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 ...
I did not write the statement, I said the man had a true point!!
>>>Archimedes was a Nazi!
I don’t know if he was a Nazi but he certainly was an opportunist. He always had an angle.
>>I don’t know if he was a Nazi but he certainly was an opportunist. He always had an angle.<<
I have been LOL on that one since early this morning when I read it. I had to hit the airport, so I didn’t get a chance to thank you for restoring some levity to an overly-tense thread until my layover.
A major European publication accurately reporting on the motivations of the school shooters and fairly quoting Ann Coulter deserves it.
That was worth asking twice :-)
ping
Hat-tip to Tribune7 for locating this one...ping!
Why would they? They don’t read anything before comment on other threads!
Second that.
That's great. We can now 'correct the record' and point out that evolution is firmly based on the simple logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, among others.
Why do atheists and evos continue to attack Christianity and Christ and attribute horrors from the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Islam to Him and his teachings?
Evos have a much harder time with people not believing their theory than Christians have with others not believing Christ.
I don't see what it is to them if people don't want to believe the ToE. Perhaps one of these FReepers could explain why it's so all fired important that everyone HAVE to agree with them.
Why don't they simply accept that someone can look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion about it?
Why the insistence in believing lockstep with some manmade construct about how they think that the variety of life on this planet came from?
How? Give us some examples of anything that can threaten Christianity, mush less science.
Since I am not an atheist I can't answer for them. I am a Christian who believes, as does my Church, that Evolution and Creation, Science and God, are not contradictory or incompatible. I personally believe in Intelligent Design. I do not attack Christians, I only attack falsehoods. God doesn't need the assistance of lies to make His story believable.
Then why do you believe in evolution when God said in His word.....
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
and....
Gen 2:19a Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens ...
The only lies that are being promoted to make God's Word more believable, are that He used evolution instead of doing it the way He said He did.
The lie is trying to fit Scripture to match science instead of just accepting Scripture as it is.
Does is fit with current scientific thinking? Not in all respects but who's to say that current scientific thinking is right anyway? Science is subject to change and revision as new data comes in. How can that be used as a reliable standard to determine the truth or accuracy of something else.
Above all, a scientist should realize the value is using standards that do not change. That's why the SI is used for scientific research.
Why when there's a conflict, is Scripture wrong by default?
>>That’s great. We can now ‘correct the record’ and point out that evolution is firmly based on the simple logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, among others.<<
Thanks again. I just want people who read these to know that most of us know what science is, how it operates and how TToE works and are not willfully ignorant.
You can keep your eyes as shut as you wish.
>>Why don’t they simply accept that someone can look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion about it?<<
That is fine. You can believe in ID or even Biblical 6 days all you want. What you can’t do is try to say that is anything other than theology.
By suggesting children should be taught, and science accept that ID or any creation story is a scientific “alternate theory” is completely and factually wrong by any and every definition of the word.
As far as discussions about the “what we can’t see behind what we can” — I think that is a great and rather enjoyable discussion with many interesting avenues of pursuit.
You should know that by now, MM.
You're welcome again. If you are implying that invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent in support of evolution is 'science', be my guest. I want the people who read these threads to know that you think supporting theories with logical fallacy is 'how science and TToE works'.
You can keep your eyes as shut as you wish.
>>Give us some examples of anything that can threaten Christianity, mush less science.<<
It threatens Christianity by marginalizing its adherents. If people think the messenger is a nut, then ANY message that person brings, especially the Good News we are asked to spread and share, is rendered meaningless and we end up with the opposite result.
That is significant damage to Christianity. And our Lord deals in Truth — which is the highest and best of all qualities. Willful ignorance is turning your back on the Truth and thus, God and His Son — who IS The Truth.
>>If you are implying that invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent in support of evolution is ‘science’, be my guest. I want the people who read these threads to know that you think supporting theories with logical fallacy is ‘how science and TToE works’.<<
Hmm — you put me in a dilemma. Is using a fallacious fallacy, as you have done, a meta fallacy? Or is it like using the Easy Button to find the Easy Button?
I will ponder on that — good night and nice try on using some grown-up words that someone probably just used on you. I could pinch your little cheeks.
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.