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 ...
The cited scripture asserts THAT God created man and beast. It did not state how. Do you believe that the primitives the Creation story was given to would have had the language and science capabilities to understand had God told them of DNA helix's and natural selection? Are you asserting that God did not create science?
So if you don't accept Darwinism and put a pinch of incense on the altar you're threatening Christianity, science, and a bigger slice of pizza.
And God's will play no part? Amazing!!
The majority of parents want creation and ID taught alongside the ToE in science classes in public schools.
If that’s what they want, that’s what they should get.
The self-appointed elite determining what is best for everyone and inflicting it on everyone against their will, all for their own good of course, is liberalism at its finest.
Evos aren’t labeled liberals because of their belief in the ToE but because of their continued support of big government strong arm tactics like that.
Don’t like the label, don’t support big government control under any guise. Doing it in the name of science is no better excuse than doing it in the name of anything else.
Calling it science doesn’t excuse it.
Likewise, I want those who read these threads to know that most of us creationists know what science is, how it operates, and how TToE works and simply have decided that we aren't buying today, thank you.
Not believing that the ToE is the best or only explanation of how life got here doesn't mean we're willfully ignorant, just that we arrived at a different conclusion that those who do.
Why is not agreeing with you considered *ignorance* anyway?
Of course it states how. From the dust of the earth.
It doesn’t say that He used other animals.
When God created Eve and used Adam’s rib, He states so.
When God cursed the serpent to crawl on his belly, He states so.
How blind does one have to be to not be able to read a clearly written statement?
But if you believe that it doesn’t state how God did it, then what puts you in a position to deciding for the rest of us how God did it? Did He tell you otherwise?
Jesus, who is the Truth, spoke of events like creation, the Flood, Jonah, etc as if they were real, true events that happened.
If He is truth, then they did as He said.
If they didn’t happen the way He said, then He lied.
Which is it?
Do you believe a Jesus who tells the truth, or lies to His followers about OT events?
>>The majority of parents want creation and ID taught alongside the ToE in science classes in public schools.<<
And if they wanted astrology taught beside astronomy that would be OK? How about alchemy alongside chemistry?
>>Likewise, I want those who read these threads to know that most of us creationists know what science is, how it operates, and how TToE works and simply have decided that we aren’t buying today, thank you.<<
If you understand science then it isn’t a question of “buying.” Science doesn’t work that way. If you introduce supernatural elements into scientific pursuits, you are doing theology, not science. It isn’t like you opt in. Scientific debates need to be based in science. You can disagree, but you can’t disagree from outside of the boundaries established by science and the scientific method. The very fact you ask this means you don’t understand science in the slightest and somehow think it is malleable like — theology.
>>Why is not agreeing with you considered *ignorance* anyway?<<
It isn’t a question of agreeing with *me* — it is a question of agreeing with (and thus understanding) what science is and how it works. It isn’t a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. If you are wrong on the facts, you are ignorant. if you have the facts available and choose to ignore them, you are willfully ignorant.
I was taught about those things in public school.
They were addressed in science class, of all places.
They were taught as part of the history of science.
But that argument still doesn’t change the fact that the self-appointed elite deciding what is best for everyone else and inflicting it on them against their will by use of big government force is a liberal position.
Please provide links demonstrating that teaching creation and ID alongside evolution will hurt the US standing in science worldwide.
Please provide links to demonstrate that the teaching and belief in creation EVER hurt scientific inquiry from the time of Newton on.
Being wrong on the facts of Scripture is more of a problem than being wrong on the ToE.
>>Jesus, who is the Truth, spoke of events like creation, the Flood, Jonah, etc as if they were real, true events that happened.
If He is truth, then they did as He said.
If they didn’t happen the way He said, then He lied.<<
Who are you to judge the Lord’s words? Jesus spoke in parables and set his phrases and terms to that of his audience. Was there really a Pharisee? A prodigal son? Or were those amalgams created to make a point?
Jesus was not in the position to say “well, billions of years ago, stochastic processes began to..” any more than he was able to say “I am the way, the truth and a phenomenon that is made up of particles yet comes in waves...”
The Bible is to teach us our relationship with God and each other. It is not a science text.
And unless and until you have read the Bible in its original languages you can’t use it as a literal source, since you can’t literally quote it. The King James is probably the least literal of all interpretations. I mean, you probably haven’t even read the Old Testament in Hebrew (not its original language but only 1 generation off for the most part), so how can you possible know what it literally says?
I take the Bible as a life guide and for that there is no better reference. It doesn’t matter what a Yom is, when God tells me He created the Universe. The point isn’t the HOW, it is the WHY.
>>But that argument still doesn’t change the fact that the self-appointed elite deciding what is best for everyone else and inflicting it on them against their will by use of big government force is a liberal position.<<
>>Please provide links demonstrating that teaching creation and ID alongside evolution will hurt the US standing in science worldwide.<<
Not the point. Please provide links that teaching astrology as an alternative to astronomy will hurt the US standing in science.
>>Please provide links to demonstrate that the teaching and belief in creation EVER hurt scientific inquiry from the time of Newton on.<<
Not the point. Please provide links that teaching astrology and alchemy have EVER hurt astronomy and chemistry.
Now you are just grasping at straws.
>>Being wrong on the facts of Scripture is more of a problem than being wrong on the ToE.<<
I agree completely. But I am not. And I don’t pretend to have read it in its original language — nor do I use it as a science text.
Good night MM — good to see you are a little less venomous than usual. But sometimes I worry about you and certainly pray for you.
That is an incomplete description. In order to comprehend what is said you need to also consider what is not said. It certainly affirms THAT God created, as was its purpose. And it even suggests the material that He used (dust was the word for the smallest particle known to ancient Hebrews. It doesn't state that it was or was not star dust, or organic dust, or moon dust, or granite dust or dust blown in from some ancient desert or dry lake bed or even pollen. It also gives no hint as to what was or was not the process used. As Pope Benedict XVI so eloquently stated;
"the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed.
If God used animals, then why does it say that He breathed into [man’s} nostrils the breath of life and man BECAME a living being.
If God used evolution, then He would have used another living being and the verse would not have been needed.
If it gives no hint as to what the process was, why do evos feel the need to fill it in for God?
How do they know that they’re right and not lying about how God really did it?
The Pope’s comment in no way invalidates Scripture.
And it’s meaningless what his opinion is on any matter to non-Catholics.
So what, what he thinks?
If he makes Scripture subservient to man’s opinions and reasoning and *logic*, then he’s wrong, Pope or not.
Can you tell me the meaning of the phrase "breath of life" means and where it comes from? Is it physical and measurable or is it metaphysical? Is it an input or a result? Or is it simply a phrase to affirm THAT God gave life to man?
"If it gives no hint as to what the process was, why do evos feel the need to fill it in for God?
Why do you shrink from examining the beauty of Gods creation with the full power of the mind that God gave you?
How do they know that they’re right and not lying about how God really did it?
I can only speak for myself as a Christian and a man of science, but I can relate how I and many like me think. We know we are right because as God reveals more of his works to us we are able to observe in greater detail the works of God. Because we are not afraid that our faith might be shaken by what we discover, but rather expect our faith to be reinforced. Had God not wanted us to use our full minds and reasoning He could have made our faith as automatic as the migration instincts of birds.
Thats all he ever has.
he never has anything of substance, just his personal attacks
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther
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.