Wednesday, August 23, 2006

And the Criticism Goes On...And On...

With all the hyper-ventilating going on in the liberal, Darwinianiac religionists circles, evolutionists are gonna end up bursting their blood vessels! So is, apparently, Abe Foxman of ADL.

Which brings to mind a pertinent question. When is Abe going to realize that born-again, Bible believing Christians are on the side of Israel and not against the Jewish people like some people from history??

Sheesh!!

If Hitler used Darwinism (and history shows this to be a fact!) as an excuse (and the bolded parts of the article below clearly demonstrates that he was a Darwinist!!) to slaughter Jews during the Holocaust, why is Abe Foxman of the ADL ridiculing D. James Kennedy for citing historical truth about that fact??

Foxman's statement (below) is ludicrous!

He's attacking the wrong side in this culture war!!

Good grief...

Ah!! This explains it:

Foxman: ""It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to 'reclaim America for Christ' and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law," he said."

Strange notions of biblical law? Like those in the Jewish Torah??

Yikes...it's a sad day...truly a sad day when a Jewish defamation organization appears to be more threatened by Christian belief (which was derived from Jewish beliefs and gives rise to freedom of religion...including the Jewish faith!) than they are by REAL anti-semites like Radical Islam0-Facists who want to convert the world to Islam and kill any and all infidels who refuse conversion; and also have their own loathsome, specially-charged-hatred for Jews and Zionism!!!

Wow!! Is the ADL in bed with the ACLU OR WHAT??

Guess so...

Ugh!!!

Perhaps that is a topic for another day...

Christine

*******

Wednesday, August 23, 2006
EVOLUTION WATCH

ADL joins in criticism of evolution expose

Coral Ridge defends Darwin-Hitler show as review of history


Posted: August 23, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


A yet-to-be broadcast television special created by Coral Ridge Ministries has been targeted for criticism by the Anti-Defamation League.


Just one day after bloggers took their shots at "Darwin's Deadly Legacy", which features more than a dozen experts in various fields talking about the connections between Darwin's theories, eugenics, Hitler and abortion, ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman issued a statement.
"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis."


Kennedy, an author and Christian broadcaster, had just announced the inquiry into Darwin’s "chilling" social impact, a production set to air nationwide on Aug. 26-27 on "The Coral Ridge Hour."


Then the comments started appearing on the Pharyngula website, among others, offering stinging criticism of those on the show.


One of those targeted was Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins, whose book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," was published only a few months ago.


"I have no idea what role Collins is going to play in this dishonest piece of trash, but I hope he is properly ashamed of being associated with it," one critic said. "Unfortunately, we're going to have to watch it to find out."


Collins explained that he had been interviewed by Coral Ridge about his book, and the taping was inserted into the program without his advance knowledge.
Then came Foxman's criticism.


"It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to 'reclaim America for Christ' and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law," he said.


Coral Ridge responded with a call for "more history and less hysteria."


"When ADL National Director Abe Foxman, who has not viewed our television program, calls it 'twisted' and asserts that 'Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people,' he ignores the historical fact that Adolf Hitler was an evolutionist," the ministry group said.


"Among German historians, there's really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist," said historian Richard Weikart, author of "From Darwin to Hitler" and a guest on the television special.


"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist. He has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution," said British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith in the 1940s.


Even Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said there's a link.


"Social Darwinism," he wrote, "has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis in World War II – where eugenics was invoked as a scientific rationale to go along with whatever other 'reasons' Hitler and his fellow Nazis had for the Holocaust."


"We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us – whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed 'inferior,' the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness,' said Kennedy.


The documentary was done to "show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history," according to Wikipedia.


WorldNetDaily columnist Ann Coulter also was a target for the critics who have yet to see the program.


She has, the critic contended, "no knowledge of science or history," and others on the program are nothing but "creationists."


Producer Jerry Newcomb said the show is about the social effects of Darwinism, and the bloodshed that can be attributed to those beliefs. He said before Darwin, the basic concept was that man was made in the image of God, and was therefore valuable. But Darwin changed all that.


Coulter, who also wrote the bestselling "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," said Hitler simply was taking Darwinism from the theoretical to the practical.


"He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along," she said.


Coral Ridge Ministries said it also has published a companion book to the television special, called "Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions."

