Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
This is a valid point. I cannot say that the penchant for communists to adopt evolutionism thereby invalidates theories of evolution. Communism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate form of government. Evolutionism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate world view. Do you suppose the two just randomly decided to walk hand in hand?
But we're not talking about a "potential" misapplication here, are we? It really happened, and it can be fairly well verified that millions of people lost their lives as a result.
How would you describe the relationship between evolutionism, communism, and the general welfare of the citizenry under the same? Would you say there is no relationship whatsoever?
If you saw them, it would indicate that the "scientists" at the "creation science" centers were actually doing research, instead of peddling comic books and making a living on the creationism lecture circuit. But relax. As soon as genuine scientists come up with something new -- say a new hominid fossil or a new transitional fossil, the creationoids will have a "new" argument -- that the newly-discovered evidence is a fake. That way, as true science progresses, the creationoids are supplied with a never-ending supply of things to nitpick about.
Hey. It was one of your own who tried to dissociate communism from evolutionism altogether. I merely pointed out that historically evolutionism is the world view of choice for communists.
Do you believe there is no historic realtionship whatsoever bvetween evolutionism and communism?
With an attitude like that, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before you're excommunicated yet again. No true Christian would have dared to question the divine right of kings...
I see. You would prefer we confine the discussion to pure theorizing, rather than muddy it up with messy things like examples or tests?
Kindly point out to me how any of this was off the subject of evolutionary theory, the apparent subject of this thread, so that my apology can be appropriately detailed and effulgent.
Darwin and Marx were contemporaries. Along with Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and millions of others. So many people to blame ...
Lo and behold, it was Marx who imbibed the teachings of Darwin and applied them with vigor to the detriment of untold millions. Not Lincoln. Not Bell. Not Vanderbilt. Not millions of others.
Historically, theism has been the world view of choice for monarchs. You must be a royalist, right?
Do you believe there is no historic realtionship whatsoever bvetween evolutionism and communism?
Only as a matter of convenience. Socialism requires the destruction of all other organizations in civil society. State-sponsored atheism via (in part) evolutionary theory was simply a tool used by communists to cement their power and eliminate churches as competitors for the hearts and minds of the masses. If Lenin thought he could sell communism as a revelation from God, and thereby co-opt religion, I have little doubt he would have done so, and we would now be discussing the divine right of the Bolshevik party, rather than their preference for athiesm.
And, of course, they were simply wrong about any supposed link between atheism and evolution, as they were wrong about so many other things. The truth of evolution does not imply the falsity of God, regardless of whether they believed so or not.
Only an evolutionist would draw that kind of conclusion.
"Only as a matter of convenience."
Evolutionism is certainly a convenient way of disposing with truth.
Wrong again. I am merely a left wing fringe idealist liberal thought evolutionist/atheist/activist/enlisted man, not an officer.
Really? My logic is identical to yours. If evolution is deficient because it has been adopted by communists, then clearly theism is equally deficient because it has been adopted by monarchs. If you don't like my argument, you shouldn't be making it.
Evolutionism is certainly a convenient way of disposing with truth.
I will simply take the lack of a substantive response to mean that you find nothing of substance to object to in my post.
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.