Who doesn't?
Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.
The results of Darwin’s theories
"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.
Fester, you were BORN out of your element. No offense, my friend, but you know nothing about science and refuse to learn. You keep introducing sophomoric late-night philosophy rants in what are otherwise scientific discussions (or science versus ignorance as with this one).
LOL. Good one.
When the opening ploy is a non sequiter, there isn't much distance to go.
Scripture is not a counter argument to science.
I know enough to understand it requires repeatable experimentation to support or confirm a theory, and that no experimentation or theory develops or takes place apart from intelligent design. Please correct me if I'm wrong, since you know so much about science as to judge my knowledge as absolutely lacking in this regard.
"The point is simply that evolutionism is used by some to justify eugenics, communism, abortion, etc."
First, it's evolution, not "evolutionism." Second, so what if some people misuse and twist evolutionary theory to support their own twisted ideas? I already pointed this out - gravity isn't false because people get killed from being thrown off buildings, germ theory isn't false because of biological warfare, atomic theory and relativity isn't false because of the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan - THEY STAND OR FALL ENTIRELY ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.
"But don't get preachy with me if your fundamental belief is that we are not intelligently designed and specially created by God. It places you totally out of your element and makes you evidence against the very ideas you espouse, namely that intelligent design is mystical, superstitious, relgious and unscientific. It is none of these, but is the very reason science has an intelligible universe to study, enjoy, and employ in the first place."
Intelligent Design isn't religious? You mind explaining the Wedge Document, why ID-proponents assert that natural causes could not allow for the diversity of life and thus their must be non-natural causes (in other words, a thinly-disguised telelogical appeal), and why Dembski blew his hat by saying, "Even many Christians who have been raised and indoctrinated in a secular mindset ... will say, 'Look, we're just going to have to accept the science of the day and try to make our peace with it theologically,'" Dembski said. "And there is no peace theologically ... ultimately with this view [Darwinian evolution]. But they accept it. And so, this idea of intelligent design becomes very threatening." (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20574) Oh, sure he said it at a Baptist Seminary; but he generally admitted that the entire contention is religious, not scientific.
Or, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," says the conference's prime mover, law professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy." Mr. Johnson also insists the real issue in the century-old debate isn't even about the early chapters of Genesis. "I turn instead to John 1," says the astute Presbyterian layman, "where we're told that 'In the beginning was the word.'" (http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=374)
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"(Phillip Johnson, "Missionary Man", Church & State, April 1999)
Of course, DI does their best to drown out attention on the Wedge Document. But, they've shot themselves in the foot. They've shown the world what biologists knew all along - DI's doing for religion not science.
Let's see if ID is science. From a previous post:
"Is ID...:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?"
The Designer is not naturalistic; ID has already made that as a claim of their "theory." Since the Designer's not naturalistic, science can make no objective predictions of the Designer nor can science falsify the Designer. Thus, the Designer and the theory are neither falsifiable nor naturalistic. The falsifiable components, CSI and IC, have been meticulously falsified by TalkOrigins, Kenneth Miller, and many other biologists.
It's not tentative - ID assumed the conclusion, provided "evidence" for it, and concluded the assumption.
It's not parsimonius; they have to invoke an intelligent Designer to explain the diversity of life when evolution is very successful at doing that already also. They have to explain how an Intelligent Designer would make 98.5% of our genome and many other organisms consists of ERVS, noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. They also have to complicate matters by explaining how chimps and humans have identical ERV insertions. All they can do is say, "That's what the Designer wanted."
It doesn't make accurate predictions; IC is falsified, CSI is falsified, and other than that, ID doesn't even attempt to make specific, risky predictions. It produces no research.
It's not encompassing. It doesn't explain identical ERV insertions, or chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 in humans, or why all the evidence points towards evolution. When relativity replaced newtonian physics, it had to account for why so many predictions of Newtonian physics were accurate. ID doesn't even attempt to do that.
And finally, it's not supported. The evidence they have? Negative, misinformed arguments against evolution mostly. The only postive arguments? CSI and IC, both of which have been falsified.
So take your pick. But, I'll personally stick to science where I see it.
That's a real logically fallacy. I'm not kidding. It's also known as Reductio ad Nazium, or Argumentum ad Hitlerum, or Argumentum ad Nazium.
Well, repeatablility is only one of the criteria for a theory. And TToE meets that one. I have no idea what you mean by "no... theory takes place apart from intelligent design." That is a prima facie meaningless statement.
A very quick summary as what is required for a thoery courtesy Dante Alighieri :
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?
this is just childish and irresponsible.
LOL -- I quoted (since I bookmarked) your excellent post. Note how I broke with FR tradition and actually gave you credit ;)
Moral bankruptcy of Darwinism BUMP.
Who are these "enablers" and do you mean they are the enables of the perpetrators?
Your sentence, although brief, is quite opaque.
Moral bankruptcy of Mathematicians, Rocket Scientists, Historians, Film Makers, People who eat Bratwurst BUMP
Gravity isn't an idea. Evolution is not gravity. If you have this much trouble getting comparisons right, then how much should I trust whatever rendition of world history you happen to believe?
As for the remainder of your screed, science has not demonstrated that intelligent design is unnatural (or supernatural). What is unnatural or unscientific about organized matter performing specific functions, which precisely defines the products of intelligent design?
That's a tradition? Great, now I can quote Ichneumon frequently and pass it off as my own work.
Oh, that's your beef... you cannot stand the fact that someone might criticize your way of living... or look upon it for the filth that it is...
LOL!
You haven't spent much time being witnessed to by creationists then.
Who doesn't?
You want me and you want me bad. Admit it.
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.