Posted on 08/09/2009 8:10:48 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Why? You're lack of knowledge didn't stop you from writing the article.
Again... refute the man’s comments not my words. The problem is none of you can.
The other problem is that Darwin’s actual words will never be spoken in most classrooms because they would be considered too racially divisive and bigoted. You guys will keep on worshipping him though, won’t you?
It’s the same with zerrhoid’s science czar, I think I heard several people that mentioned something about kids not being human until what....?
They’re 3 years old, according to this flake?
You just can’t make this stuff up!
This is what happens when God is stomped out of education and science is sterlized of all things intelligent, designed and moral...just so liberals won’t get their feelings hurt over the multiple God-hang-ups and tender secular humanist sensibilities.
Congratulations liberals, for further destroying what’s left of the country! :(
Or do you consider the Catholic Church and the Pope as not christian?
Well that depends...are you talking about science as conservatives understand it, or the way liberals hijack it?
algore has exclaimed the debate is over when it comes to his hot air cult...
and then there's liberals like Chrissy-Fit Matthews who has covered the screen in spittle explaining evolution is "settled science"...attacking conservatives and Christians like Sara Palin among others, badgering one conservative congressman on his show; going to bat for the Darwinian cult, babbling nonsense about the fraud of peer review, etc., pretty much like ALL liberals do against those that disagree with them.
liberals have hijacked the judiciary to attack science (just like everything else) when they attack science by misusing the judiciary/ACLU/NEA etc. to enforce their pseudo-scientific views and indoctrinate children in public screwels with their cult of secular humanism.
And ya know...ignoring this problem seriously damages evolution as much as anything I can think of! Not to mention one's conservative credibilities.
Science is science. It is neither conservative nor liberal. It is an investigation of natural phenomenon and the subsequent explanations of such. E.g., the computer you are using now is a direct result of our research into quantum mechanics (not to mention, chemistry, metallurgy, optics, electromagnetism, stress and forces, etc, - the list would take hours if not days to write).
TToE is like any other scientific investigation, It happens to be. the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet.
Coupling it to Al Gore and global warming like you did is just plain silly.
Congratulations. In 26 posts, you’ve managed to attract 3 spitwads (generalized criticism with no specifics and no support), 3 personal attacks, and 1 diversion attempt.
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
You are welcome to offer specific quotes, by Darwin, in context, to justify your position, but I will not do your research for you.
As for the theory of evolution, it is a methodologically repeatable observation, based on clearly understood logical principles. In this it is the essence of a "passive thing," as you put it. It's very nature, however, prevents it from being an "aggresssive act" because it cannot act.
Eugenics, however, is indeed "an aggressive act," as it literally describes the process by which mass murder takes place.
You also write: Though he did not support the killing of weaker beings, he clearly believed that the act of doing so was part of evolution itself. He also pointed out in great detail the inferior and superior qualities of humans based on race, sex, health, handicap and physical abnormalities.
Thank you for making my point - his observations were of evolutionary process, which he formulated into a theory of operation (thus his detailed examination of things that influence reproductive ability in plants, animals and humans, such as "race, sex, health, handicap and physical abnormalities." HOWEVER: His non-support of killing weaker beings is his rejection of eugenics principles.
Firefighters study fire, and reduce it's operations into scientifically testable theories. But that doesn't mean they go around starting fires (though they can). Military people study war, and reduce it's operations into scientifically testable theories. But that doesn't mean they go around starting wars (though they can).
You call my objections "spin, selective memory or revised history," but they are merely observations of your lack of critical thinking. But I will show you what spin is - your careful use of the word "proper" in your summation phrase: And along with this, he made it clear the proper way of nature was to eliminate the inferior to promote the strong.
"Proper" is a value judgement Darwin did NOT make, precisely because - as YOU pointed out - "he did not support the killing of weaker beings." But "proper" is precisely the kind of value judgement word a eugenicist uses to justify his invocation of evolutionary principles for mass murder. Your use of such a loaded word, out of context, as a summation, therefore, amounts to a very deft spin on your part, which you actually denied the truth of yourself.
