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.
Youtube videos do not equate to facts.
