Evolution as Intelligent Design- Evolving Moral Positions and Intellectual Content v.2

 Sartre once said that he had evolved a new idea on what an intellectual is. President Obama used the phrase that he was evolving a new opinion about homosexual marriage decades later. Evolving subjective intellectual content is a self-regarded activity these days. One cannot be sure if such intellectual development evolves because of random chance or the natural selection of saying what the people want to here most in order to get political power (regardless of the merit of the idea). If evolution of ideas is powered by conscious, intentional thought then evolution comprises design. That paradox is ponderous. It means that evolution and intelligent design are synonyms. Evolving an opinion about the whore in the harbor of Babylon the Great trading with all the nations of the world might be easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g8JVK4Fppw Sartre on 'What an Intellectual Is'

If morality is what people actually do in a social context, then perhaps ethics is a description of the normalized procedures for implementing moral choices. Certainly people seem to choose to do wrong often enough with select ethical criterions, yet perhaps for atheists without belief in a transcendent moral structure there is no wrong, but only evolution. How can it be wrong for Hitler to invade Poland within an evolutionary criterion? For Christians and Dietrich Bonhoeffer that wickedness of the Reich should have been morally and actually opposed?

One may reasonably oppose the existence of a logical condition as being present if there is present some sort of factor that cannot coexist simultaneously.

Not (A & B).

A or B

A & B

If one can prove these simple conditions to be valid for select, or Universal circumstances inclusive of an omnipotent God then I suppose one would have a hard to defeat bunker position with a clear enough logical field of fire, yet I believe that the presence of evil (if one recognizes evil and is not just atheistically 'evolving' an advantageous position does not satisfy the Universal disjunct logically.

Not simply because complex numbers evidently are used for description in quantum mechanics and one day for quantum computing that transcend the binary 0 or 1 criteria of computers today, but for the reason that God stipulated right out that people have original sin and a fallen nature. The premise is that given immortality mankind might become even more wicked than now. Mankind is given to labor and women to go through childbirth and mortality would abbreviate the evil of human experience.

That doesn't mean that human beingness is bad-only that the human nature to go wrong needs to be overcome through faith, yet I wanted to remain on logical grounds rather than that of faith for the present.

I have no idea what sort of things God might want to accomplish in eternity. I believe that God is tougher than NFL players with those concussive head injuries however, and he might be able to withstand tough things in the Universe that he creates perhaps as stress tests. Certainly human beings going through some of those horrible times were quite remarkably tough. Those Christians eaten by lions or burned alive for their faith were of strong moral character. Even some Buddhists that have burned themselves in protest of war showed a certain ability to overcome the horrors possible of the mortal coil, yet one would think that it should be evil rather than one's self that does evil in-the-world.

I think that the problem of evil is not something that precludes the existence of the Divine being-especially since He exists for eternity, sent His Son to share the experience and is has enough time to make things right.