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.]
I am pro-evolution and not a RINO country clubber.
False characterizations aren't cool.
I disagree. They do.
They are just dishonest about it.
They pretend that man is something because of rationalizations built on a sky-hook; on wisps of fog in Phoenix at noon in the spring . . . on foggy headed notions with no solid foundation at all . . .
As Jean Paul-Satre was wise enough to note though he never discovered it to his satisfaction . . .
For the finite to have meaning, it must have a connection with the infinite.
Evolutionists have no infinite beyond chance plus time.
Chance plus time are inadequate to afford man meaning.
"... by pointing out that, through his own efforts, man will eventually widen the gulf between himself and his nearest relatives."
And the topic of this thread is just how ugly some of those "efforts" have been, in attempting to widen the gulf between man and his nearest relatives. The fact remains that Darwin quite clearly regarded contemporary Caucasians as the most civilized race, and he envisioned a not-so-distant future where mankind would reach a more advanced state than even Caucasians, with negros, Australians and gorillas having been exterminated.
But what an inane topic.
People have made all kinds of self serving, insane claims. There have been psychopaths who claimed God ordered the destruction of entire cities, including women, children and fetuses.
"Ah, 'Darwin was a racist' - Creationist Claim CA005.1:"
Oh, I see you guys have noticed that too, even to the point of categorizing it.
Just what is NOT racist, about Darwin claiming Caucasians are the most civilized, and that negros, Australians and gorillas will be exterminated?
LOL... Of course, you fail to note Darwin follows this sentence with page after page of explanation for why, in fact, why should expect there to be "blank[s] in the geological record." And, considering his misfortune for living before Pierre Curie and before the theory plate tectonics, he does quite well in accounting for them.
On may venture to predict that no creationist will condemn the death threats made by another creationist. The Moderate Creationists, by their silence, support this type of post.
When I referred to man's nearest relatives, I was, of course, speaking of the great apes. You read into decades-old writings things that are not there, and fail to see the things that are there.
The problem being, however, in the examples Darwin chose to illustrate his point. Specifically, he predicts that the "civilized races" will exterminate the "savage races," and sooner rather than later, and that this is a natural evolutionary process.
He defines a continuum, with the civilized Caucasian ahead of the "negro or Australian," who are in turn ahead of the gorilla ... and he even proffers an idea of "evolutionary progress" for humans, defined as the level of civilization attained. He predicts that mankind will reach a "more civilized state" than even the Caucasian has attained, and which the "savage races" clearly have not.
And this is a damnable doctrine." - Charles Darwin, "Autobiography of Charles Darwin" (1958) p.87
The fact that they're now flailing about, resorting to old, discredited quote-mined "gems", tells me that even they realize they've lost the argument.
Like I said, you're reading into the words that which is not there, and failing to see that which is.
"When I referred to man's nearest relatives, I was, of course, speaking of the great apes. You read into decades-old writings things that are not there, and fail to see the things that are there."
I'm clear on Darwin's concept of "widening the gulf," since I was the one that introduced this passage to the thread:
"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."
When "widening the gulf" entails the extermination of what Darwin clearly considered "lesser" human races, I am seeing exactly what is there, when I call that racist.
I know you're wedded to this idea that Darwin was a racist and no amount of showing that your quotes are out of context and misleading will ever set you straight. However, the lurkers on this thread now know just how benighted you truly are.
Well, no ... it's only "inane" if you want to avoid the idea that Mr. Darwin's writings have been used in support of some rather unpleasant ideas. The problem being, the scientific observations on which he based his ideas do seem to support some of what those unworthies claim to believe.
The moral arguments against the ideas of Social Darwinism must be made in spite of the observations, not because of them.
"Idiot."
Moi? At least I know the difference between a rectangle and a square.
"When Darwin wrote those words Caucasians were among the most civilized, and the uncivilized folks (like the Australian aborigines) and great apes were in the process of being wiped out."
Darwin clearly saw no problem with negros and aborigines being wiped out, and with Caucasians extending their "civilizing" dominance. He writes rather approvingly, in fact. But you contend that this is not racist, and call me an idiot, lol.
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.