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 ...
Darwinism isn't just a scientific hypothesis, but is, as noted above, a moral philosophy.
Darwin summed up his moral philosophy by saying that a man could “only follow those ideas and impulses that seem best to him”. Darwinian ideas, eugenics and its ugly sister, eugenic euthanasia, were accepted by the mainstream of the German scientific and medical professions. Indeed, so convinced were the staff of the clinic at Kaufbeuren-Irsee in Bavaria that they were acting rationally that, even after Germany’s surrender in 1945, they carried on killing handicapped people under the American occupation, until a US officer led a squad of GIs to the hospital and ordered them to desist.
Wasn't me that put you 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 haven't used a fallacy. It isn't a fallacy to point out evolution's use of fallacy. Now, you may try to impose fallacy on what I said, but that's not a fallacy on my part.
"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."
You do that. But you'll need to work on your condescension technique. This one was too obvious. Too many people will notice that you used it to avoid responding to your acceptance of fallacy in evolution. The previous attempt was much better. Of course, dedicated evos won't notice the difference so your true believers are safe.
Personally I don't give a rip whether you believe in the theory of evolution or not. I question it myself though, admittedly, I do find most of it more thoroughly presented and convincing than the opposing viewpoints.
What I do find comical and rather suspicious is the obsessive need of some here to demonize Darwin, Atheists and believers in evolution.
Personally, I prefer to consider people on their individual merits and would accept a person of integrity and good character be they Atheist, Christian, Muslim or whatever over a closed-minded, spiteful dogmatist any day.
So?
So?
I don’t recognize the authority of the Pope over anything but the Catholic Church or Catholics.
I don’t recognize the claimed succession of popes that the Catholic Church teaches was handed to Peter, as I think their Scirptural support for that position is weak, and there’s nothing in the books that Peter wrote that refer to it.
Tradition is not equivalent to Scripture in authority or importance.
So it’s still irrelevant to me what the Pope has to say about evolution and the creation account in the Bible.
No, I can't because Scripture doesn't say and I don't know Hebrew, and any explanation I try to give is going to be rejected off hand. I'm not going to go chasing my tail offering explanations for things that have none and would never satisfy any evo in the first place.
Why do you shrink from examining the beauty of Gods creation with the full power of the mind that God gave you?
I don't. Your assumption is unfounded, to put it nicely.
But in typical evo fashion, you bring out baseless accusations to make creationists look bad. That kind of character attack should be unworthy of a scientist who claims to deal with facts.
Not much different than the demonizing of Christians and creationists as Luddites, taliban, Islamists, wanting to send the world back to the Dark Ages, etc.
Evos are in no position to point fingers in that issues.
You don't need my help. GGG and his posse are doing just fine without me.
That's OK. I'm sure he values and loves you and keeps you in his prayers.
Never met him....
If darwin God was right, what have you got to worry about? Why the outrage and insults if you're guaranteed victory by evolution religion? Who can possibly harm you or your evolutionary progress faith? Is evolution Christianity somehow threatened by Christianity science?
FTFY. Turn that around the other way and ask yourself (and other Creationists) the same question.
So? LOTS of people of that era believed in eugenics, as well as other assorted nuttery like phrenology and Democrats. ;-)
People used to believe the world was flat, too. Should we write Copernicus out of our textbooks because he believed that the sun was the center of the entire universe instead of merely the center of the solar system?
And as far as attributing their actions to Darwin's ideas, nutballs will always find an excuse for such things... remember the stink about heavy metal music?
Why the insistence in believing lockstep with some manmade construct about how they think that the variety of life on this planet came from?
I think many people would ask the "militant" Creationists on this site the same question...
Ah, the crux of the matter, at last.
Simply put, faith is about belief without proof. Science is about proof without belief. I cannot prove that God exists; I believe it to be so. I can prove that gravity exists; no belief is required.
Faith and science are complementary; either can exist without the other. However, neither can replace the other. To attempt to do so is a logical fallacy of the first order.
Agreed. Now, stipulating that this is so, why do YEC's insist that God is playing some sort of cosmic joke on all of us by fudging the fossil record, radioactive decay rates, the speed of light, the expansion of the universe, etc., ect., ad nauseum - just to make it LOOK like the universe is billions of years old instead of only 6000?
Although I will freely admit that the duck-billed platypus absolutely proves that God has a sense of humor. ;-)
BTW, thanks for the ping!
Believing science can provide the truth about things and the answers for questions is as much about faith as believing God and His word.
It's not a matter of faith vs evidence, it's what the person is putting their faith in.
It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that there isn't huge amounts of trust in the reliability of the scientific method to provide a reliable method by which to investigate the world around us, to trust that man can be objective enough to investigate it in an unbiased way, to trust the integrity of the people who do the research and peer review, to believe above all else that the naturalistic materialistic philosophical presumptions that scientists operate under with NO evidence or proof, is the correct philosophical system under which to operate.
And faith in God isn't without proof. Read the Gospels some times. Jesus constantly appealed to evidence and proof to back up His claims of who He was. He appeared to Thomas and offered to let him put his fingers in Jesus' wounds to offer proof for the one who doubted. People turn to God all the time even today based on proof when they see God work in other people's lives or when they see someone get healed from a terminal illness.
This whole business about faith believing without proof and science being about proof is a bunch of hogwash. And saying that "...faith is about belief without proof. Science is about proof without belief." doesn't make science somehow superior to faith as is always the implication. The smugness and sense of superiority that always comes across when evos make that comment is unjustified as they operate on faith as much as those whose faith is in God instead of man.
In an attempt to be witty, you're distracting from my point: evolutionist believers have nothing to fear and should embrace Christians as part of the natural occurence of things.
It's possible, I suppose, that Christians represent a natural version of the muleta, serving to stir up and enrage darwinists in the hope that these "scientists" may some day abandon deceit and use their minds instead to achieve the next stage. ;)
In any case, to respond to your changing of my comments, many Christians feel that there is an obligation to challenge any deceit that threatens the physical and spiritual lives of themselves, their families or others. It's pretty obvious that evolution has been and is still used as a "scientific" bludgeon to attack Christians and others. Not just physically and spiritually but also intellectually and economically.
Creationists don't. Why do you misrepresent what creationists are saying Oh, never mind, you're an evo. I don't expect an evo to ever take a different position in regards to creationists.
Please provide a link to support your contention that this is what they're doing.
Show us ONE statement ever made by a YECer that that is what God has done and that God is in the business of deceit.
Last I heard, some evos think that mankind evolved to believe in God.
Consider the implications.
Is that ironic or what?
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.