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

Skip to comments.

America's Taliban strikes again
Arkansas News Bureau ^ | 28 August 2006 | John Brummett

Posted on 08/28/2006 6:31:13 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

The Holocaust wasn't Hitler's fault. Darwin made him do it. Complicit as well are any who buy into the scientific theory that modern man evolved from lower animal forms.

That's the latest lunacy from one of our more fanatical right-wing American Christian television outfits, the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Coral Ridge espouses that America is not a free-religion nation, but a Christian one. It argues there should be no separation of church and state.

Thus it's America's Taliban, America's Shiite theocracy.

It certainly has a propensity for explaining or excusing Hitler. A few years ago it brought in a conference speaker to argue that American abortion was a more horrible atrocity than the Holocaust.

One year it disinvited Cal Thomas as a conference speaker after Brother Cal got too liberal. You're thinking I must be kidding. But I kid you not. Brother Cal had displayed the utter audacity to co-author a book contending that American Christian conservatives ought to worry a little more about spreading the gospel from the bottom of the culture up rather than from the top of politics down.

Now this: Coral Ridge is airing a couple of cable installments of a "documentary," called "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," that seek to make a case that, without Darwin, there could have been no Hitler.

Authoritative sources for the program include no less than columnist Ann Coulter, noted scientist, who says she is outraged that she didn't get instructed in Darwin's effective creation of Hitler when she was in school. She says she has since come to understand that Hitler was merely a Darwinist trying, by extermination of a group of people he considered inferior because of their religion and heritage, to "hurry along" the natural survival of the Aryan fittest.

Also quoted is Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project, who tells the Anti-Defamation League that his comments were used out of context and that he is "absolutely appalled" by the "utterly misguided and inflammatory" premise of Coral Ridge's report.

The documentary's theme is really quite simple: Darwin propounded the theory of evolution. Hitler came along and believed the theory. Hitler killed Jews. So, blame Darwin for the Holocaust. Blame, too, all others who agree with or advance Darwin's theory. Get back to God and Adam and Eve and all will be right again with the world.

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries. "The legacy of Charles Darwin is millions of deaths."

Obviously, the theme is breath-taking nonsense. You can't equate academic theory with murderous practice. You can't equate a thinker and a madman, or science and crime.

And you can't ever blame one man for another's actions. That once was a proud conservative precept. In a different context, you'll no doubt find Coral Ridge fervently preaching personal responsibility. Except, apparently, for Adolf Hitler, to whom these religious kooks issue a pass. Ol' Adolf, it seems, just fell in with a bad crowd.

By Coral Ridge's premise, Mohammed is to blame for Osama bin Laden. Actually, Coral Ridge might not argue with that. So how about this: The pope is to blame for the IRA. And Jesus is to blame for Mel Gibson, not to mention Coral Ridge Ministries.

[Omitted some author detail and contact info.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; blitheringimbecility; brummetslaw; christianhater; christophobia; coralridge; craniometrics; crevolist; djameskennedy; endautism; endgeneticdefects; endpoverty; eugenics; evolutionism; favouredraces; genefairy; genesis1; genius; hereditary; hereditarygenius; idiocy; ignorantdrivel; jerklist; keywordwars; mntslfabusethread; moronicarticle; naziscience; pantiestootight; racism; racistdarwin; sterilization; sterilizedeficient; sterilizethepoor; stupidistthreadever; theocracy; theophobia; thewordistruth; wodlist; worstsarticleever
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 701-713 next last
To: EternalVigilance

Scripture hasn't changed. It says what it says.


361 posted on 08/28/2006 1:19:18 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How about by: (1) refraining from breeding, and (2) knocking themselves off.

The scenarios above entail neither forced sterilization nor execution. BTW, for all you folks who love nothing better than to jump down other folks throats and jump to unwarranted conclusions, I am not being serious here. Only illustrating how those who equate CRM (a ministry I proudly and unapologetically support) with the Taliban could conceivably remove themselves from the gene pool w/o violence. This ought to satisfy all you pro-choicers out there.
362 posted on 08/28/2006 1:20:43 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Islam is a despotism so vile that it would warm the heart of Orwell's Big Brother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species, pg.
363 posted on 08/28/2006 1:22:25 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Let's look at the entire paragraph, shall we?

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies--between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked 18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
It appears that Darwin is answering a criticism of the idea that man is descended from earlier life forms by pointing out that, through his own efforts, man will eventually widen the gulf between himself and his nearest relatives.

