Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
The real question is not whether Hitler was sincere, but rather why his Christian audience responded favorably to this stuff. The problem is in the audience, not the demagogue.
There's the statement recorded by Albert Speer I posted earlier, and it's consistent with what other Hitler confidants like Goebbels and Bormann recall about his private views (I only have the Speer book in front of me).
Oh, well, jeepers, what could we have been thinking. Obviously, backbiting, backfence gossip takes priority over published writings and public speeches. Hitler pretended so hard to believe in christianity, that he fooled US Army intelligence, his sister, the priests who taught at his Catholic high school, when he professed to wanting to become a priest, and about 60,000,000 German christians, including the priests that accompanied the German army into the battlefront to conduct mass. But you saw right thru that feeble tissue of lies, didn't you?
Sure, some people responded favorably, others didn't. A lot of people forget that Hitler's party never get a majority of the popular vote. But all that's beside the point.
My point is simply to discourage people from engaging in this kind of nonsensical tactic of trying to paint Hitler devout Christian. It's just as stupid as trying to claim Darwinian theory leads to Hitlerism. Frankly, it's behavior worthy of a troll.
AT MOST, you could claim that Hitler's convoluted belief system contained some elements of Christianity. But it wasn't Christian by any reasonable definition of the word.
Are we cooperating or just sharing information?
See post 362.
Table-Talk, to the extent that it's a transcript of Hitler's private conversations, and that we have two independent versions, is probably the best we have. You just can't rely on the 1953 translation.
Talk about a mix of lies and half truths!
You're acting worse than most creationists.
The next time someone tries to hijack a thread by associating evolution with Hitler or Stalin, I expect you to take the lead in rubbishing this tactic.
If I see it first, I will ping you. It should come from an evolution critic.
If you are able to find and post a scholarly peer-reviewed work by a legitimate historian that makes your case, please do so.
I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Usually I find I'm beaten to the punch by 3-4 people, but I'll do it anyway.
He didn't attend confession, mass or catechism. He did not partake of the sacrements.
We could do some good for conservatism by debating the science instead of engaging in silly moralizing.
Every once in a while this happens, and I learn something.
Not in the traditional sense, no.
He wrote Mien Kampt in private and that was his private thoughts. He was in prison.
Yeah, but then he PUBLISHED it. There's no way he could have polished up here or there before sending it out, could he?
He disliked Christians who proclaimed Jesus a Jew rather than Aryan.
Which would include every Christian at that time.
He believe in Jesus. He stated it and believe it.
Merely believing in Jesus does not a Christian make. Muslims believe in Jesus, but they're not Christians. It's what you believe ABOUT Jesus that matters.
He established a church of state that taught such.
Hitler established no churches. Your facts are wrong.
He thought of Jews as Martin Luther thought of Jews.
Agreeing with Martin Luther about one point doesn't a Lutheran make.
You mean, like you.
So lets all make a deal. When creationists start associating Hitler with Darwin, let's just expose the fallacy instead of then trying associate Hitler with Christianity.
I'll concede Hitler tried to pass himself off as a Christian in public, and he had a strage belief system that included a Jesus, albeit a Jesus very different from what is in the Bible and one that doesn't even resemble the Jesus 99% of German Christians worshiped even during Hitler's time.
You expose the fallacy. It has to come from a non-evo source. How can we expose something that is already naked?
When I was young we had a German Nazi prison camp right outside of town and the prisoners worked the nearby farms. Christmas eve they came up missing. After a big panic and search they were found on main street. They had visited the Church and was looking at the Christmas decorations. They worshiped and went to Church every Sunday but they still fought and believed in Hitler and thought they would win.
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.