Mike Beidler (from "The Creation of an Evolutionist" blog) continues his hamhanded and question-begging romp through the Truth Project. I comment here.
It quickly becomes clear that Tackett desires to extend his anti-evolution bias to sociology, claiming that desirable, orderly social systems could not have evolved via natural means
Why isn't it reasonable to demand that the Darwinian who makes the positive assertion that natsel acting on random mutations is what is responsible for desirable, orderly social systems SHOW US HOW IT HAPPENED? Is asking questions "bias", according to you?
evolution is anything but random.
Don't obscure the issue. MUTATIONS are random, and so a part of it most definitely is random.
Natsel apparently operates according to natural laws (ie, repetitive natural processes), so the astute reader would like to know specifically to which natural laws the Darwinian would appeal to form desirable, orderly social systems.
These things only appear random as a result of our limited ability to ascertain their direct causes or calculate particular magnitudes.
Are you appealing, by faith, to the variegated inscrutable forces of nature? Can you identify them for certain? You claim that they're there, but are just guessing. So this is faith, right?
Why is this superior to the Christian faith, even if I were to grant that Christian faith is blind?
So what if the best aspects of human civilization arose through "cultural selection"?
Well, it has a ton to do with it IF we're asking about ethics and the foundation for morality.
But maybe we're not, so...
What's wrong with God taking the best of human societal structures—products of eons of cultural evolution—and declaring them to be ideal?
And now you're ascribing to God sthg that He never said He did. In fact, He claimed in the Bible precisely that He did that whole thing a different way, but on the word of your blind faith in "modern science", you're perfectly willing to overturn that. It's easy to see where your real faith lies.
Although ideal human societal structures may indeed reflect certain aspects of God's triune nature as revealed in Scripture, it is not necessary for them to have been "created" de novo in the Garden of Eden, as a literal interpretation of Scripture would suggest.
And it certainly doesn't matter that God SAID He did it that way!
God's "divine stamp" didn't come upon human social order until after our fundamental ethos arose naturally.
Reconstructing human history based on your blind faith presuppositions. No proof, no evidence, no historical textual evidence (excepting that to the contrary), but a sure statement based on what you think you know about NOW. I don't have to point out how much this is naked faith, and it ain't faith in Jesus.
To assert that a snapshot of 15th-century BC Israelite society (commanded by God Himself through Moses) and the culture of those who support Focus on the Family represent the same divine social order is to deny both anthropological reality
??? You need to define your terms much more clearly. What do you mean by "divine social order"? If you mean the laws of God and the recognition that God speaks, then you need to prove your assertion, not assume it.
the theological diversity so evident throughout Scripture.
Which is almost always code for "the contradictory ways that Scr expresses itself", devoid (as here) of any supporting argumentation.
Tackett's claim for objective, scientific support for the ideal Christian society flies in the face of established scientific and historical fact.
You mean the scientists who were there, who observed the events in question, who don't make naked assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism to then read BACK ONTO the historical events as written? Oh, who are they?
He ignores the fossil record.
And bully for him. Prove that any one fossilised organism had even one child. Just one.
He ignores the evolutionary history embedded in our DNA.
It takes a real ignoramus to go this far, to assume that our DNA expresses "history", when there is no reason to presuppose that history is displayed in our DNA, that it did in fact develop evolutionarily. Maybe DNA is just DNA, and maybe it was designed and you're seeing a pattern or similarity where none really exists.
He ignores the findings of anthropology.
Said the guy who is ignoring the most archeologically reliable and archeologically best-attested and transmitted writing of antiquity.