Cheers!
Posted on 11/08/2009 12:10:22 PM PST by Schnucki
The teenage killers inspired by Charles Darwin's theories
The naturalist outraged the church, prompting a bitter debate that still sets creationists against evolutionists. Now a sinister link has emerged between his work and the recent spate of high-school killings by crazed, nihilistic teenagers
You wouldn’t know from the celebrations of Charles Darwin’s life this year that the amiable Victorian gent portrayed in those TV drama-docs pottering around the garden of his home in Kent has been fingered as a racist, an apologist for genocide, and the inspiration of a string of psychopathic killers.
The Darwin double anniversary (2009 marks both the bicentenary of his birth and 150 years since the first publication of On the Origin of Species) has featured much vanilla hoopla: the Royal Mail issued commemorative stamps; Damien Hirst designed the dust jacket for a special edition of Darwin’s masterpiece; Bristol Zoo offered free admission to men with beards, and the Natural History Museum served pea soup made to a recipe devised by Darwin’s wife, Emma. The conclusion of dozens of lectures, articles and education packs for schools has been that Darwin wasn’t just a brilliant scientist, but a thoroughly good egg.
With hardly a mention that his name has been associated with some of the most infamous crimes of modern history, it is as if there has been an unspoken agreement to accentuate the positive. Certainly, the milquetoast Darwin played by Paul Bettany in the recent film Creation provided little hint that there might be a dark side to the great man’s bequest to posterity. The film focuses on Darwin’s inner conflicts in the years leading up to the publication of On the Origin of Species. The scientist is reluctant to make his ideas public, not because he has foreseen dire social consequences, but chiefly because he
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
>>Is evolution somehow threatened by Christianity? :-D<<
No, but Christianity is threatened by Luddism and purposeful misrepresentation of science.
It isn’t hypersensitivity to point out simple fallacies in statements made by others.
It is called “correcting the record” and it happens all the time on many subjects, here and all over the interwebz.
>>That is a lame way of saying you made a non sequitur argument.<<
You misunderstand my post — try again.
OK, now we see the glittering generality fallacy.
>>Don’t complain about attacks on your own character if you attack the character of others. Deal in that coin, get paid in that coin.<<
It lends no credence to your attempts at argument. Feel free to call names and say “nya nya.” It is expected.
You made a non sequitur argument — a faulty analogy — and are now bobbing and weaving to pretend you didn’t.
Why should your bluster about the “fallacies” of those you disagree with be taken any more seriously?
No — that was part (only part) of my argument.
And it applies — your post states in no uncertain terms that you have no idea how. Talk about bobbing and weaving.
You furnish an incomplete argument, you cannot complain that somebody took it “wrong.” To do so is trolling.
My post stands as I said it. It needs no explanation.
Either you understand it or you don’t.
Good day.
Incomplete drivel stands... OK. Have a good day.
Actually I am a Christian who doesn't see any excuse for the vilification of Darwin, or Galileo, or Copernicus. Not accepting their science is one thing, but assigning evil motive for it is frankly un-Christian.
Did many of you read the bloody article?
Did any of you read the bloody article?
In this thread, you’re not really pointing out or correcting anything. You’re just being mean and abusive.
Cheers!
How about the vilification of, say, Obama?
Not ready to go that far? Then how about opposition to making him an idol.
That is a fair statement to make about the (earthly) esteemed Mr. Darwin. As a Christian (if you are) why aren’t you in the least concerned about what happened to his faith in the process? He did not bother, in the end, even to give God the glory of a putative theistic evolution.
Is assigning evil motives to darwin the same kind of "un-Christian" thing that you have done by assigning evil motives to the poor soul who wrote this article?
One doesn't have to spend much time in the religion forum or in any creationism vs Darwin thread to know exactly what I was referring to. Had I not brought it up in this context, it would have been brought up ad naseum by the YEC's.
We neglected OECs never get any respect!
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.