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51643


Related offers:
Watch Darwin croak on video: New work shows mounting evidence for intelligent design of the universe
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution - letters to an atheist
Tornado in A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism
"Freedom Shall Return": Announcing a music revolution for Americans with traditional values
Great titles from WND Book Service on evolution-creation debate
Get Ann's latest and hottest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"


Related stories:
Darwin-Hitler connection sparks attacks
2 billion years added to age of universe
'Outrageous misinformation' on Kansas standards
Bible literalism 'pagan superstition'?
Designers' attorney: Class not intelligent
Limbaugh got it wrong, says intelligent designer
Intelligent-design backers downplay Dover
Intelligent-design backers blast judge
Salman Rushdie blasts intelligent design
Intelligent-design backers applaud Bush
Opposition to intelligent design drummed up


Related commentary:
What are Darwinists so afraid of?
Seeing God in science

69 comments:

limpy99 said...

Oh Dear.

I will say up front that I haven't seen this show, and I wouldn't watch it anyway. I don't know what Hitler's view of evolution was, nor do I care. He was a raving lunatic responsible for the deaths of millions of people. "Why" really doesn't matter.

BUT...

The argument that Darwin and/or evolution is somehow responsible for The Holocaust is ridiculous. First, "social Darwinism" doesn't address the issue of evolution. Evolution is the study of the progressive physical development of various species over the millenia. Social Darwinism is another thing entirely.

Second, the argument that before Darwin humans viewed each other as God's creatures and therefore implicitly would never have engaged in something like the Holocaust is nonsense. The Mongolians killed more Chinese than three Holocausts combined. The British sent small-pox exposed blankets to the Indians and wiped out entire tribes. The Protestants and the Catholics killed thousands of each other during the 30 Years War. Christians of all stripes annihilated the Muslims during the 1st Crusade. Darwin had nothing to do with those sorts of activities and nothing to do with the Holocaust either.

Boo said...

"We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us – whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed 'inferior,' the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness,' said Kennedy."

We have had nearly 32 years of Coral Ridge Ministries. And what has it brought us- whether Kennedy intended it or not? Terrorism is exploding around the world. Iran is getting a nuclear bomb, there's civial war in Iraq, Andy Dick is still showing up on tv, the local Pizza Hut always undercooks the crust on my pizzas, I started feeling sick yesterday and had to leave work early, and Angel turned into a bad soap opera after the second season. Dr. Kennedy has much to answer for.

The above paragraph is brought to you by the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy, and by the number 4.

Btw, the reason so many Jews distrust the support fundamentalist Christians give to Israel is because they know the reason fundamentalist Christians want Israel around is so God can annihilate it at Armageddon.

Juan Buhler said...

You seem angry, Christine.

As Limpy says, 'Darwinism' is not the same as 'Social Darwinism.'

Not that reality has ever stopped you from writing nonsense.

Have a nice day!

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99,

I'd recommend reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Loads of reviews to read at the site that might eliminate some of the liberal-left incorrect ideology that you probably learned in college about the Crusades.

To say that Darwinism had nothing to do with the rise of Social Darwinism is intellectually dishonest, terribly misleading and ultimately false. Of course it did! Thus, it had a hand in the results of those who became fanatical about the concept of "survival of the fittest."

I'm not claiming that all evolutionists would follow the same path (just like not all Muslims follow the path of Jihad), but those who utilized the ideas created by Darwinistic though, GOT THOSE IDEAS from Darwin's ideological concepts, whether any of you want to admit that or not.

Boo stated, "Btw, the reason so many Jews distrust the support fundamentalist Christians give to Israel is because they know the reason fundamentalist Christians want Israel around is so God can annihilate it at Armageddon."

Obviously, you have never studied the book of Revelation Boo because if you did, you would realize that your statement is hopelessly incorrect.

You've got your "prophecy knickers" in a twist and a**-backwards, too!

Juan,

So tell me, where did the concept of Social Darwinism come from??

Creation?

The Argument from Design?

Intelligent Design Theory?

Hmmm.....

The answer is just too easy!
D A R W I N I S M!!

You bet I'm upset! Upset at the ignorance of people like Foxman who blindly follow locked-in-step with groups like the ACLU whose humanist secular agenda a.k.a.

Anti-
Christian
Loves
Ungodliness

crowd whose humanist manifesto secular licientiousness agenda is destroying our culture from the inside out!

Who needs Islamo-facist terrorists attempting to destroy us here at our homeland from the outside while here at home the ACLU keeps trying to destroy us from within through their stupid lawsuits like those that support the despicable group called NAMBLA yet try to destroy the God Honoring Boy Scouts of America???