You know, I've noticed that all the creationist sites conveniently leave off the first half of the paragraph. You don't suppose they're engaging in "lying by ommission," do you? And, what does that make of you, who followed in their footsteps?

364 posted on 08/28/2006 1:24:05 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." -Charles Darwin "Origin of Species, pg. 280
365 posted on 08/28/2006 1:25:27 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

This group has been getting major play recently.


366 posted on 08/28/2006 1:28:44 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p.292
367 posted on 08/28/2006 1:28:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not." - Charles Darwin, Letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863
368 posted on 08/28/2006 1:30:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That you repeat an obvious lie makes you a fool or a liar -- neither of which makes you look good. Let's look at the entire quote, shall we?

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."M/font>

369 posted on 08/28/2006 1:30:33 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

Every theocratic government in history has killed, tortured or imprisoned people who did not conform to official beliefs. I consider theocrats to be traitors, technically speaking.


370 posted on 08/28/2006 1:31:25 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Yay! More Creationist quote mining!
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species, pg.

Wow look, Darwin seems to claim the eye couldn't have evolved! Wow!

Let's tag on the *REST* of the quote, shall we?

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

[p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow]

So, did you know it was a misquote when you posted it, or are you just ignorant? Or perhaps both?

--R.

371 posted on 08/28/2006 1:32:45 PM PDT by RustMartialis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: highball; PatrickHenry

"You have been unable to answer his post, except in attempts to change the subject."

The subject was the proper "context," which, according to PatrickHenry was that Darwin was speaking of the fossil record. My reply:

"What, pray tell, is the proper "context" for this statement that is NOT racist, regarding the fossil record or anything else? Darwin quite clearly holds the Caucasian as man in the most civilized contemporary state, with negros and Australians being closer to a gorilla. He envisions a not-so-distant future, with a state of man even higher than Caucasian, with negros, Australians and gorillas having been exterminated."

The quote in question, from Darwin's "Descent Of Man," chapter six:

"The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."


372 posted on 08/28/2006 1:33:03 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Perhaps you'd care to provide a published thought from anyone of Darwin's time that claimed otherwise.

First off, you must take Darwin's words at face value: he clearly places "civilized races" further along the evolutionary continuum than the "savage races" from which (as his passage makes clear) he believed they descended and who, in turn, descended from the apes. The passage would otherwise make no sense.

Whether or not Darwin opposed slavery, and regardless of the reasons why he did so, the obvious interpretation of the aforementioned passage is that Darwin did indeed place humans on an evolutionary continuum, and he strongly implied that the civilized humans would displace the less evolved savages.

As for Darwin's contemporaries, many made the logical leap. For example, Herbert Spencer is called the father of Social Darwinism. He essentially held that "Darwin's theory of evolution of biological traits in a population by natural selection can also be applied to competition between human societies or groups within a society."

373 posted on 08/28/2006 1:33:14 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You might wish to refrain from quote mining, and quote the whole thing...
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

374 posted on 08/28/2006 1:34:31 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Last night Dicey and Litchfield were talking about J. Stuart Mill's never expressing his religious convictions, as he was urged to do so by his father. Both agreed strongly that if he had done so, he would never have influenced the present age in the manner in which he has done. His books would not have been text books at Oxford, to take a weaker instance. Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise." - Letter to George Darwin, October 1873

"I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks." - Charles Darwin, Letter to George Darwin, October 1873

375 posted on 08/28/2006 1:34:55 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
...and he strongly implied that the civilized humans would displace the less evolved savages.

What makes you think he was wrong? This is an observation, not a recommendation.

376 posted on 08/28/2006 1:35:43 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Are you agreeing with such racist sentiments?

Most assuredly not!!! The topic of debate, however, is that people have used Darwin's ideas to promote such racist sentiments. My point in the text you highlighted was that Darwin himself placed humans along an evolutionary continuum. Even if Darwin himself was not racist (I don't know, either way), the underlying argument in that passage has definite racist application. That's all I was trying to show.

377 posted on 08/28/2006 1:36:50 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

You don't need to have watched the show to know it's based on fallacy.


378 posted on 08/28/2006 1:36:53 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The quote in question, from Darwin's "Descent Of Man," chapter six: "The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Ah, 'Darwin was a racist' - Creationist Claim CA005.1:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

--R.

379 posted on 08/28/2006 1:37:08 PM PDT by RustMartialis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham , July 3, 1881
380 posted on 08/28/2006 1:37:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 701-713 next last

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.

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