Posted on 11/20/2005 4:48:01 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Indeed, this is the appalling own-goal that conservatism scores when it allows itself to be associated with nonsense like creationist rejection of established science.
Hitler was a catholic, and had a strictly catholic view of creationism. He was educated at a catholic school that adhered to strick catholic orthodoxy, and aspired to the priesthood in his teens.
and Biblically his theory was full of holes, just like old Darwins theory is.
Hitler was never excommunicated, and never repudiated the catholic church. To the end, his public speeches embraced catholicism, and sought support for extinguishing the Jews by appealing to Christian biblical history and sentiment. Darwin's theory may be incomplete, but it's not viciously anti-jewish, or pro-slavery, unlike some theories being discussed here as alternatives.
Have you read any of those references? Heck, have you even held any of them in your hand?
The 2lot is very powerful and can be used to disprove many things, not just evolution. For example, take the "theory" of meteorology, from now on referred to as meteorologyism. A storm is much more ordered than a cloudless sky, since all of the water vapor is concentrated in a small volume instead of spread throughout the atmosphere. The 2lot proves that it is impossible for a system to go from chaos to order. Therefore, it is impossible for a storm to form on its own. You might claim that the sun gives the energy necessary to form a storm, but that is false. If that were true, then there would be storms every time there is a sunny day. The only alternative is Intelligent Raining.
Did I suggest otherwise???
Don't you see that this is all we ask? Accept that the passages in the Bible that tell us that God created everything can imply that God created evolution. It doesn't have to be the literal reading that says God created each individual species out of nothing, but created them in such a way that all the evidence points to evolution. It can be the "metaphorical" reading that says God created a universe in which life evolves from simple to complex. Then both Genesis and the ToE are true. Wouldn't it be great to be able to believe both the scientific evidence and the Word?
The main difference between Darwin and Marx is that Darwin was a scientist, with testable hypotheses, while Marx was a quack, who relied on a dogmatic scheme that "explained everything". Much like Paul Johnson's brilliant distinction between the central ideas of Einstein and Freud that opens "Modern Times".
placemarker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.