Spin from the BBC about Darwin (devoted to absolving Darwinism from revolutionary evolutionism)

CMI ^ | October 22, 2009 | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

The British Broadcasting Corporation in England has deemed it necessary to try and absolve Darwinism from any responsibility for the Holocaust and the many other atrocities committed in the name of evolutionary progress ever since Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. To achieve this, BBC2 produced a TV “documentary” entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,[1] written and presented by their journalist and political commentator Andrew Marr. This 3-part series...

[wendy1946]

The age of the Earth is not any sort of a litmus test for Christians and this holds even in evangelical churches such as the one I attend. You’re beating a dead horse.

[dirtboy]

Chuck Darwin on the other hand basically claimed that the only moral law in nature was "survival of the fittest" and that basic idea has gotten tens of millions of people killed since Chuck's time.

Yep, we all know that genocide, havoc and mass murder of the population of beseiged cities never happened until Darwin published that darn book. Attilla the Hun, after all, referenced evolutionary theory when he ordered up that pyramid of human skulls.

[Natural Law]

"Ted, if you're seeking advice on "human relationships" from Newt Gingrich, you're even more misguided than I thought."

Are you asserting that repentance and salvation are not available to Gingrich because he converted to Catholicism ergo his soul is lost forever?

[RightWingNilla]

Thanks! Are you a programmer?

[dirtboy]

Marx wasn’t responsible for Stalin’s mass starvation of Ukranians,either,but his noxious ideas made it easier for the commies to “justify” it.

Stalin starved the Ukrainians to eliminate the Kulak middle class. Had nothing to do with eliminating all Ukranians per se (as Hitler sought to exterminate Slavs and Jews and others he saw as subhuman), it was all about eliminating political obstacles to collectivization.

Try again.

[mnehring]

In the particular case of Gingrich the guy has something profound and real to say. Chuck Darwin on the other hand basically claimed that the only moral law in nature was "survival of the fittest" and that basic idea has gotten tens of millions of people killed since Chuck's time. Choosing between the two is or should be fairly easy.

Let's see, per Creation Safari's website, we have several cases of baloney.

Authority
Definition:  Relying on authority to the exclusion of logic and evidence. 

Loaded Words
Definition:  Using emotionally-charged words, negative or positive (euphemism), to influence the reaction. Association (transfer)
Definition:  Associating what you want to promote with something people like, or something you want to criticize with something people dislike.

Non-Sequitur
Definition:  “It doesn’t follow” – confusion between cause and effect; bad use of syllogism.

Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
Definition:  Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are justified.

[Gumlegs]

Ted Holden (posting as Wendy1946): Ideas have consequences; the consequences of evolutionism obviously include a couple of hundred million dead bodies lying around and Europe being turned into a pig pen twice in one century by total wars.

Honestly, I have never read a statement on FR as un-credible as this one. Congrats.

That's because you never read what he posted when he was Medved.

[xcamel]

Ditto Genghis Kahn even earlier..

[RightWingNilla]

Was Alexander the Great and evolutionist or a Young Earth Creationist?

[xcamel]

Bravo! Good catch.

[Free Descendant]

Full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[Natufian]

People have used other’s ideas to exterminate hundreds of thousands or millions of other people throughout history. Do you really think ideas should be supressed in to prevent that? How about we supress the bible so that we can never have another albigensian crusade?

[xcamel]

356 BC to 323 BC, I doubt he was either.

[mnehring]

Ted Holden? I thought that was like a big internet/usnet joke from the late 90s like John Titor. He was a parody like claiming that Saturn was once in earth’s orbit (or the other way around) and a bunch of weird stuff to try to fill in the Young Earth evidence gaps? He was/is real?

[ElectricStrawberry]

(and they do entertain some wacky ideas

Whacky like...Man living in the land of 100+ large meat eating dinosaurs?

Whacky like HIV does not cause AIDS?

Evolutionists are not commies. Evolutionists are not Nazis. Evolutionists are not Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, Jihadis, or any other lunatic you can conjur up.

[RightWingNilla]

356 BC to 323 BC, I doubt he was either.

Eh. Lets blame his crimes on Darwin anyway.

[RightWingNilla]

Don’t say AIDS.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Why are you so quick to ping the mods to stifle discussion? That’s an awfully leftist/Axelrod/Emanuel/Obama thing to do.

...because......sniff.....because......

[Gumlegs]

Ted Holden? I thought that was like a big internet/usnet joke from the late 90s like John Titor. He was a parody like claiming that Saturn was once in earth’s orbit (or the other way around) and a bunch of weird stuff to try to fill in the Young Earth evidence gaps? He was/is real?

I suppose the correct answer turns on what you regard as "real." That having been said, however, there is no denying that Ted Holden made himself into not "a" big internet/usenet joke, but one of the biggest. His site, bearfabrique is still there.

Here's another link, useful in determining whether you are, in fact, Ted Holden. You'll note, it dates from 1995.

He spent quite a bit of time as "medved" on FR posting real conundrums like, “Why are there no feral chickens?” (The answer, posted to him just about every time he asked the question, “because domesticated chickens don’t last long enough in the wild to reproduce,” never seemed to stick). He was also famous — if that is the word — for his incessant posting of “Splifford the ascii bat.” It was a little graphic he thought made some point about science … much in the way GGG seems to think silly pictures of Charles Darwin make some point about science.

[mnehring]

LOL, I actually thought it was a John Titor sort of ‘performance art’ thing, kind of like the jokes Anonymous pulls.