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.
Martin Luther's antisemitic pamphlet WAS written "in his later years," and never retracted by him, even in part or degree.
Martin Luther born 1483, died 1546.
On The Jews and Their Lies WRITTEN in January of 1543, and published that same year.
Got an explanation for this? I mean I assume you don't usually just make stuff up to excuse antisemites.
BTW, your claim that "Luther's views were shared by a majority of his contemporaries" is more odious soft-pedaling of antisemitism. Antisemitism may have been common, but the vituperative extremism of Luther's pamphlet, and the draconian nature of its explicit policy proposals, stand out starkly in all of Western history up to the reign of the Nazis (how republished on often cited Luther on the subject of the Jews).
Why do I get the feeling someone pitched a slow one across your hit zone? ;)
"The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease. (BTW, evolution does not meet this criteria. Any life form found today can be crammed into the imaginary tree, or lawn, of common descent.)"
Particle matter is already unintelligible chaos. Uncertainity principle anyone?
"Inasmuch as science is subjective and does not attain to a full understanding of how things work there will always be modifications involving interpretive and expressive elements, just as the work of intelligent design itself is subject to change, sometimes even in mid course."
They assumed the conclusion, provided "evidence" for it, and concluded the assumption. In no way is it open to change and the ID-crew, even after falsifications of IC and CSI, make it clear.
"The word 'natural' is not scientific, but arbitrary. Unless you can answer on what basis science determines what is natural and what is not, the word is scientifically meaningless. It certainly does not apply to intelligent design, since intelligent design is an observable phenomena and has been since the dawn of science itself."
That's because this is a contention of philosophy science has taken to ensure that explanations remain falsifiable. Natural simply means anything conforming to nature. While I admit I cannot think of a precise definition of nature, that doesn't exclude ID. ID, as set down by its proponents, understand the natural and have proposed a non-natural cause. That doesn't change anything.
"It attributes the organization of matter performing specific functions to a most likely cause: intelligent design. Moreover, the inclination is to assume a single intelligent designer for the sake of simplicity."
No, it doesn't. Matter is subject to chemical laws and self-organization based on physics. This explains why snowflakes form spontaneously, why chemical reactions occur with regularity, why tektites can form in volcanic explosions, etc. It is violating parsimony by complicating itself and it also has to brush off identical ERV insertions, the abundance of noncoding DNA, etc. as the will of a Designer whose intentions are not testable.
"Intelligent design predicts we will find organized matter performing specific functions, whether it extends to the fossil record or matter as yet unknown by science."
Organized matter however arise from chemical laws. Intelligent causes are not necessary. Evolution of biochemical pathways have been observed anyway, without intelligent intervention.
"Intelligent design recognizes the dynamic processes that take place as result of the implementation of a well-designed machine. As such, it expects to find change within a limited scope."
There is no known mechanism that limits evolutionary change and evidence contradicts it anyway. ID does not explain identical ERV insertions, macroevolutionary changes observed in the fossil record and in nature, noncoding DNA, the evolution of biochemical systems which are supposed to be irreducibly complex, the variation of biochemical systems (for example, there are 3.8x10^93 possible functional variations of cytochrome c alone), etc.
"You can start by counting the number of characters in this post and how they combined in a way that conveys information from one party to another. Then consider how many such communications take place in such a manner in a single day on FR. Then consider the physical apparatus needed to make this happen, and whether this kind of organization can happen apart from intelligence, design, or a combination of the two."
Non-sequitur. CSI has not been shown to exist and it is even contradicted and IC has been completely refuted.
wrong analogy
A DIFFERENT analogy from what the article (and your own explicit endorsements of its thesis) uses, but in fact a far stronger one.
Your article claims that the Nazis and other racists used evolution to justify racist ideology, and thereby damns Darwin, even though Darwin himself (in proper context) never made such usage, and in fact undermined the scientific racism of his day with his own interpretation of evolutionary theory.
IOW it was explicit racists who claimed, after the fact, that evolution was racist. (Although, even though it was used, and there was a widespread "scientific racism" in the early part of the 20th Century that had fully incorporated evolution, evolution was among the relatively more seldom used justifications by Nazis and their ilk.)
