It matters because Marx, Engels, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, all quoted Charles Darwin to support their agendas of racial cleansing and restructuring of society, resulting in the horrific deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people. If you are not aware of how deeply they intertwined their politics with theories of evolution then you have a lot of studying to do, a good few years worth.
This is all documented in their own writings, and in films of their speeches.
Anyone can take something and apply it to support their arguments. The entire point of my previous post was to demonstrate that idea. Just because someone decides to take idea X and tie it in with their own agenda Y does not mean idea X is somehow inherently evil. It's like saying "Hitler lived in a building, therefore we should raze our cities and live in trees."
Yes i do see, perhaps you need to research who were and are the main proponents of those ideas still.
Yeah, and so many people support the crazed genocidal ideas of eugenics today.
Mainstream Christianity has always opposed slavery, based on the new covenant, through Jesus. Which is not to say that some called themselves Christians or had a Christian parent and walked another way.
Well I guess that depends on how you define "mainstream Christianity." I'm sure all those plantation owners in the deep South were Christian. But that's beside the point. The point is that "mainstream science" does not support ideas purported by genocidal maniacs (i.e. Hitler). However, mainstream science does support evolution because it's the best explanation that we have given the available evidence. You raise this point about "mainstream Christians" not supporting slavery, but you seem to fail to recognize the same situation in the scientific circles of then and now.
If that were true then evolution would not be used as a tool to attempt to destroy the belief in God or creation.
Half the reason that evolution is "used as a tool to attempt to destroy the belief in God or creation" (and I may also note that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life) is because of Biblical literalists who create a coupling between literalness and validity of religion so tight that to break it destroys faith that would otherwise still be extant had that coupling not been so tight or never there in the first place.
The other part of this perception comes from people like Richard Dawkins who follow the exact same line of thinking as described above, except on the opposite end of the spectrum. They are generally called "militant atheists."
The rest of the world doesn't see it this way, and rightly so. Are you going to link heliocentrism with atheism as well? After all, heliocentrism destroyed the Christian position of the age that the Earth being the center of the universe was theologically imperative. Here we are, 500 - 600 years later with no problems. The situation will likely repeat itself in a similar fashion. I wonder what the newest controversy in 500 years will be for some Christians.
Eugenics is directly descended from Darwins theory of evolution.
And?
In fact, most of his children and children became the first leading eugenicists, establishing the eugenicist organizations that still exist today.
Do you have a credible source for this claim? Even Wikipedia is far more credible than Youtube videos. It actually has sources listed at the bottom of articles. Even a cursory glance at Darwin's Wikipedia page shows only one of his children went on to be a eugenicist. The rest of them were astronomers or other types of scientists.
Eugenics, at its base, has a scientific foundation. But when the likes of Hitler and friends started mixing in their pseudoscientific racist ideas, it became polluted and a tool for justifying genocide. That's not science. It's genocide. There's a reason that eugenics has been largely abandoned today. It's because of the Holocaust.
There is a reason that science and ethics are separate spheres, and there's a reason that ethics overrides science in many areas. Humans have a certain moral nature about them. Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done. On the other side, sometimes ethics that aren't really ethics can unjustly impede scientific progress to the point of going backwards. This was attempted with the Catholic Church and Gallileo, and it is attempted today by creationist organizations. It didn't work either time. The supposed ethics used to justify such opposition are shaky and faulty. If they weren't, there would actually be a case for the opposition.
I suggest you watch the video and then see how many of your arguments will remain standing after being faced with the facts, not opinions but facts, presented.
Do you have a credible source for this claim? Even Wikipedia is far more credible than Youtube videos. It actually has sources listed at the bottom of articles. Even a cursory glance at Darwin's Wikipedia page shows only one of his children went on to be a eugenicist. The rest of them were astronomers or other types of scientists.
Yes I have very credible sources and lists of names of people who have led and do lead eugenicist organizations. I would have to dig around, been a couple years since I looked into that, but yes I do have documentation, indisputable.
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
The rest of them were astronomers or other types of scientists.
Perhaps, with allegiances and leading positions in eugenicist organizations. Darwin himself thought his own family was so superior to everyone that he suggested his children only marry cousins to keep their bloodline intact.
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
There's a reason that eugenics has been largely abandoned today. It's because of the Holocaust.
Evidence clearly shows that eugenics is quite alive and well today. Abortion for instance, began as a eugenics program, to rid society of 'undesirables'. Based on these ideas, many of the so-called child protection agencies that still exist in from state to state in the USA were founded, as means to acquire access to families considered 'undesirable'. Sterilization programs were based on these ideas, right here in the USA, and implemented through these same so-called child protection agencies.. This is well-documented by their own early propoganda and resulting court cases of individuals who fought these agencies. The idea was even promoted by churches. It continues to be promoted, in the same way, in numerous countries around the world. the word 'undesirable', of course, can take on many different meanings depending on the inherent biases of the person using it. 'Undesirable' for instance, never seems to include the person, or family of the person, using the term.
