"All your base are belong to us."
Posted on 12/11/2009 5:57:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.
We don't go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.
We do not believe that government or science knows what's best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much.
Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.
For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.
And a few years ago a group of evolutionists tried to force FR over to their way of thinking and they soon found themselves on the outs.
FR is a pro-God, pro-Creator, pro-Life, pro-Liberty site.
And now we have yet another group of Darwinists trying to have their Darwinist way with us. Well, as I've said before what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger.
Darwin Central has again declared war on FR. They have ping lists and email lists and will try to pull away as many FReepers as they possibly can. So be it. Those who would rather go with Darwin, please go. I sure as hell won't try to stop you.
FR will remain a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-Creator conservative site.
We wholeheartedly believe that our unalienable rights are a gift from God our Creator not from man or government. And no man, no government will ever deprive us of same.
Keep your powder dry.
OUCH.
“Some of don’t see evolution disproving religious authority and some religious authority doesn’t see that either.”
_________________________________________________
Neither do I, but my point was the use of it for that purpose. Lee Harris, in a Policy Review article, “The Future of Tradition,” summarized succinctly what I meant to say: “This, too, explains why communities have historically reacted so severely against those who challenged their habits of the heart. What was really at stake in such a challenge was not the community’s ideological superstructure but the ethical foundation on which it had been socially constructed — its inherited visceral code.” The ideological superstructure in our case is obviously Genesis, but the ethical foundation attacked is pretty much anything that might impede a Progressive agenda ... such as opposition based on Natural Law!
"Too many people have seen DC for themselves and come back with the same report."
This is an example of quote-mining. By carefully excerpting Metmom's response to me, I can create the impression that she agrees with me.
Actually, she doesn't, I think. But it does seem clear that she likes to visit the downtrodden. Perhaps we'll grow on her. It's the nature of slimes and fungi.
While even one abortion is one too many there are many reasons or excuses given for them. Optimizing the race is probably the least frequent cause. Most are performed for convenience and as a form of birth control. Neither of these have anything to do with eugenics let alone Darwinism.
Eugenics is about a lot more than race, but the reality is that in America black babies are three times as likely to be aborted as white babies and that is directly related to abortion marketing.
Sex selection abortion is also a form of eugenics and this makes up a huge number of abortions.
The overwhelming number of babies that test positive for certain genetic conditions (like Down Syndrome) are aborted and this is eugenics.
Neither of these have anything to do with eugenics let alone Darwinism.
ALL modern-day eugenics is directly related to Darwinian and Malthusian principles.
I can understand the literalist basis of the argument for young earth creation versus abiogenesis and evolution. If rejection of the Theory of Evolution and natural Selection is a matter of faith then so be it. I simply don't understand the obsessive need to demonize Darwin and go through convoluted mental gymnastics and twisted rhetorical gimmicks to attach to him every evil of the last 100 years. Darwin created nothing. He did not invent natural selection and evolution, he only observed and reported it. Blaming Darwin for the evils makes as much sense as blaming 911 on Sean Hannity because he reported it.
Charles Darwin supported his cousin Francis Galton’s eugenics theories, Charles Darwin’s son and grandson devoted their lives to advancing eugenics, so yes I think it makes perfect sense to lay a significant portion of the blame for eugenics at the feet of the Darwin family.
Again, I am not speaking of Charles Darwin, I am speaking about the family and the Darwinist movement. Think about this, isn’t it odd that Charles Darwin’s children and grandchildren didn’t pursue evolutionary biology, but many of them DID work tirelessly pushing eugenics, THEY obviously felt it was significant.
The aristocracy of Europe as well as the rest of the world needed a rational as to why they deserved a superior position in society. They really believed they were better than the lower classes (think about that label). What they heard in the theories of Natural Selection and Evolution gave them the reasons they needed. It gave them a name and some pseudo-scientific credibility. In reality they were oppressing the lower classes of their own countries and conquered lands centuries under the banner of nobility before they had a tidy scientific fig leaf..
Precisely and they happily followed the Darwin family's lead on this even while they openly denounced evolutionary theory.
The downtrodden? Yes.
The DC swamp? No.
If the evos don’t grow on me here, it’s not likely they’re grow on me if I go there.
Do you like Zeppelin? They are one of my favorites!
They have a theory that relationships change with time.
I don’t know what to think on Darwin the man.
Lately I have read articles that he did not mean his search on Evolution to say there was no God that was not his agenda it was to explain some observation he saw in nature.
The article also stated it was the atheist that had adopted Darwin for their cause.
As we have witness in history this would not be the first time the non believers lie about prominent figures for boosting their agenda!
The gays have done it to claim leaders in history as being gay.
The atheist have said all our founding Fathers were Deist etc
Yeah. Love Zep, Sabbath (esp with Ozzy), good old Metal/Hard Rock/Rock n Roll, none of that wimpy stuff. lol.
What’s wrong with attributing eugenics partly to Darwin? He advocated some of that and you can find bits of it in his writings. Just because he was a naturalist who made some observations and came up with The Origin of Species, doesn’t preclude him from being a eugencist.
NL, if you want to distance the scientific nature of the ToE, variation within species and the idea of natural selection, from eugenics, that’s understandable.
Eugenics doesn’t play into a scientific theory, even though the scientific theory can be used to justify eugenics.
But reality is, Darwin and his family and compatriots, the self-appointed intellectual elite of the day, and their eugenics philosophy is tied in to the ToE. Like it or not. The ToE and the concepts behind it were used to support the eugenics movement.
Darwin wasn’t perfect either and just because he’s the one who came up with the ToE in so many words, doesn’t put him above reproach. Your constant defending him as if he’s guiltless merely puts you in a position of appearing to defend eugenics as well.
If you google Darwin and eugenics, you’ll see the connection between social Darwinism, eugenics, and the ToE.
This is where scientists really need to speak out against the hijacking of scientific theories if they don’t want it, or them, to be associated with eugenics and social Darwinism, and liberalism. But the track record of scientists speaking out against the political or ideological hijacking of science is, unfortunately, poor.
Thus, scientists will continue to be labeled liberal.
Fruits of the loom...
Fruits of the Loom...
Fruits of the Loompas!
Yes - Resty needs help; she’s gettin’ beat up in this thread.
We've kinda figgered that out...
In earlier posts on this thread I described my perception of steve-b as someone who loudly claimed to be Catholic and evolutionist in order to stir up trouble.
Unfortunately, in my mind people on the same side of various issues tend to blur together. Apparently this was not steve-b at all but someone else.
I apologize to you, to steve-b, and to everyone for this error.
"All your base are belong to us."
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.