What Darwin has done to the world...

[Astrid]

Some people say there was no intelligent design in nature.

Yet they say that standing on the six step of a latter of life and saying see there is no intelligent design in nature regardless if they themselves have not even reached the bottom of the latter the very roots of the tree the dirt that surrounds them the water the feeds them

And some write metaphorical nonsense.

 

[Astrid]

Better credentialled historians than you have made similarly bad claims about linking Darwin to Nazism and Marxism.

Perhaps you've been reading Richard Weikart? Or David Berlinski?

Was Darwin an influential thinker? Yes. Did his thinking have an impact on Marx and Hitler. Yes. But not nearly to the extent you're trying to paint.

However, was Darwin a "false prophet and that his theory of evolution was a false teaching"? Clearly no. Were Nazism and Marxism "clearly based" on Darwinian evolution. Clearly no

The grand unifying theory of Darwin as the root of all
Evil in the modern world is bonkers.

 

[BeyondET]

And some write metaphorical nonsense.

Yup like this crazy hypothesis idea of life from hot springs or what ever, and they know it’s a controversial hypothesis all of them are, show me one that isn't. what about double helix in a cell



The vent hypothesis is somewhat controversial, but recent experiments lend weight to it. In one, NASA astrobiologist Laurie Barge and her colleagues showed how amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have formed near alkaline vents. Barge, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, became interested in the origin of life on Earth while searching for life not on Earth. Geology and biology would be closely linked anywhere, she says — whether on another planet or in a deep-sea vent here on Earth.

Where on Earth Did Life Originate? - The Wire Science

 

[Occams Barber]

Yup like this crazy hypothesis idea of life from hot springs or whet ever, and they know it’s a controversial hypothesis all of them are, show me one that isn't

No competent scientist is claiming to know in detail how abiogenesis occurred. Unlike Evolution (which is a Theory) it's still an hypothesis. Abiogenesis is a little like an unfinished jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. There are bits and pieces of knowledge about the chemical processes which led to life but, as yet, no overarching theory which knits it all together.

There is no harm in admitting we don't yet have the full picture. There is total harm in ceasing to look.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Marxism's rejection of God and its theory of dialectical materialism was based on Darwin, as was Nazism's belief that the so-called "master race" must survive by eliminating the "unfit".

Eugenics originated in Darwin's lifetime, and was taught by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, as the application of the survival of the fittest to social policy.

I thought you did anthropology in college and studied evolution. But you don't appear to know what 'survival of the fittest' means.

I guess when ISIS throws gay people off buildings you'll blame Newton. And if terrorists fly planes into buildings, it's the fault of the Wright brothers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Marx and Engels...and Darwin?
The essential connection between historical materialism and natural selection
Marx and Engels...and Darwin? | International Socialist Review

Sounds like stolen glory to me. Everyone knows that Darwin's work is highly regarded (at least outside Creationist circles) and they just want to glom on to it. Economic and social theorists trying to grab some of the caché of science. Who'd ever heard of such a thing???

 

[Hans Blaster]

It does, the going theory is life on earth started from star dust that cannot be verified.

the origin of life on earth is a hypothesis up to this point in the evolution of life.

That is *not* the going theory (or leading hypothesis) for the origin of life on Earth. Those theories involve various self-organizing and self-replicating chemical processes within some sort of wet environment on a lifeless planet.

Panspermia (life from space) is not a leading theory and still requires life to have been begun in the other (chemical) fashion *somewhere* in the galaxy.

The Earth is however, made largely from the coalesced stardust swirling around the proto-Sun.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LGBT ideology, the belief that it's morally acceptable to change our gender and have sexual relations with the same sex, is based rejecting the belief that God had a specific intent in creating male and female.

Since your objection isn't (apparently) to the desires and identities of those individuals described as LGBT, only the moral acceptance by others, I can only see this change as an improvement in common decency. Whether a god had an purpose in gender or sexuality is not addressed by Darwin's work, nor is it impacted by it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Modernist theology, with its rejection of Jesus' miracles, including His resurrection, and the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the means of our salvation, began with the rejection of Genesis as a historical account due to Darwin's theory of evolution.

This sounds like a complaint against Christians of a different sort, not against a biological theory. Darwin's theory doesn't say anything about the alleged miracles of Jesus. (As an aside, it was not finding those miracles plausible that left me not with "modern theology" but no theology at all.)

Plenty of churches seem to do just fine with the Genesis account as allegory or metaphor and still think Jesus needed to be sacrificed so that y'all can live forever. I can't say I was ever aware that our church thought a historical Adam or flood was needed for the sacrifice of Jesus to have meaning or value.

The historicity of the Genesis account had long been destroyed by the development of geology a century before Charles Darwin's work. That work showed that there wasn't a global flood and that the Earth was much older than the date implied by the genealogies and historical accounts in the Torah.