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
Youtube videos do not equate to facts.
Not every video posted at youtube is posted by morons. That's a rather biased suggestion you are making I must admit. Is it possible for you to to apply the same logic to your own opinion and consider the documented facts of history at any point in this discussion?
I have a very excellent list of people involved in eugenicist organizations.. names, dates, affilations, relations.. indisputable and easily cross-checked. I will look for it.. but I am otherwise real busy this afternoon so maybe I can do that this evening otherwise I'll try in the morning.
Yes I have very credible sources and lists of names of people who have led and do lead eugenicist organizations. I would have to dig around, been a couple years since I looked into that, but yes I do have documentation, indisputable.
Then let's see it.
Perhaps, with allegiances and leading positions in eugenicist organizations. Darwin himself thought his own family was so superior to everyone that he suggested his children only marry cousins to keep their bloodline intact.
Source?
Evidence clearly shows that eugenics is quite alive and well today. Abortion for instance, began as a eugenics program, to rid society of 'undesirables'. Based on these ideas, many of the so-called child protection agencies that still exist in from state to state in the USA were founded, as means to acquire access to families considered 'undesirable'. Sterilization programs were based on these ideas, right here in the USA, and implemented through these same so-called child protection agencies.. This is well-documented by their own early propoganda and resulting court cases of individuals who fought these agencies. The idea was even promoted by churches. It continues to be promoted, in the same way, in numerous countries around the world. the word 'undesirable', of course, can take on many different meanings depending on the inherent biases of the person using it. 'Undesirable' for instance, never seems to include the person, or family of the person, using the term.
Abortion has been going on for longer than any formal notion of eugenics has been around. It was mostly used to stop scandal or because the woman thought it was "incovenient," among a myriad other reasons. Most of those reasons are still the same today. It was not some conscious effort on part of womankind to go create genetically superior superbabies.
Not every video posted at youtube is posted by morons.
No, but 99% of them are.
That's a rather biased suggestion you are making I must admit. Is it possible for you to to apply the same logic to your own opinion and consider the documented facts of history at any point in this discussion?
If you have actual, objective documentation (i.e. not Youtube videos or conspiracy theory sites), then post them, preferably as a link to them so there's not a giant post on the forum.
I have a very excellent list of people involved in eugenicist organizations.. names, dates, affilations, relations.. indisputable and easily cross-checked. I will look for it.. but I am otherwise real busy this afternoon so maybe I can do that this evening otherwise I'll try in the morning.
I'm sure you have it. But again I will ask "And?".
Eugenics organizations can exist or not. It does nothing for or against the validity of evolution. Racists will be racists. There's no changing it. Science concerns itself with the validity of naturalistic explanations for the available evidence, nothing else.
Then let's see it.
I'm sure you have it. But again I will ask "And?".
Eugenics organizations can exist or not. It does nothing for or against the validity of evolution. Racists will be racists. There's no changing it. Science concerns itself with the validity of naturalistic explanations for the available evidence, nothing else.
I already said, later or in the morning. I am sorry I cannot do it at this very moment. I also posted it at another website a couple years as we were looking into Darwin's family. But it's just one page within a a few hundred other pages, really no time to look right now.
Racists will be racists no doubt. But handing them a scientific 'theory' to prop up their assertions and then backing those assertions via government agencies as 'science' is a very dangerous trend and has caused a lot of distress for a lot of people the past century. It might be easier for you to establish the racist base of evolution by going through Darwin's diaries and writings, even those of his grandfather who obviously influenced him greatly, pick out the numerous clear cut racist statements he made and then ask why he needed to personally convince himself that most men are animals, except of course for the Darwin family and few choice others of his picking.
Racists will be racists no doubt. But handing them a scientific 'theory' to prop up their assertions and then backing those assertions via government agencies as 'science' is a very dangerous trend and has caused a lot of distress for a lot of people the past century. It might be easier for you to establish the racist base of evolution by going through Darwin's diaries and writings, even those of his grandfather who obviously influenced him greatly, pick out the numerous clear cut racist statements he made and then ask why he needed to personally convince himself that most men are animals, except of course for the Darwin family and few choice others of his picking.
Creating nuclear weapons is a dangerous trend. Discovering a new half of the world was a dangerous trend. Walking out of your house is a dangerous trend. You might get by a car.
What Darwin, his grandfather, his friends, his children, his wife, his siblings, or anyone else remotely connected to him thought about racism is of no bearing to the theory of evolution. Also, I note that we've moved from "Evolution perpetrated eugenics and racism" to "racism perpetrated evolution." I also note that you agree with me that "racists will be racists." Interesting.
