Should we be comfortable in the guidence of western secular thinking?

Are there any who guide us correctly?

  There have been scientists who's work is an extension of a longstanding philosophical foundation and biblical influence. These have made tremendous contribution throughout recent history. And there are those who's philosophical choices point them in a different direction that has other objectives and a smaller foundation. But both of these are as misguided as the other when it comes to answering questions about the origin of man. The first has an ancient text which gives a general account but their mistake is that this is to be taken by faith by those who chose to live by biblical faith. The latter has no testimony from old only the theories of modernists with a dismissive world view of the historical past. They fabricate pre-history out of their denial of history.

  We need to face up to the probability that much of the evidence needed to support one of the children of gradualist views, evolution, is thin at best and even absent, but why do they persist? Is it possibly because the other side of the argument contains implications that strike so deep as to produce a defensive posture against the possibility that one of the ancient texts is actually true in its primary tenets. So that which emerged was reactionary if anything. (Few people seem aware of a probable connections between the expansionist events of the 1800s in america and the birth of the gradualist's child which would marginalize great numbers of humankind and reduce them to savages and lower humans in the minds of people on both sides of the Atlantic from north to south. Bad enough were the atrocities of the previous centuries, under the banner of the cross, but that century would go down in history as a role-model of ethnic cleansing for decades to come. Cloaked in the garbs of science, introduced to would-be commanders of america's new war machine, the seed of evolution was planted, a virus for the minds of the forces of a government, that was supposed to be guided by right thinking, it spreads as a western delusion even today). I would call this reaction a superiority complex, desiring to be the top of the heap, the king of the hill, or the pride of the fittest, no credit to be applied anywhere other than the human component of one's own measurable history and of course making the necessary dismissal of undesirable traits that are required in order to be the fittest, such as trampling over any obstacle and calling it normal for humans. This defensive posture is in battle against the implications inherent in the faith-based alternative, the historical account that is beyond our comprehension and probably beyond proof. The people that try to prove the alternative have missed an important detail, that the biblical version of creation was never meant to be proven. It is there as a stumbling block, one of many and oh how it has exposed the lengths that people will go to validate themselves.




  You may think some of these statements to be a bit harsh so I'll try to bring another impression to your mind.
Some of this will be off the cuff and from recollection of what has been heard and will remain open for input as clarification of historical details are brought to my attention.

  We can look back on much of the last two centuries and draw one conclusion, the minds and hearts of a large percentage of the people who have been set into places of influence have been altered to be far more secular than in the early centuries of America's existance. The major change has ocurred in the last 50 years but the seeds were being planted while america was an infant. The seed came from the tree of science, a mixed bag it was of philosophy and other age old practices some looked down upon and stiffeled by orthodoxy yet how they've grown. The world was no stranger to science but once secular influences began to dominate the direction of thought new taboos were established. There foundation may go back a long way to greece, rome and else where but I wonder if there hasn't been some major losses along the way, even a modernized interpretation that takes the needs of the times over anything, but who would dare question the learned!

  Many in these times might say that indoctrination does not produce critical thinkers, so certain philosophical lines of thought are regarded as useless to modern science, but can we safely say that science has avoided its own trap of indoctrination? I think not for any student of certain sciences has to tow the line to get the grades and discent is not tolerated, questioning the professor is a toboo, so who are the blind guides now? I wouldn't say that most philosophical positions that predated the 1800 was of unquestioned value but one could qualify just based on longevity. Many fragmentations tumble from a central line of thought but these loose credibility at their own hand. A central theme has accompanied many cultures and morphed into varrying degrees of right thinking but this does not validate their fragment as a whole it only identifies a common thread. If we look closely we should be able to see a common thread but without an understanding of time and travel contact and isolation a fog may be slow to lift.

  America is refered to as a melting pot and this may be the best analogy for the a condition that grows with little restraint and it has less to do with what is brough and more to do with what is left behind. If you are a Trekie you know well the term assimilation, if you are a native american you or your ancestors experienced a visious form in a highly unconstitutional fashion. The only way that such an attrocity could be carried out would be in an artificial enviornment of ignorance and misinformation and sadly this is still continuing as the non-native public is kept from the truth and kept too caught up in their own struggle to assimilate to see the writting on the wall of the losses in the stew of america. Sadly as well, neighboring cultures are getting caught in the undertow and may only see the fruit of the tree without discerning the poison being drawn into the roots. The too were marginalized but withdrew to a distant home, a convienience that kept them out of the tramplings on native homelands. Marginalization was made easy in the absence of right thinking and nothing so thoroughly corrupts right thinking as greed, covetousness and pride. There was a time when we might have avoided the snowball effect that resulted in the trampling of someones paradise but sadly lumber, tabacco, fur pelts and other commodities set the stage for untold wealth potential and greed leaves only traggidy. The only hope that total ravaging would be held in check was a moral fiber and the documents that might have contained their promiss but as it is with documents drawn by me they are only as strong as the people who must resist their own selfishness to allow inclusion in club-america. The members faced a tough decision be content and share the bounty or give into greed under false pretenses. In the mindset of manifest destiny and the introduction of unlimited promiss to club members only fear of the lance stood in the way. Philosophical differences could never be resolved and moral fiber was no match for majority it could only restrain but not prevent. But who can in good conscience allow the trampling of a great population of people who had every right to live as free as the constitution of the whites promissed to club members. How can minds be so thoroughly altered? Fear and misinformation coupled with government sponsered lead made short work of public reluctance to storm the west. Here you may wonder what misinformation could be so altering to silence public outcry. It was the mid 1800 and to the cadets a west point a new philosophy was being introduced, penned by Charles Darwin, it set the stage for a new way of looking at the non-white population. The great deception was planted next to trees of loyalty and duty and backed by powder and lead. As the general population took this new philosophy to heart the self restraint of a thinly moral fiber split as strands of a rope, too few had the genuine article that motivated the document that gave them rights in club-america and removal of obsticles was becoming standard procedure. With no remaining division north to south no rational remaind for restraints east to west. Discontentment and greed make strange traveling partners. In the presence of opportunity and encroachment eminate domain was born.

  The moral fiber that was motivating most of the signitors of the u.s. constitution was probably the only restraint that stood in the way of many more attrocities than occured in the following century but as population grows so too must the moral fiber remain strong, but as we all know, a divided house will not stand, likewise with a divided country. The necessity to divide the country philosophically seems to have taken on a number of forms but i think the most effective was the origin of species which flew in stark contrast to established ideas of the biblically minded. The biblical influence that shaped this country remained in places of prominance untill 1963 but even before then bits and pieces were picked away and at each step of dismembering the right thinking behind this countries birth came a new wave of altered thought took it toll. From doubt is born deception but those grounded in the priciple source that inspired the founders and would not be swayed from their philosophical stance, they were instrumental in the restraint of worse savage behavior born from the corrupted minds of the whites of club-america. To whatever end may come of philosphical divisions the consequences along the way should be motive enough to sway people away from any focus on a disagreements that are beyond proof but since this isn't happening I must conclude that we have lost our minds and are being motivated not by logic but by something far less noble. To continually trip over a stumbling block and never set it aside to prevent an undesirable outcome is eqivilant to insanity.

   Your input is welcomed