Sickos...all of them at the ACLU...

It's truly sad...more than anything else...

Juan Buhler said...

I said that Darwinism != Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism attempts to use the ideas of natural selection to relationships between human societies.

So yes, the ideas of social darwinism are taken from those of darwinism. Still, you don't have a point.

Boo said...

"Obviously, you have never studied the book of Revelation Boo because if you did, you would realize that your statement is hopelessly incorrect."

I didn't say the Bible teaches that idea, I said that fundamentalist Christians believe it. Read Pat Robertson sometime.

Also, try reading about social darwinism some time. It really has no connection to Darwin except the name. Evolution operates partly by natural selection. Genetic variability gives rise to traits that are advantageous to survival, making them more likely to reproduce and proliferate through a given population. Social darwinism teaches that certain SOCIALLY DESIRED traits should be encouraged and others discouraged to produce a population which is to the social darwinist's liking. In fact, one of the main complaints social darwinists make about the poor and other "unfits" is that they breed too much, which from a darwiniam viewpoint is advantageous.

Besides being a moral horror, the Holocaust was a disaster from a strictly evolutionary point of view as well, as it removed a large amount of genetic variability from the human population.

Once again: evolution is enhanced by genetic variability. The entire point of social darwinism and eugenics is to narrow the gene pool. Thus, Darwinism and Social Darwinism/Eugenics are two opposing systems. The operation of the latter must by definition inhibit the former.

Christian?
Right...
Evil
Actions
To
Imperil
Other
Nonbelievers
Into
Slavery
Man

See? Anyone can make silly acronyms. (And no Christine, I didn't make the silly acronym because I believe it, I made it to demonstrate how easy it is to make a silly acronym)

If we're going to use the standards you have established, then Christianity is responsible for producing:

the Inquisition

the subjugation and genocide of native American populations

the 4th Crusade

the "Troubles"

the Salem Witch Trials

the "Burning Times"

the Jonestown mass suicide

the Ruby Ridge fiasco

the Branch Davidian slaughter

the Ku Klux Klan

slavery in the Americas

the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker scandals

the resistance to integration

the periodic anti-Jew pogroms that swept medieval Europe

and, oh yes, the Holocaust.

Every single one of those was caused by people who invoked Christianity in defence of their actions. Fortunately, since I do not subscribe to the standards you and Dr. Kennedy are seeking to establish, I can be a Christian with a clear conscience. If you are going to be consistent, you cannot do the same.

limpy99 said...

Christine, while I did go to a public university, my education prior to that was Catholic from 4th grade on, so let's not leap to conclusions about my leftist education. That would be wrong.

Spencer seems like an interesting guy, but his work also seems intent on disparaging Islam by focusing on jihadist groups. That's fair enough and he's certainly up front about it, so more power to him. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Christians slaughtered thousands of Muslims upon retaking Jerusalem in 1098. Spencer's opinion about jihadists doesn't change what happened.

More importantly it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution discussion that was the subject of the original discussion. My point, which Boo again said better than I, was that saying that it's Darwin's fault that the Holocaust occurred fails every test of logic, and, again tiping the hat to Boo, is like me blaming Kennedy for 9/11, becuase after all, no on ehad flown a plane into a skyscraper before he started preaching. My point in bringing up the Crusades, among other things, was to illustrate that humnans have been whacking away at each other in the name of religion for thousands of years, well before we Darwin et al suggested we were cousins of the apes.

Frankly, when you look at humans are capable of, I wonder why it isn't the apes who are more pissed off about that.

If you do want to learn more about The Crusades, read "The Crusades: A Short History" by Jonathan Riley-Smith. All sorts of good stuff, and he doesn't take sides. An excellent book.

"Andy Dick is still on TV" That really is the funniest thing I've heard today.

Ubersehen said...

This plays very strongly to my recurring call for one to self-criticise and analyze their arguments before opening their figurative mouth to express it as though it were fact.

If Christine had asked "Is it possible that I could be mistaken? If so, how?" we might have read a more thoughtful and intellectually stimulating argument here, rather than this unthinking repetition of easily refuted garbage.

My advice, Christine, in this world of advanced technology and easy access to information, try exploring your topics of interest on, say, Wikipedia, or just Googling the darn thing to examine what criticism might already exist for your points. Otherwise, parroting the agenda-laden opinions of a clearly biased individual, with a list of guests so laughably discredited as DDL's, just provides any individual that possesses even a hint of objective critical thinking with a few good chuckles.

