Posted on 09/17/2005 11:39:07 AM PDT by Arnhart
I've been told by some at work and on FR that a true conservative must be a Christian who hold the Bible as the innerrant Word of God. Some have even go as far as to say that to be American, you must be solidly Christian. These people, as heart felt as they are, are in the minority.
'cloating'. Is that a compression of gloating and clothing? Or clothing made from goatings?
I think you need more coffee.
The Discovery Institute subsidized the writing of Richard Weikart's recent book FROM DARWIN TO HITLER. In my chapter on "social Darwinism" in my book, I show that Weikart's own evidence doesn't support a direct line "from Darwin to Hitler," although Hitler used vague references to survival of the fittest in some of his writings.
In correspondence with me, Weikart admitted that the title of his book is not accurate because any connection between Darwin and Hitler is very loose and indirect. The connection between Ernst Haeckel and Hitler is much more direct and clear. Weikart chose the title of his book to support the polemical purposes of the Discovery Institute.
But hang on, I've seen lots of Creationist literature attacking Darwin because he somehow gave rise to Marxist Communism--so it is also alleged that Darwin gave similar rise to Fascism? Now, Hitler was rabidly anti-Communist (which is why some British politicians in the 1930's were willing to appease him), Stalin was rabidly anti-Hitler, but they both took their despotic inspiration from Darwin, the scientist? Boy, I'm struggling even trying to figure out how to deal with this gallimaufry of allegations!
Without Einstein, we couldn't have ended WWII without far greater loss of American lives--so Einstein is a hero. Except that, without Einstein, Iran wouldn't be developing weapons of mass destruction with which to threaten us--so Einstein was a monster.
You can tie your brain in knots with this kind of stuff. Do we blame Jesus for the Inquistion and the centuries of appalling bloodshed over matters of arcane Christian doctrine--or do we blame the mis-interpreters of his teachings?
He's got a website, but it's not working right now. Google's cached version says that he's in the Department of History, California State University, Stanislaus. Why would a professional historian allow himself to be paid to write a fraudulent book?
I don't doubt that a fraudulent outfit like the Discovery Institute would subsidize such a tract, and then promote their "Discovery" as if it were serious scholarship.
If Weikart has any integrity left, he should denounce the book on his website.
That today's conservatives don't want to be on the same side as the eugenicists of the early 20th century is very much to their credit. That today's liberals don't mind opening the door to a decline in the value of life is a shame, and some of them will come to regret it later.
I always find it ironically funny when some religious people seem to think that the most dismissive thing they can think of to call evolutionary biology is "a religion", as if by being a religion it would automatically a bad, silly, or worthless thing...
I often hear anti-evolutionists try to dismiss evolutionary biology as "just another religion" -- but you never hear pro-evolutionists try to dismiss opposing views as "just another science", because the pro-evolutionists hold science in *high* regard... Apparently a lot of the "religionists" hold religion in low regard, which is quite odd.
...which is really funny, since Marx published his communist philosophy years *before* Darwin published "Origin of Species"...
Darwin's book on evolution ("Origin of Species"): 1859. Marx's book on communism ("Communist Manifesto"): 1848. What's wrong with this picture?
Nah. They don't think that of religion -- just of religions other than their personal interpretation of their own religion. And as for dismissing "Darwinism" as a religion -- they think everything is religion -- because they have zero appreciation for all that's involved in the scientific method.
Parallel thought here: I have quite an issue with religion in the science classroom, but just say we accepted the Creationists' 'equal time/teach the controversy' bit of special pleading--and introduced science into places of worship.
What would that look like? Chemical analysis of communal wine to test for transubstantiation? Antennae hooked up to oscilloscopes, scanning frequencies to detect if prayers are getting through? I mean no disrespect to religion here--I'm merely trying to show the absurdity of doing the wrong thing in the wrong place.
It is a minority of folk who find a conflict between their religion and science--but the issue is a religious one. To demand that science produce answers only in conformance with some religious doctrine is utter folly
I think James Randi already did that.
To Peter Popov.
I agree with this, and with most of your post.
Some leftists I just don't bother arguing with, there really is no point. But I am confident I have 'won over' some folks who, not really leftists, but influenced by leftist msm, have never really considered the consequences of liberal policies on abortion. One can (and I believe I have) make with these people a compelling case against current abortion policy and legislation on entirely rational grounds, without bringing religion into it. Now, of course, many in this campaign are both motivated and inspired by their own religious beliefs, and that's fine--but it has no weight with people who do not hold those same religious beliefs. Yet these are the people we can sometimes convince on rational grounds.
The dynamics of the pro-life campaign are different here in the UK, I won't try to explain all the differences to the US and the complexities. But I suspect the principle I'm describing would still hold: if someone who is 'weakly' defending the current liberal position on abortion can be convinced by a rational argument for the pro-life camp, why bring religion into it if you don't need to?
How could an atheist possibly be less moral than a religion that tell slaves to obey their masters, tells soldiers to kill every man, woman and child in a conquered city, tell people to kill witches and stone disobedient children to death? What kind of psychopath would claim that these are the instructions of God?
Surely you understand that creationists don't debase themselves by actually doing science. No, they wouldn't attempt anything like that. Instead, during their equal time, the instructor would sit there and chant "The Designer did it!" He would repeat this every ten seconds, his voice gradually becoming louder and more shrill, his face getting redder, until the blood started flowing from his bursting arteries, and came pouring out of his nose, his eyes, and his ears. Then, at the end of the class, he would collapse into a mass of quivering jelly. End of science lesson.
I had an 8th grade biology teacher who used to do exactly that, every Thursday! We just thought he was a drunk ....
Evolutionary theory is no more or less atheist than any scientific theory. Are you rejecting all of science on these grounds?
Moral and religious concerns are replaced by materialistic calculations.
Is your contention, therefore, that because Pope John Paul II announced that the theory of evolution did not have to conflict with Catholic doctrine, that either JPII or Roman Catholicism are now motivated by materialistic calculations? )More-or-less standard disclaimer for the bloody-minded: I do not endorse or reject Roman Catholicism. I merely point out the Pope's statement because it demonstrates that someone who takes religion seriously is not required to reject evolutionary theory).
I don't know how far I'd go with that view, but historically there's a lot in it.
Only if you reject logic, too. No scientific theory has anything to do with morality.
That today's conservatives don't want to be on the same side as the eugenicists of the early 20th century is very much to their credit.
What does this have to do with the theory of evolution? The eugenicists' misuse of the TOE doesn't make the TOE responsible for the actions of the eugenicists.
That today's liberals don't mind opening the door to a decline in the value of life is a shame, and some of them will come to regret it later.
We're all conservatives here.
Professional historians usually receive rather niggardly salaries.
Weren't there bunches of atheists running around looting New Orleans? Was the BTK killer an atheist?
I'm told there are no atheists in the trenches.
PLACEMARKER
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.