Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cicero

Also the term "natural selection" is now preferred to the commonly used term in earlier times, "survival of the fittest," because "survival of the fittest" points toward the Nazis and the eugenists. There is a vast "social Darwinist" literature that cannot be so easily be separated from "scientific Darwinism" as its adherants pretend.

Kill off the useless eaters, the diabetics, and so forth, to improve the species.

Yes, eugenics is very embarrassing. Eugenics was the attempt to create microevolutionary changes to our species through the means of intelligent design. Embarrassing indeed! :-)
36 posted on 02/18/2006 2:15:18 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: jennyp
I have a question that I have never heard an evolutionist bring up before. The question is, if evolution is bunk, then why don't we see all the modern day animals in the fossil record? Why don't we see 40 million year old modern human fossils or 300 million year old horses?
60 posted on 02/18/2006 2:45:36 PM PST by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson