Replies

The fact is that Stalin gained his atheism from Darwin

So? Torquemada decided to torture spanish jews because of this readings of the bible. The contention before the table was that communism and darwinism were intimate bedfellows. Such has not be demonstrated, and seems both contrary to common sense and familiar historical record. The Popes are now officially Darwinists. Does the make the Popes communists? Why not abandon this and find an argument that has some traction?

"So? Torquemada decided to torture spanish jews because of this readings of the bible.

Could we possibly check into it and see what Torquemada brought to the table when he read the Bible, which parts of the Bible he read, and how he interpreted those parts of the Bible?

I do not know the details of what Stalin read of Darwin and how it affected him, so you may be right in asserting I've stretched the truth to the breaking point. I believe he may have been a theist before reading Darwin.

One thing for sure, yours is another thought-provoking post. I understand that just because one is affiliated with a certain book or teaching, the following conduct in life may not necessarily therefore be attributed to the same. For all I know there are people who've read "The Three Little Bears" and then gone on to commit serial murders.

Meanwhile I hope you've understood that I do not count all evolutionists as communists. I will only say that communists by definition must adopt atheistic tenets, one of which is evolutionism. There may be theistic evolutionists, but I don't think you'll find them among die hard communists.

The contention before the table was that communism and darwinism were intimate bedfellows. Such has not be demonstrated, and seems both contrary to common sense and familiar historical record.

Can anyone point to anything in Marx's writings that cites Darwin, or that mentions any of Darwin's works? Hint: don't bother looking at any of the numerous writings by Marx before 1859, when Darwin first published Origin of Species. Further hint: don't bother with the correspondence wherein Marx asks permission to dedicate a book (presumably Capital) to Darwin, and Darwin refuses, because this doesn't prove much of anything. If there is any reference in Marx's work to Darwin, it would have to be in Das Capital (written after Darwin published about evolution), and after a very brief search I can't find anything. Perhaps one of the creationists could point out the smoking gun which shows that Marx was influenced by Darwin's work.

"If the electron carried more charge than the proton, all atoms would be negatively charged. In that case - since identical charges repel - all the atoms composing all the objects in the universe would fly apart in a catastrophic explosion. On the other hand, if the proton carried more charge than the electron, all atoms would be positively charged - with the same disastrous consequences."

This little quote comes from Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D.

Does it concur with the facts?

Do you believe the attributes of these atomic particles to be coincidental even though this is the only known configuration by which life as we know it can be sustained?

What is the mathemetical probability of so much substance arising with this kind of consistency?

If the probabilities are slim, would that necessarily favor a theory that "design" objectively permeates the universe?

If so, does it necessarily follow that the probabilites are false and must be kept out of the classroom because it might incite religious backlash?

If not, what kind of mechanism might an evolutionist propose as a cause for this kind of consistency throughout the known world?

Do you believe it is preposterous to infer that some kind of design may be at the bottom of this?