Posted on 06/14/2009 5:38:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ping!
Another fool confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism. That’s it gg&g...you’re going on the watchlist....seems you folks are capable of anything. Except maybe empiric thought.
Thanks for the ping, GGG. Unfortunately I’ve found myself having to argue yet again elsewhere on this forum with members of a religion who don’t quite see things that way.
So-called ‘Social Darwinism’ actually predates Darwin. It has its roots in the thinking of British Sociologist Herbert Spencer. It’s more apt to call Darwin’s work Biological Spencer-ism.
Actually, Spencer was quite the Lamarckian. But either way, he was an evolutionist.
Are you talking about members of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism?
There is a difference between asserting that evolution takes place, and asserting that someone knows the future, knows what traits will be more fit, and not content to let the future work it self out, begins murdering.
This jerk was a crank. He had nutty ideas, and tried to justify his ideas by asserting without evidence or proof that his ideas followed from accepted science.
It would have the same lack of validity if he had asserted the superiority of blue eyes from the blue sky. He is crazy. Don’t you be crazy.
What is it with people named Dave? Why does everybody pick on them for the stupid things they say? It’s not fair.
The 19th century saw everything in terms of evolution. Industrial, Social and otherwise. It was the spirit of the time.
The search for a missing link might be a dark PC way to “search” for a cross bred ancestor. It seems Von Brunn struck the chord of common ancestor search to actual avoidance of cross breeding with animals or lower races.
Darwinism seem to avoid that subject and muses in round about ways about survival of the fittest. What about of necessity? Germanic Wagnerian themes of incest and inbreeding seem to ring with Lot’s daughter finding it necessary, in their lack of faith, the need to inbreed with their father. What about with apes?
Similarly John the Baptist’s own father was muted from any further obsene and blasphemous mockery of God when he said he was “too old” to be able to conceive any children.
One might say that MLK talked of a dream, but Von Brunn claimed his own dream. Why this guy’s and not the other’s?
Perhaps fantasy, engineering theories and dreams of these sorts are inherently dangerous because totalitarian, viewing life from the outside, as some sort of game.
To accept that a “science” can play a game like this on us is indeed a strange way of replacing fantasy with a sort of pseudo-antifantasy, just as convenient and fantasy full for the witches of its party - not to mention horrible in and of itself and making sensible armament against it “illegal”.
Then what gives the wielders of armament for it the authority? Plenty of hypocrisy in this: “oh, I’m inferior but I support the concept, so I am kept on life support by the taxpayers” ?
Sums up the arrogance and hypocrisy of liberals in this, all for desegrating some races and forcing them together, while keeping themselves above and free from such tensions and exercises, making other pay for their experiments.
More blood libel from the Discovery Institute.
I’m not like the author. I for one reject Islam because it promotes illiteracy, superstition and sin according to my personal edification and standards. Its violent proselytist tones are also arrogant.
That said, I will not abandon study of my enemies and even Islam itself, even willingly participate in it if needed to attain a greater faith in greater things than vulgar themes of 72 virgins in a hell where once they are not so, it’s no more - and other ad nauseam revisionisms and imaginations the arab world likes to screw itself over.
Nazis would view my ideas of caring and litteracy for the poor and the oppressed as weak. Communists would view it as anti-progressist because they don’t believe in poverty but in empowerment and science in and of itself.
Ok, there you have it, same difference: Nazis are for a sort of “race shepherd” for the flock of uniformly growing sheeps, while communists are for wild animals without shepherd “except for a few opinion makers who make sure it’s kept that way”.
Either way we are dealing with fascists with feel good PC garbs, quoting Darwin, arrogantly claiming to know it better, yet completely disrespecting litteracy that the weak or volunteer poor witnesses.
They don’t care, they just want to test, to play games with the world, to choreograph scenes and wield “Hollywood scripts” as Saddam hypocriticaly accused his adversaries in deep primitive envy.
So, this shooting is blamed on evolution?
Have you no shame?
This kind of article completely discredits the source. Totally asinine.
If you want to attack evolution, do it within the scientific boundaries. Throwing dead kittens or Jew-haters into the equation just makes you look like a fool.
Well, does Darwin require Social Darwinism? Maybe so, maybe no.
The Holocauast Museum shooter was a nutcase. But he was more of a Darwinist nutcase than a Christian nutcase, as the news media portrayed him. If nothing else, Darwinism is open to that kind of “master race” distortion. Christianity is not.
I would take issue with one thing in the article. It numbers the Crusades “among atrocities committed in the name of religion.” Sorry. That’s a bad rap. Yes, the Crusades sometimes went off the rails, like many other major human undertakings. Still, the Crusades were defensive. They were an attempt to reverse the course of Islamic conquest. In the end, they failed in that purpose. But is it reasonable to say that Christendom should not have been allowed to defend itself against Muslim agression and conquest? I think not. The only thing wrong with the Crusades is that they weren’t done better.
LOL...Hitler, the creationist who wanted to wipeout Judaism and Christianity...now that’s rich!
While the political rulers of Europe had every right to defend themselves against Muslim invaders, Christianity should never be used as the justification to go to war IMHO. The political leaders were of course within their rights to want to protect the benefits of Christian civilization, but nowhere in the New Testament does it tell Christians to go to war on behalf of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ himself tells us the exact opposite. By the same token, the New Testament also tells us that the government does not bear the sword in vain, and in that sense, the rulers of the Christian West had every right, as the divinely appointed rulers at the time, to act in their own and their people’s interests and kick some Muslim _ss.
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.