In contrast, in the case of Christian antisemites, it was not just those who were first and foremost antisemites who LATER claimed Christianity in support of antisemitism. It was rather a principal ARCHITECT of modern Christianity who argued for the most extreme form of antisemitism, BASED WHOLLY ON EXPLICITLY RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
In contrast to evolution, antisemitism was religiously motivated FROM THE BEGINNING, and only later emerged as a component of secular ideologies. (To it's credit Christianity, in the vast majority of its individuals and institutions, has played a key role in battling and debunking the modern phenomena of secular antisemitism.) Now, I agree with you absolutely that Christianity, properly understood, and its "highest" and most credible form, does not teach antisemitism. My only point in posting on Martin Luther is to highlight your blatant and inexcusable hypocrisy in applying one standard to Darwin/evolution and an entirely different one to Luther/Christianity.
Thank you. I didn't know that.
On the contrary, I have addressed each point and you do not have the intellectual fortitude to repsond with anything other than ad hominem verbiage. That's okay. I'm used to it.
I'm confident you'd never find an evolutionist here excusing or minimizing, say, Haeckel's antisemitism or racism, just because he was also an important evolutionary zoologist. And if they did I'd be all over them, and wouldn't expect to be alone. I see no need to pull any punches with someone who excuses or minimizes the antisemitism of a figure just because they also happen to have been an important theologian and activist in church history.
$hit placemarker
Perhaps in your world. But in the world of science intelligibility depends upon material consistency, as it does with intelligent design.
. . . snowflakes form spontaneously . . .
Snowflakes form in a manner and at a time as designed. They do not pop up "spontaneously."
Providing silly, shallow philosophical rejoinders is NOT addressing anything.
And, of course, your so-called "points" were CRUSHED on the next post after mine.
Your adolescent ramblings may be cut to some, sort of a like a 2 year old making bubbles in his chocolate milk. But it gets old (especially when it is repeated like repetition provides credence).
Mysteries of the universe placemarker.
"Perhaps in your world. But in the world of science intelligibility depends upon material consistency, as it does with intelligent design."
Perhaps a survey of quantum physics would be in order.
"Snowflakes form in a manner and at a time as designed. They do not pop up 'spontaneously.'" Hold on... we observe them form spontaneously and suddenly, they're now designed?
Is there "Intelligent Gravitation?" "Intelligent Brownian motion?" "Intelligent Uncertainty Principle?"
Meltdown placemarker!
I never said he didn't die an antisemitic. But, the ferocious views he posted in "On The Jews and Their Lies" were an aberration rather than a consistent record of his beliefs.
Anyone who knows about Luther knows he often used the most vile, explosive and even obscene language in his writings. His language was often foul and designed to provoke a fervent response.
BTW, your claim that "Luther's views were shared by a majority of his contemporaries" is more odious soft-pedaling of antisemitism.
Not at all. It is merely a statement historical fact. Antisemitism was widespread throughout Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Luther was very much a man of his time in his antisemitic views.
It is also important to note that Luther's antisemitism was strictly a religious bigotry. He raged against those Jews who refused to become Christians. He fully expected that Jews would flock to his brand of faith. When they didn't, he exploded.
Count Schlink of Moravia handed Luther a tract written by a Jew aimed at Christians which supposedly ridiculed the Christian Faith and urged them to repent of their Christian beliefs. "On the Jews and Their Lies" was Luther's violent response.
The Nazis' antisemitism was a purely racial bigotry. They despised the Jewish race and cared not a whit whether the Jew was a practicing Jew, an atheist or a converted Christian: to them a Jew was a Jew based upon racial, not religious, heritage.
I am still waiting for proof of this accusation.
...even if you accept the oldest Christian dating of Moses. As far as Moses goes, he was not a Christian... and neither was Noah or Job...
Reading comprehension isn't your forte, is it? I will help: The "Christian" modifier, is modifying the word "dating" not "Moses." I hope that helps. Sadly, it doesn't undo your earler very incorrect statement that Moses was responsible for Genesis.
But I am glad you did mention the Christians... you are obsessed with hating them... they are just your politically correct proxy for hating their progenitors, the Jews...
Um, there was nothing in the statement correcting your completely innacurate information that even comes close.
You, in your ignorance, like some others, expose your only real purpose here - - which is to throw $hit at the Christians.
Please tell me why I should not report you as a Troll. This type of bombastic hyperbole would normally be somewhat in bounds -- IF the original post gave rise to it. In this case it looks like you are disrupting to see how much you can get away with.
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.