Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Don't Like#3

in mind: whenever the people feel they are becoming slaves of the government - they should rise up and reform the government to again represent the needs, wants and right of the people.

Anyway, I recommend you listen carefully to what Dr. Barbara Forrest has to say. She is smarter than you give her credit for. She makes no appeals to emotion, no unjustified claims - only appeals to reason.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because in America we are born with certain unalienable rights that are inherent to us antecedent of government. That's what our Declaration of Independence says. It even says they are inherent from a divine Creator. But does not say God. And postulates they may just as well be inherent from nature itself. And no matter how much evolutionistic humanists don't want that to be the case, doesn't change the fact. Nor do I hold much regard for Ms Forrest.

Like I said - even if they are inherent from a creator, said creator doesn't enforce them, hence we have to look out for them ourselves. That is the part that government is supposed to play. I'm not saying it's actually playing that part, but that's the original idea.

Also, evolution has nothing to say on government, I don't understand how you even managed to include it in this discussion. 'Evolutionistic humanists', as a group, have no views on government.

I agree it is our responsibility to know & defend our rights. Unfortunately we know nor do neither. And I blame government ran public education for that. Which is an equally viable response to the views (or lack thereof) held by evolutionistic humanists. Which lends to what I originally said, that as a philosopher, you'd think Barbara Forrest would know that.

I lost your train of thought here.

I don't understand the term evolutionistic humanist. One suggest they support the theory of evolution, one of the most supported theories in the history of science, so it doesn't really mean much to be 'evolutionistic', while the other suggests they hold humans in the highest regard - again I find nothing negative here.

Evolutionism denies God by attempting to explain the origin of species apart from God. Making science their own god of sorts in effect. And humanists also deny God holding themselves in the highest regard. And so neither group wants to concede, as you don't, that our rights are inherent to us antecedent of government.

No, evolution doesn't make science into a god. The denial of one god doesn't mean it has to be replaced by another. Even if that were the case, how do you explain the fact that there are so many theists, who believe fully in evolution? The catholic church, for example, accepts evolution as a proven fact.

I still don't understand the term 'humanist', though, you seem to be using it as a substitute for 'atheist', which it is not.

And like I said - whether our rights are descendent from a god is

completely irrelevant, because said god doesn't enforce them, therefore the government must look out for them.

Maybe it'll matter once we're dead, I don't know what your philosophy on that is, but it doesn't matter one bit while we're here.

I'm not trying to prove to you that god doesn't exist, or that evolution is true, simply to point out that our rights are being enforced by the government, no matter where they came from.

The primary function of government is to preserve & safeguard our rights. And not bestow them upon us. Nor to incrementally erode them either.