Boo said...

And now even Behe is beginning to distance himself from the program:

http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2006/08/25/d-james-kennnedy-godwinates-behe-distances-himself-from-darwins-deadly-legacy/

"I'm "associated" with it only in the sense that a clip of my appearance on a TV show of Dr. Kennedy's from years ago apparently is used in the film. I didn't know this program was in the works, have had no conversations with anyone from Coral Ridge about it, and had no input into it."

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99,

I think it is quite interesting that you claim you "wouldn't watch it [the show] anyway." Why is that? Afraid that you will be presented with arguments you'd rather not deal with?

Since it is being broadcast this coming Sunday evening, why not commit to watching it (anyone else here game?) and then discussing it afterwards here at this blog?

I think that "why" Hitler did what he did does, indeed matter. For it is in the discovery of this that we could glean the similar reasons why Islamo-fascism is intent on killing not only the Jews, Christians, and what they call "infidels," but also innocent lives right along with them.

I heard an informative comment on the Sean Hannity radio show. It was said that if Islam were to take over in the U.S., the first to go would be the liberal-left agenda such as gay rights, radical feminism, abortion, etc. At least modern Christianity doesn't indescriminately kill people with such beliefs as the Radical Muslim Islamo-facists would do...

Back to the topic at hand.

Juan,
You say that I "don't have a point." What leads you to such a conclusion?

The point is that the popularization of "Darwinism as fact," has given rise to Social Darwinism which has led many "minds of evil" towards a chance to flourish and wreck havoc on our world.

Yes. People can use many different reasons for their actions, but the cumulative affect of Social Darwinism promoted many of the governmental evils in history. I didn't say it produced all evils, but many can be attributed to Darwinistic beliefs.

Limpy99,
The history of mankind is rife with killing. People can (do, and did) also use "religion" to promote and do their evil. But when it has been done through "religious" purposes, it is because they ignored the tenets of the Bible set forth by Christ. The Bible even admits this fact about mankind "left to its own devices":

Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

The New Testament affirms this:

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.



Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

This is why Rom 12:2 instructs us:

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.

Having the "mind of the Spirit" is twofold. First, one must be born again in Jesus Christ with the result of the Holy Spirit's indwelling of the heart. Second, studying and apply God's Word to our lives renews our minds day by day.

Boo said, " I didn't say the Bible teaches that idea, I said that fundamentalist Christians believe it. Read Pat Robertson sometime."

Wrong again! That's strike two...care to try again?

Boo also said, "Besides being a moral horror, the Holocaust was a disaster from a strictly evolutionary point of view as well, as it removed a large amount of genetic variability from the human population."

Not according to Hitler's ability to convince a portion of the German population that such an "evolutionary point of view" would be advantageous to remove Jewish "genetic variability" from the gene pool. His horrific mindset was twisted. No doubt about that. But he used Darwinistic ideas to put some scientific weight behind his socialistic ideas.

Your positions appear to me to be more like "Deism" than Christianity. But that's just my opinion...

Limpy99,

I apologize for jumping to conclusions about your liberal left ideology. But I have some questions. Have you abandoned your Catholic faith? If so, why? Would your leftist college education have had something to do with it?

I think that we might need to see the documentary before making generalizations about what Kennedy will propose in the piece regarding what you stated:

"saying that it's Darwin's fault that the Holocaust occurred fails every test of logic."

Kennedy labeled it more as, "Darwin’s "chilling" social impact" rather than blaming the Holocaust completely on Darwinism.

Kennedy hinted at this when he said in the article, ""Social Darwinism," he wrote, "has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis in World War II – where eugenics was invoked as a scientific rationale to go along with whatever other 'reasons' Hitler and his fellow Nazis had for the Holocaust."

Ubersehen said, "If Christine had asked "Is it possible that I could be mistaken? If so, how?" we might have read a more thoughtful and intellectually stimulating argument here, rather than this unthinking repetition of easily refuted garbage. "

Is it possible that I could be mistaken? Absolutely! I'm not perfect and have never claimed to be. I do believe, however, that God's Word is perfect and that is why I don't adhere to Darwinian beliefs that attempt to refute or dispel the Creation account in Scripture. I also see Jesus Christ as the final authority on all subjects. From what is said in Scripture regarding Creation (by Christ in the New Testament) it is impossible for me, as an individual, to reconcile macroevolution with the truth of Creation.