If you want to attack evolution, attack the scientific evidence, not philosophical implications that crazy genocidal maniacs find in evolution to justify their crazy genocidal mindset.
This guy although he is worshipped in theological circles, is a pretty Apostate Christian, he has already told us he believes in Soul Sleep and is known to question Atonement.
To be more accurate, what he says is that scripture is a bit ambiguous about the state between death and the final resurrection and much more interested in the latter and the here and now.
And he very explicitly affirms Atonement, what he queries is certain reformation traditions of understanding it.
If you do theology by soundbite you are bound to misunderstand much.
If you do not believe in Genesis three, how can yoou believe in Atonement?.
He does believe in Genesis 3, he just doesn't agree with you about what sort of literature it is.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
This guy although he is worshipped in theological circles, is a pretty Apostate Christian, he has already told us he believes in Soul Sleep and is known to question Atonement.
He does not believe in soul sleep, a read of 'Surprised by Hope' will make that clear. His point is that the immediate destination of the soul upon death (he would say this is with Christ in heaven) is not the ultimate hope of the Christian. Our hope is a renewed creation and life on an Earth put back to rights.
I'm currently reading through his "For everyone" series book on Romans. I found his comments on the atonement surprisingly orthodox considering his "new perspective on Paul" here's a snippet:
God was obliged, in virtue of being the world's creator and judge, to act decisively with sin - which means, to punish it. Here we discover a further meaning in the idea of the 'place of mercy' in the previous sentence. The same root also refer to a 'propitiatory' sacrifice. That is, one which not only purifies people from sin but also turns away the wrath of God which would otherwise rightly fall on the sinner.
He ends this section with:
God is in the right; we who trust his gospel are in the right; and all because of the death of Jesus. There are many times, in reading Paul, when the right reaction is to kneel down and give God thinks. This is one of those times.
Also, I note that we've moved from "Evolution perpetrated eugenics and racism" to "racism perpetrated evolution." I also note that you agree with me that "racists will be racists." Interesting.
perhaps 'perpetuates' would be a better suited term than your use of 'perpetrated'.
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
If you want to attack evolution, attack the scientific evidence, not philosophical implications that crazy genocidal maniacs find in evolution to justify their crazy genocidal mindset.
There is no hard science, that's why it's called a theory. Any 'science' evolution claims, involving mutation of viruses etc. is easily disproved as simply adaption to environment, chemical influence, things of that nature, which reverse themselves when environment and other related conditions is reversed to the original conditions also.
darwin's false ideas about birds changing colors or size is raw evidence of the very same thing.
Since this is a Christian forum, and philosphical ethics is the basis of this thread, your suggestion to ignore those issues is questionable.
There is no hard science, that's why it's called a theory.
A theory in science is the closest thing that science can get to a truth.
Gravity is a theory. Am I suddenly floating off my chair now?
Any 'science' evolution claims, involving mutation of viruses etc. is easily disproved as simply adaption to environment, chemical influence, things of that nature, which reverse themselves when environment and other related conditions is reversed to the original conditions also.
So what you're saying is that organisms change based on their environment? Sounds like evolution to me. Also, how do you account for transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses, frame shift mutations, etc?
darwin's false ideas about birds changing colors or size is raw evidence of the very same thing.
Raw evidence of evolution? Yes...
Since this is a Christian forum, and philosphical ethics is the basis of this thread, your suggestion to ignore those issues is questionable.
It's not questionable when those issues have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the theory.
Hmm, whoever wrote the original article linked to by the OP either doesn't know what he is talking about or is a liar:
Tom Wright is one of the movers in the great apostacy with the emerging church, or fresh expressions ,
This is simply untrue as anyone who has read or listened to his comments on emerging church would know.
You see Tom Wright does not question, the wholes in Evolution, he wants to lie in bed with it.
(sic)
Tom Wright will never admit to us where the origins of deism lie, because really the Church of England wants earthly powers so much they will lie in bed with anyone who has a position.
LOL. The Church of England wanting earthly power. That's a good one.
But the statement is also factually untrue - +Tom has talked extensively about the origins of deism.
If you are in the Church of England, it is time you start to realise, that the Apostacy will only grow, it will not lessen. I fully expect the Antichrist to be preaching in Church of England pultpit.
More meaningless rhetoric.
Tony Blair afterall, was at Holy Trinity Brompton talking about globalisation and his Catholic faith. HTB pretend to believe in scripture when they are reallly against the bible. Those guys are slick and you have to count your fingers when you get next to them.
Tony Blair was at HTB does not equal The Church of England are against the bible.
This is untrue. +Tom has challenged certain traditional understanding about the atonement.
In other words the entire article is empty attack and misinformation. Draw what conclusions from that you think appropriate.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
Linear Mode
