Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
These implications have not been lost on darwinists and their followers. In fact, Adolph Hiltler used Darwins' theory as a philosophical justification for the Holocause. In his 1924 book, "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) he wrote:
'If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist. '
Hitler, like other darwinists, personifies nature by attributing will to it. ("nature does not wish"). This is the thought process which brought about the destruction of millions of innocents. Darwinism, as an idea, has consequences, far beyond Darwins' questionable hypothesis. Hitlers' was your logical consequence to the 'working-out' of darwinist world view as applied to his nation and the world.
Now, whatever you might believe, you do not beleive what you wrote regarding Hitler thinking he was following the teachings of Jesus to its logical conclusions. I have offered to you Hitlers own words, and we know these words match nicely with what happened in the Rhineland under Hitlers' rule.
Macro and Micro evolution are not my favorite terms since they are a little imprecise. However, they make a distinction which does need to be made. Noone disagrees that species can adept and that natural selection works in a limited area this is what micro-evolution is talking about. Many of the traditional proofs for evolution like the black moth / white moth expiriment prove this point. Dog breeding also proves this point. However, all these examples merely involve selecting from within the existing gene pool. No new genes are needed, no mutating is involved.
Macro evolution on the other hand would require a species to evolve by gaining new genetic information through random mutations and natural selection. This is what I have not seen evidence off. And given the complexity of the DNA code I don’t think that it can work since in order to have natural selection help the change must be close enough to the needed answer to actually provide a benefit. Since the coding for a proteign is usually several hundred amino acids long the odds of being close enough to right to actually provide beneficial new information are astronomically slim. So, a species can gradually lose information through mutation and devolve but I have yet to see solid evidence that species can gain information and evolve.
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler, 1933
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Adolf Hitler, 1922
"The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans." - Adolf Hitler, 1933
"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions." - Adolf Hitler, 1933
"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God." - Adolf Hitler, 1934
Enough?
First, I can’t get angry with someone named alstewartfan, since Al is my favorite musician on the planet by far.
But there is no such thing as “Darwinists”. It’s apparently a pejoritive term to try to paint the science of evolution as a cult centered around a historical figure. That’s unfair and a cheap shot.
If you’re a believer in gravity, are you a “Newtonian”? If you like to drive a car made on an assmebly line a “Henry Fordian”?
You want to paint evolution as a religion. It’s not. It’s science. Now it’s fair to attempt to argue that it’s flawed science, but it is wholly inaccurate to paint it as a cult or religion. So stop it.
If evolution is held out as science, then it obviously can and should be challenged using those methods that science uses. If it can’t stand the scientific scrutiny, then it should be rejected. That’s all fair.
So far, it’s seemed to withstand those challenges, although it certainly has been forced to modify some conclusions along the way. That’s fine, and it also shows that it is science and not religion. Science is not afraid to change its mind, but religion is.
All it takes is some new evidence that makes sense.
I agree that the model set forth by Darwin was used as a template for his murderous genocides.
I was merely pointing out that while Hitler may have framed his support for such in a manner neo-consistent with Christianity when speaking to the crowds, it is wrong to conclude that those speeches are the true basis for which he drew the template.
Darwin may have not really understood how little others would care about the moral underpinnings of civilized society.
He seems to me either naive enough to not have taken into account how other men might utilize the logical implications of his theory, or so blinded by the excitement of his research that he published it with nothing but a mention in passing that to use his theory for bad would be bad.
More pointless than claiming that scientists did not support a theory that hadn't been postulated yet?
My Deity, Natural Selection
If not for misquotes you would have no quotes at all. The quote, in context, is: "It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity "Natural Selection" superfluous, but rather from studying, lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature." Note that in the actual letter, 'deity' is all lower case. If you read his other letters, when referring to God, Darwin capitalized 'Deity'. It's obvious from the actual letter he does not assign the same meaning of deity that you do. But then again, without putting words into his mouth then how will you ever make your case?
Absolute BS. Neither Jesus nor Darwin supported the concept of genocide, regardless of what Hitler or you might think.
I was a bit fast on the draw when I accused you of being hostile, I apologize.
Now, bear with me here as I try to get this straight.
configuration states of alleles in a phase space
Do you mean evolution? Having to do with humans?
I am obviously speaking very loosely in these posts.
I understand.
As such, it is a statement about time translation invariance. This is a symmetry, like the conservation of electric charge, which we believe to be exact.(my emphasis added)
Are you saying it isn't an arbitrary one dimensional classical system?
What we call entropy does not manifest itself in either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics in the operation of basic laws; it appears to be an ergodic result.
I've been getting a crash course in that.
That was my point and this is the error made by those who argue evolution impossible on this basis. Your brain is decreasing the entropy along the neural connections necessary to "think a thought." If you confine the system to that pathway, there appears to be a 2nd law violation. But your brain is also creating waste heat much larger than the negative entropy change involved in thinking. When we include that heat, the total entropy change of the universe is positive, as required.
Thank you for explaining it.
Draw a box around the earth, and you're creating a region in which entropy will not in the aggregate increase. Why? because there is a net flux of energy into that box from the sun. If you call that imaginary box a "system" it is not a system in which energy is conserved.
I understand that but that box is in an even larger box, the infinite universe.
I consider my God to be the one in The King James Bible.
I'm gonna have to teach my grandkids that when mawmaw is on the computer, it's her quiet time. lol Hard to keep a coherent thought in my head.
Do you believe you have established that Hitler believed what he was saying, and that was the major template that was used to justify in his mind promotion of genocide?
——Neither Jesus nor Darwin supported the concept of genocide——
That is what I said. Darwin’s alluding to it is not support of it.
What an astounding statement. Darwin was an intelligent scientist. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. He came up with a profound new explanation for the variety and species we see all around us.
His original work largely focused on finches, a bird that most of us hardly notice.
Yet, some here are blaming him for Nazi atrocities, or that he should have known better than to publish his results about birds.
Somehow, the HMS Beagle was the cause of the Holocaust. Why this isn't obviously utterly absurd to everyone here is scary.
Many people believe God created the beginnings of life, and then continued to guide the evolutionary process, with mankind being the final result.
Absent any evidence to the contrary I have to accept that Hitler believed what he was saying, yes.
And Darwin's quote alluding to it is...?
Can you translate that into English?
I've been reading a lot about Young Earth Creationist. Why do you (collective you) say that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? Carbon dating?
Do you use the most liberal interpretations of the Bible? I'm not a YEC, I'm just asking a question, not slamming you.
I believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. And that the earth was created just the way Genesis instructs us (me) to.
No, it wouldn’t. But physical evidence can point toward non-physical realities.
Tell me about your thoughts, for example, or your feelings. They’re invisible. Are they therefore not real? Does science have nothing to say about your thoughts and feelings? Or can we come to some understanding of these non-physical things through the use of science?
Mihael Moore and Borat have shown that if you lie to people to get them into your movie, and have the power of editing, no rope is required. Stein isn't even original.
I am absolutely not afraid of truth, whether it’s revealed by science or by Scripture. Truth is Truth. And scientific truth never contradicts Scriptural truth. Again, the God of nature is the God of the supernatural.
The thing is, Scripture confirms that the physical points us toward God. Consider what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans (Romans 1:20):
“God’s invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”
The study of physical things (science) can, and does, lead us to a supernatural Being. You’re free to dismiss this, of course, but the evidence is there.
This is a sincerely brilliant reply except for the Al Stewart part. :-)
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.