From Darwin to Hitler

Quote, "It is utterly incompatible with Christianity or any other meaningful religion."

This is a mouthful of BS. "Meaningful religion" is a totally subjective statement without objective proof. It falls on the face of reality; no religion has ever proved itself superior to non-religion.

.My thoughts exactly.

Did Hitler and Anti-semitism use a form of evolutionary thought for their deeds? Yes it was social-darwinism

Did Hitler and anti-semitism use a for of religious thought for their deeds? Yes it was prejudice and although many did not publicly say it; they hated the jews for who they were not some "social- darwinist" purpose.

How many millions (quite possible billions) have died in the name of religion? More than you could count Gunga.

So maybe your argument would fly if you weren't so flaming hypocritical. Belittling evolution for certain reasons but praising religion which has comitted far worse attrocities. Quite small-minded and biased of you there.

"Newt Gingrich once described the problem with evolution and ethics very succinctly, noting that the question of whether a man viewed his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random events, simply has to affect human relationships. "

THAT is hilarious - not only is it simply a stupid thing to say, since good ethics do not rely on a belief in creationism, but the rich irony of quoting from Newt on such matters is delicious in and of itself.

I find that quote humorous since I don't feel that way and I don't believe in creationism.

I guess your wrong; completely, utterly, and patently wrong.

plainoldme
The fact that people say youse is no indication of lack of intelligence or even education. It in many instances is simply environment. Regarding the school system, when one looks at the product it is presently producing the only conclusion that can be reached is that something is without a doubt wrong. I believe the blame can be equally shared among the parents, teachers, politically correct nonsense and our permissive society. Of one thing you can be sure it would have never been tolerated in the 30's and 40's.

I for one find religion incompatible with good sense. There is absolutely no evidence that the biblical version of creation bears even the slightest evidence of reality.

I love how Christians are so touchy on this topic. It's amost as if they know they're wrong.

You don't see an Evolutionist starting a thread after a heated debate delcaring, "Look at me! Look at me! I'm right! Me! ME! Stupidpoopyheads!"

Says a lot, if you ask me.

nah, not really, I'm an envirowhack and I say stupidpoopyhead all the time ( I have a very limited vocabulary)

You are fibbing.

But Sanctuary, on the other hand, has a point.

Rather touchy from one who likes to dish it out, in whatever form, when it suits.

Re: From Darwin to Hitler
gungsnake

1. No, it is not junk science. It is a scientific theorie and, therefore, opened to testing, modifications.
2. Nazism used an abusive concept of evolution, applied to history and society, and not biological. Read Nietzsche, to understand this.
3. I don't know if it is incompatible with religions, and I don't care. Since when must a scientific theory be compatible or incompatible with religion?
4. I don't understand what you mean.

Snake, you are a christian and that's your right. But why all this fury against evolution? - you had another topic about this. Genesis was written by people in a pre-scientific period and cannot be taken as a scientific statement. Why mix two different realities?
Be a christian, with your faith in God, and no science will have take that away from you.
And, since you don't love it, leave science in peace.

Glad to see that the majority still favours sense, i.e. the science (albeit unproven "beyond reasonable doubt") makes much more sense than the religion.

Gunga - Prove to me, to a greater degree than evolution, that God exists and I might reconsider!

I find it strangely sick that creationism is still considered a valid viewpoint, worthy of teaching in US schools. It's like teaching that the earth is the centre of the universe, or flat, for that matter.

Certainly, Darwin's ideas have been used for ill - but haven't Christianity's ideas, too? I don't have anything against "love thy neighbour" but I have a real problem with the wars and "ethnic cleansing" which some Christians have conducted over time.

KP

I posted this over on eric brounes site

Gunga heres something that youre probably gonna have to be scared about(whether youre smart enough to realize it or not is irrelevant)

A developing court case in Dover Pa involves Intelligent Design. As you know ID generally stipulates to all the basic foundations of evolution, which ID accepts unquestioningly (micro and macro), it stipulates to the gradual rise of life through billions of years of earths history. The only substantive difference is that ID claims that evolution and the origin of life is a "product" of an intelligent force that was (at least) initially in charge.

That differs wildly from your Creationist views . As, Im sure you know, your strict Creationist views have been struck down by the USSC in the 1987 case of Edwards v Aguillard. The Supreme court stated , in effect , that
Creationist Science cannot be taught in Louisiana science classes because it is basically NOT SCIENCE-it is , instead, derivative of religious teachings and can therefore not be tested, verified, observed, or generally experimentally challenged.
It is a religion based world view that has no place in science curricula.(my paraphrase of a 30 plus page decision {excluding amicus briefs})

NOW-the problem for you (and "Drs" DOOane Gish and McPherson, Austin, Humphreys , Morrison etc) is that , you(collectively) will be sitting behind an upcoming court case , in which you, as a Creationist, can have absolutely NO PART, otherwise you (you, meaning you "Creationists) will subvert the very case that you wish to win.
Your early 19th century naive "science views" have been rebuked by the entire Intelligent Design crowd in an effort that their case will have more merit and wont cntaminate their "evidence".
So in order for you to win, youve gotta give up all the midieval alchemy of Creationism and accept science .


Its gonna be a tough coupla years for your side gunga. Your constant harangue of "junk science" , even though its funny, will have even less credibility in the near futute because , even if ID wins in the Supreme Court, "Strict Creationist " thought will finally be dead on arrival and we can get back to teaching science in science classes.


Evolution cannot really lose, even if ID prevails with the USSC, itll at least bring us up to the 1930s in the biological sciences and it wil be the final nail in the hateful, illogical,scientifically ludicrous garbage that is CREATIONISM..

Not that there's that much difference but my own beliefs are closer to ID than to creationism. The biggest diffeence I can see is that a real creationist will generally believe that all the life forms which ever existed on Earth were created on the same day or the same six days. The evidence nonetheless indicates that new life forms HAVE arisen at various points in the past, but that they always arose suddenly and out of nowhere, and that says engineering and design and not evolution.

A voice of reason from the UK. Hi KP.

Actually, Creationism is not yet considered a valid viewpoint for science, but there are wealthy groups of religious fundamentalists (Christian Fundamentalism) who are attempting to wedge their views into school science classes, and into various government venue's throughout the US. It is a very well funded and strategically deployed attempt to alter the basic interpretation of not only the constitution, but also science.

Those of us who understand the science well enough to recognize the flaws in the arguments, and who value the constitutional idea of separation of church and state, are resisting a myriad of small incursions against our bastions of reason and freedom. But the general lack of public education, both in science and in philosophy are hampering efforts to defend the system. This is particularly interesting since we can see that one of the main thrusts of Creationism is to wedge itself into science classes and undermine the fundamental structure of science (further eroding the base if knowledge in future generations of voters). Very sneaky

1. The earth is flat.
2. Males never get s. th. wrong.

Engineering and Design which just happen to match evolutionary flow so precisely that we can't tell any difference at all.

So you do believe in evolution. You just think that it's a guided process, not a random one.

http://www.near-death.com/

http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/end.html

I don't like using the word "evolution"; evolution to me, the way I've read it and understood it all my life, means creation of new kinds of animals by combinations of mutation and natural selection. That has been shown to be unworkable.