 

[BeyondET]

That is *not* the going theory (or leading hypothesis) for the origin of life on Earth. Those theories involve various self-organizing and self-replicating chemical processes within some sort of wet environment on a lifeless planet.

Panspermia (life from space) is not a leading theory and still requires life to have been begun in the other (chemical) fashion *somewhere* in the galaxy.

The Earth is however, made largely from the coalesced stardust swirling around the proto-Sun.

It’s the one that supposedly brings elements we know that already reason for gold and other elements. the only way to truly figure out if life can start on its own is produce it.

here’s a site that pretty much is talking about chemicals in the beginning and how to create life from soup by chance. Interesting statement at the end wisdom of nature so it’s to much for man to know. I did enjoyed it was informative

The secret of how life on Earth began
This knowledge will change us. On a purely scientific level, it will tell us about how likely life is to form in the Universe, and where to look for it. And it will tell us something about life's essential nature. But beyond that, we cannot yet know the wisdom the origin of life will reveal.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

People who are ignorant of history believe that Inherit the Wind provides an accurate depiction of what the Scopes trial was all about, that William Jennings Bryan was an ignorant Biblical fundamentalist and that Clarence Darrow was a fearless advocate for academic freedom.

In reality, William Jennings Bryan accepted an old earth and said so during the Scopes trial, and he opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools because Darwin's ideas were being used, at the time, to promote eugenics. Clarence Darrow's own words revealed his eugenicist beliefs, "Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live."

I would like to say again, go back to the writings of Charles Darwin and take seriously when people like Marx and Hitler claim that their ideas were based on Darwin's.

Go back and look at the origin of modernist Biblical scholarship, with its denial of Jesus' miracles and His uniqueness as the only Son of God, and how this skeptical attitude toward Biblical authority began with the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory.

Go back and look at the influence of Charles Darwin on Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychiatry.

Go back and look at the LGBT movement, and how it only became possible in Western society by first rejecting that God created male and female as two distinct genders, and that God created sex specifically to be shared between man and woman.

The case might be that young earth creationists have done so much to tarnish the reputation of anyone who questions Darwin's ideas that a lot of people will reject out of hand the possibility that Darwin had a negative effect on history. Or perhaps you, like Richard Dawkins, need Darwin in order to be an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist, making you insecure about having to look at Darwin in a negative light.

 

[BeyondET]

People who are ignorant of history believe that Inherit the Wind provides an accurate depiction of what the Scopes trial was all about, that William Jennings Bryan was an ignorant Biblical fundamentalist and that Clarence Darrow was a fearless advocate for academic freedom.

In reality, William Jennings Bryan accepted an old earth and said so during the Scopes trial, and he opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools because Darwin's ideas were being used, at the time, to promote eugenics. Clarence Darrow's own words revealed his eugenicist beliefs, "Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live."

I would like to say again, go back to the writings of Charles Darwin and take seriously when people like Marx and Hitler claim that their ideas were based on Darwin's.

Go back and look at the origin of modernist Biblical scholarship, with its denial of Jesus' miracles and His uniqueness as the only Son of God, and how this skeptical attitude toward Biblical authority began with the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory.

Go back and look at the influence of Charles Darwin on Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychiatry.

Go back and look at the LGBT movement, and how it only became possible in Western society by first rejecting that God created male and female as two distinct genders, and that God created sex specifically to be shared between man and woman.

Don’t think darwin had much to do with it, things like that been going on long before him

 

[pitabread]

The case might be that young earth creationists have done so much to tarnish the reputation of anyone who questions Darwin's ideas that a lot of people will reject out of hand the possibility that Darwin had a negative effect on history. Or perhaps you, like Richard Dawkins, need Darwin in order to be an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist, making you insecure about having to look at Darwin in a negative light.

Unfortunately like every other creationist, you're completely missing the mark re: Darwin and the theory of evolution. You want this to be an atheism vs theism battle, and are setting up Darwin as an arch-villain in your imaginary conflict.

In actuality, the theory of evolution has moved on from Darwin's time. It underpins modern biology as a legitimate science and explanation for the diversity of species and how populations change over time. It has a wide variety of practical application in fields like pharmacology, agriculture, bioinformatics, and even has found use in industrial engineering and design.

You're also ignoring the fact that Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with natural selection. Alfred Wallace came up with the same idea, only didn't get nearly as much recognition as Darwin. If Darwin hadn't been around, the creationist world would be whining about Wallace instead.

I don't expect to ever be able to address the reality of modern evolutionary theory, because this would involve first acknowledging it. In my experience this is something creationists cannot do.

 

[VirOptimus]

What a confused OP.

 

[driewerf]

based on the ideas of Charles Darwin, as was Nazism, which led to the deaths of six million Jews and many others.

