Posted on 08/02/2005 4:16:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Okay, so I guess if you can't define sin, you can't ever commit sin. That makes it easy. The Bible says all have sinned. Why do you have a problem with that?
Didn't you post this same stuff a couple of weeks ago on another thread? Looks like you certainly did your research and it's nice you keep it handy for these situations.
Based on how he is quoted, I agree with him. Yes, there should be some exposure to the debate, it has become a rather important subject in recent years.
However, I can't say i agree with the kids being taught that the only reasonable answer to an unexplained phenomenon is that God did it.
Well, I really want to know what a "sin" is in the first place. It's fundamental to this discussion.
Why would/should eugenics be excluded from history class?
To the lurkers out there, you'll find that thread after thread, this poster pretty much is consistent in revealing that he finds the agenda of evolutionists to be less than appealing.
IMO, nothing smacking of an "agenda" belongs in science class.
Remember the book 'The Bell Curve'?
I read it. Did you?
The physical evidence for intelligent design is so strong that it is irrefutable in several areas such as:
1. Artificial Intelligence
2. Self-replicating machines
3. Computer Viri
In organic life, we see mathematical Base 4 programming instructions grouped in reusable genetic DNA subroutines (i.e. genes), something that appears related to all three areas of incontrovertible physical evidence (see above list) for intelligent design of some sort.
Double wow. You included a table this time.
So what? Nor can you disconnect, say, Martin Luther from antisemitism. After all the Nazis reprinted his On The Jews and Their Lies in large quantities, and Luther did in fact (short of mass murder) affirmatively, even urgently, recommend to European leaders of his day many of the same policies the Nazis would later adopt.
Fact is the connection between Luther and Nazism's anti-Jewish laws is stronger than the connection between Darwinism and eugenics since Darwin rejected positive eugenics (instead advocating social policies based in Whigish classical liberalism) whereas Luther actually did recommend policies such as burning synagogues, confiscating the homes of Jews, forcing them to work at hard labor, denying them protection of the police from physical assaults, and etc. Yet the connection, even in the case of Luther and the Nazis, is not a DIRECT one.
You were talking about a DIRECT connection. Not just vague analogizing like a Hitler translating the idea of "survival of the fittest" from natural history to the realm of militarism.
All you have to do is to say that Darwin was wrong about this, but that his biological study is valid.
Darwin was wrong about any number of things, but not (in the manner you suggest) about eugenics. Darwin rejected the notions of (what is today called) "positive" eugenics. (Although, if enough had been known about genetics to make it useful, he would have probably advocated "negative" eugenics, or what we today call genetic counseling, for example appraising parents of the risks of genetic diseases in their prospective offspring. Darwin did worry a good deal about having passed on health problems to his children, and having exacerbated this by marrying a cousin.)
Speaking more generally your analysis overlooks the long history of scientific racism that extended back before evolution. Darwin actually undermined much of that, as many scientific racists had previously argued that the races of man were separately created species. Sure there were racists who subsequently readjusted their prejudices to the new scientific paradigm, but you do them too much credit by focusing on, and implicitly endorsing as at least contextually valid, their rationalizations.
It's the RACISM that's the primary phenomena, not it's justification. Those justifications have been variously based on religion (including Christianity), philosophy, science, occultism, political ideologies and many other rationales. You are basically taking the (historically) least important among these justifications and pretending it's the only important one, and moreover suggesting those rationalizing prejudice were actually correct in inferring racism from evolution.
There's another indication, besides the preceding history of non-evolutionary scientific racism, and its secondary role to other modes of rationalizing racism, which should suggest to you that it wasn't a particular theory that "caused" scientific racism -- much less racism in general. I have in mind the historical context of mass human migrations.
The ascendancy of scientific racism -- and the heyday of eugenics -- occurred in the 1910's, 20's and somewhat into the 30's (although by that time political ideologies which were themselves typically anti-scientific had taken over the torch). I think it's no coincidence at all that these two decades also saw history's largest influxes of immigrants into Western Europe and America. I think scientific racism, and other cultural manifestations of racism, were largely a reaction to this.
So, you're good with this then?
1 Corinthians 14
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2
[9] In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
""I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is 'yes.'""
He could say no folks shouldn't be exposed to "______", or something worse. He should have added though, that the most important teaching is to learn the meaning of "is".
LOL - I grew up in the church and studied Christian apologetics.
Now, taking the population density figure of 20 per square kilometer gives us a population of 3 million in classical times. This is a pretty good sized population for any country of that period or even up through the Middle Ages.
Anyway, as can be seen if 2 million folks suddenly uprooted and high-tailed it to Canaan, the social and economic upheaval would be greater than even what I postulated earlier as this is two-thirds of the population.
And, it gets worse.
The land of Canaan (the land of milk and honey) is roughly the size of modern Israel with all the territory captured in the 1967 wars. This entire area is only about 22,000 kilometers in size and is roughly about as productive (we'll be nice) as the Nile valley. This means that at classical levels of agriculture it could support maybe a half million people. The Israelites would have conquered the place and promptly starved to death as their supply of manna had been cut off once they left the desert (notice, I'm giving Scripture the benefit of the doubt here).
How do you falsify a theory that life evolved undirected?
That was a lot of work to support your faith. God sure did put a lot of work into creating such a marvelous system.
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.