedentedly murderous evolutionism-inspired tyrannies of the past century, and/or to the rise of naked individualism that disrespects that basic duty of reciprocal benevolence that underlies sustainable community.

In this context, it is noteworthy that it is not commonly known that Darwin was the FIRST Social Darwinist, and openly discussed genocide as reflecting his frame of thought. Not only in an infamous letter, but also in his The Descent of Man, as we discussed in a UD thread some months back now.

So, you are right to be concerned about the potential for tyranny in evolutionary materialism. The fate of Mr Sternberg and Mr Gonzalez, the disrespect for truth and fairness on public debate and judicial argument, and more all point to a long train of abuses and usurpations evincing a ruthless and dangerous design that we must resist while we yet have the strength to do so.

GEM of TKI

Although, I confess that I didn’t pick up the DOI reference — on a tangent what scares me most about this debate is that those who wish to run society according to “scientific” principles can’t bring it upon themselves to concede that there are rights endowed by a Creator (I guess TJ was a creationist) which means they really don’t think there is such a thing as inalienable rights which means those who dissent from their belief system get the shaft if they should ever get the sword — I thought you were just making a point about the practical application of design inference.

I am simply alluding to the US DOI, 1776, 2nd para, which in part reads: when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design . . .

Cf 30 above. [And notice a certain peculiar absence in this thread, paralleled with a lot of activity elsewhere . . . ]

GEM of TKI

Nice