Darwin's theory gave rise to nazism?
I went through an English translation of Mein Kampf.
Here is essence of Hitler's (sickening) thought.
Here is my source:

http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf

p59
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
See, the Lord is referenced as the Almighty Creator.

p182
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
See: the Germans were created and a mission was assigned to them.

p214
But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight [against syphilis and prostitution] is not fought to a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence. Little of God's image will be left in human nature, except to mock the Creator.
See: humans are created in God's Image -- were do we know that phrase from?

p238
The act ["race mixing"] which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
See: "race mixing" is a sin against an eternal Creator.

p317
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians [ the Aryans] would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folkidea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.
See: the Aryans are created in the image of god -- where do we know that phrase from?

p329
Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth.
See: humanity has been "bestowed" on this earth by a creator.

p335
Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.
Again: made to his own image.

p354
The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery[...`].

And bellow a quote without any mentioning of a Creator, God, but it is very telling about Hitler's thinking.

p238
History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants--who mainly belonged to the Latin races--mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.



Why did I quote this: because it goes directly against evolutionary thinking. While population evolutionists insist that a wide genetic diversity is important for keeping a population healthy, the nazis insisted on "racial purity", thus narrowing down the genetic diversity.


Humble disciple; Hitler was a creationist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People who are ignorant of history believe that Inherit the Wind provides an accurate depiction of what the Scopes trial was all about, that William Jennings Bryan was an ignorant Biblical fundamentalist and that Clarence Darrow was a fearless advocate for academic freedom.

In reality, William Jennings Bryan accepted an old earth and said so during the Scopes trial, and he opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools because Darwin's ideas were being used, at the time, to promote eugenics. Clarence Darrow's own words revealed his eugenicist beliefs, "Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live."

I would like to say again, go back to the writings of Charles Darwin and take seriously when people like Marx and Hitler claim that their ideas were based on Darwin's.

Go back and look at the origin of modernist Biblical scholarship, with its denial of Jesus' miracles and His uniqueness as the only Son of God, and how this skeptical attitude toward Biblical authority began with the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory.

Go back and look at the influence of Charles Darwin on Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychiatry.

Go back and look at the LGBT movement, and how it only became possible in Western society by first rejecting that God created male and female as two distinct genders, and that God created sex specifically to be shared between man and woman.

The case might be that young earth creationists have done so much to tarnish the reputation of anyone who questions Darwin's ideas that a lot of people will reject out of hand the possibility that Darwin had a negative effect on history. Or perhaps you, like Richard Dawkins, need Darwin in order to be an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist, making you insecure about having to look at Darwin in a negative light.

The Nazis had Gott Mit Uns written on their belt buckles. So I guess we can blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Third Reich, by your logic.

 

[Astrid]

That is *not* the going theory (or leading hypothesis) for the origin of life on Earth. Those theories involve various self-organizing and self-replicating chemical processes within some sort of wet environment on a lifeless planet.

Panspermia (life from space) is not a leading theory and still requires life to have been begun in the other (chemical) fashion *somewhere* in the galaxy.

The Earth is however, made largely from the coalesced stardust swirling around the proto-Sun.

There is no theory as to the origin of life.

 

[Occams Barber]

There is no theory as to the origin of life.

I think Hans is using 'theory' in its generic sense. One problem in talking in an Evolution/Creation context is the need to be extremely cautious with semantics.

OB

 

[driewerf]

Jesus said that, by their fruits, you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20) We can tell that Charles Darwin was a false prophet and that his theory of evolution was a false teaching by the fruit it has caused in the world.

Marxism, which was responsible for the deaths of over a 100 million people in the 20th century, was largely based on the ideas of Charles Darwin, as was Nazism, which led to the deaths of six million Jews and many others.

The theory which Darwin unleashed in the world has also been largely responsible for eugenics, Freudian psychology, LGBT ideology, modernist theology, etc., which all have led to needless suffering and the corrosion of Western civilization.

Marxism's rejection of God and its theory of dialectical materialism was based on Darwin, as was Nazism's belief that the so-called "master race" must survive by eliminating the "unfit".

Eugenics originated in Darwin's lifetime, and was taught by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, as the application of the survival of the fittest to social policy.

Freudian psychology's rejection of the soul as the essence of man's being, and it's rejection of religion as purely the result of natural forces, rather than divine revelation, was inspired by Darwin.

LGBT ideology, the belief that it's morally acceptable to change our gender and have sexual relations with the same sex, is based rejecting the belief that God had a specific intent in creating male and female.

Modernist theology, with its rejection of Jesus' miracles, including His resurrection, and the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the means of our salvation, began with the rejection of Genesis as a historical account due to Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of what Darwin has wrought to the modern world, and I'd be happy to provide some clarifications, if necessary.

One more falsehood spotted in this post. Marx" dialectical materialism originates in Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach. Not Darwin.
Ludwig Feuerbach - Wikipedia
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy - Part 1: Hegel

 

[Astrid]

Did I say anything that was historically inaccurate? Please explain.

Did you say anything? Looks like cut n paste.