“...if you read Darwin you find that the survival of the fittest...”
If YOU read Darwin you will not find the phrase “survival of the fittest”. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s always best to remain silent.
Yup, with GGG it’s usually 5 times as bad.
TToE is like any other scientific investigation, It happens to be. the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet.
Coupling it to Al Gore and global warming like you did is just plain silly.
No, it's not science when hi-jacked by liberals, then it becomes pseudo-science, which is the entire point. It's very helpful to be able to identify when it's been hijacked by liberals to be able to discern real science from these liberal cults of pseudo-science.
There'a an awful lot of lip serivce by liberals when it comes to peer review and the scientific method, but upon further investigation, just like anything else hijacked by liberals, something is rotten at the core the further and deeper one digs.
Like all the carefully crafted research algore's cultists rambled on and on about, (just like zerrhoid's helathcare goons are up to right about now also...); but upon closer investigation normal people beagan to see temperature recording devices planted right next to aircraft exhausts near airports, or right near AC exhaust...so it wasn't so much man-made global warming as it's really turned out to be man-made pseudo-science.
And unfortunately, the liberal version is all too often peddled off as fact in gubmint run failed public screwels.
And a bunch of Chrissy-fit's fellow great apes beating their chests and bleating on and on about their peer reviewed papers while smearing anyone that disagrees with them, simply isn't impressive science to normal well adjusted conservative people.
As has been pointed out dozens of times on here, even little shildren can see through their B.S.
Now what's silly newbie is excusing this or ignoring it, particularly on this website!
Welcome to FR!
Personally, I think Charles Darwin was a brilliant writer.
I’ve read quite a bit of classic fiction from the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds, and I must say that Darwin’s ability to draw an idea from thin air and place it on paper in a manner understandable and believable by the average reader, is rarely rivaled.
More importantly though, was that Darwin’s idea was believable by Darwin himself.
Unfortunately, he legitimized scientific self delusion to the point that we have a whole slew of politically driven agenda sciences which would not survive without the divine blessing of Darwinian self delusion.
Thanks for nothing, Charlie.
Yeah. That's far too few.
“If you love The Origin of the Species, embrace it! Call Australian Aborigines, Blacks and Indians what your father called them… SAVAGES!”
The Declaration of Independence calls Native Americans “merciless Indian savages.”
“And along with this, he [Darwin] made it clear the proper way of nature was to eliminate the inferior to promote the strong.”
Where did Darwin make it clear that this is the “proper” way of nature?
“The other problem is that Darwin’s actual words will never be spoken in most classrooms because they would be considered too racially divisive and bigoted. You guys will keep on worshipping him though, won’t you?”
I think I see your problem now.
Us guys don’t worship Darwin. We don’t take Darwin’s words to be gospel truth — even to those of us who consider Darwin’s theory to be the greatest leap in human understanding ever.
I don’t think that you, as a bible believer, are untrue to your roots if you are not pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-pedophilia, or pro fig-tree cursing.
Oh look! All these famous evolution scientists, and members of the Darwin family, just happen to have been collectivist exterminators... Darwinism-Eugenics. Merely a coincidence, you say.
The religion of evolution holds forth no hope of a perfect millenium in which all evil shall be eliminated and all struggle shall cease... There can be no progress of any kind without struggle... The struggle against evil in general is thus a condition of social progress... Evolution thus offers a rational solution of the great problem of evil. It has taught us that there is all about us a great and world-wide struggle for existence; that inaction and satiety end in degeneration and that advance can be purchased only by struggle, suffering, and death.--E.G. Conklin (AAAS president, American Eugenics Society president), The Direction of Human Evolution, pg. 239--240.
Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range.
--Julian Huxley (co-founder of the Modern Synthesis of evolution), Man in The Modern World second edition, 1950, essay Eugenics and Society.
Yes you will. Darwin fully approved of the phrase.
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.