I see Darwin's theory of evolution as much more than just an advancement of a science theory. My study of it has revealed to me its scientific, philosophical, and theological failures.

It comes down to this. Besides the scientific "proof" failures, the fact that there is philosophical contradiction inherent in its tenets made me realize that it's worth fighting against it. I may not be successful in convincing anyone on the other side to reconsider their positions, but I do believe that Christians need to realize what's behind the controversy and to see the contradictions that evolution tries to hide behind.

Except for a few "theistic" evolutionists, most Darwinists vehemently claim that religion plays no rule in their theory, but ironically, they rely on assumptions of God's character in order to argue that he couldn't have made this world. And given that creation is not possible, they argue, evolution is then the only other alternative.

Ubersehen said, "Otherwise, parroting the agenda-laden opinions of a clearly biased individual, with a list of guests so laughably discredited as DDL's, just provides any individual that possesses even a hint of objective critical thinking with a few good chuckles."

Well, if nothing else at least I am a form of entertainment for ya! ;-)

I can't know for sure yet, but I think that Kennedy's documentary might include how Western religious traditions in the centuries leading up to Darwin laid the foundation for evolution. Natural theology, in particular, promoted a nonscriptural doctrine of God that ultimately lead to a distancing of God from creation and Darwin's theory of evolution.

In the book I am currently reading, Cornelius G. Hunter states, "Darwinists and even many Christians hold on to the assumption that "creation is an end unto itself and a thing that God would certainly strive to make perfect if it were possible." In contrast to this flawed paradigm of perfection, Hunter shows how the doctrine of general revelation explains the flaws of creation: "We should view creation's purpose as communicating truths...Yes, the heavens declare the glory of God, but we should also expect to see creation in decay."

Evolution's overconfidence is now being challenged by many Christians. Those, like me, are willing to look at the entire picture and desire scientific, philosophical and theological responses to the claims of evolution. Admittedly, I'm still learning. But what I have already learned about it is its many failures in all three of these areas. I will endure the criticism and mocking by visitors here who "think they know better" than God's Word. Know why? Because they don't! They don't know any better!

I have seen much evidence that evolutionists will typically twist "evidences" to make it seem that it is the theory of evolution that is justifying the claim, rather than the claim justifying the theory of evolution. As J.B. Meyer cogently observed ten years after Darwin first published his theory, "Darwinism is not so much a hypothesis proposed to explain facts as an invention of facts for the support of a hypothesis."*

*Source: Cited in Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation, the Stone Lectures of 1908-9.


Boo,
About Behe. Isn't he a theistic evolutionist? Because he still supports Darwinism, (despite his own research pointing towards evidence of Intelligent Design regarding the irreducible complexity of the cell), it's no surprise that he would "distance himself" from the negative social implications that history has shown to have arisen in the light of (or, should we say dark of ) certain aspects of a theory that he, like you, chooses to believe in. No surprise there!

Christinewjc said...

Since Jody probably won't post my comments at his site, I thought I'd include them here:

Hey Jody!

You left out several adjectives in describing those who do not adhere to your atheistic beliefs!

Perhaps you might like atheist James D. Franz to be of assistance? Here's how he described Christian evangelist Ray Comfort:

James D. Franz is a professing atheist and a believer in the theory of evolution. He thinks that Ray Comfort is "idiotic," and a "blinded fool," whose arguments are "laughable at best." He maintains that his logic is "very tainted with uneducated and irrelevant spoutings" that are "weak, flimsy, self-contradictory, uninformed, poorly organized, badly thought out, mindless, pointless, ignorant, simple, and mind-numbingly dull."

But there's more to Ray Comfort than meets the eye!

His book, "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution letters to an atheist" is a thought-provoking conversation that runs the gamut between hostility and hilarity.

Comfort points out that the concept of Intelligent Design originated with scientists and it's the scientific evidence that lead them to that conclusion. Hundreds of scientific scholars and researchers throughout the world support it; including scientists with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute, with doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines, from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley and UCLA. So Maher can't dismiss the idea as "not scientific" just because he doesn't like that conclusion.

The best-selling author also points out that "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" contains scores of letters written by a very intelligently designed atheist who gives evolution's best arguments. I think that's healthy. Yet pro-evolution pseudo-intellectuals are calling for censorship, by not allowing school kids the freedom to listen to both sides of the argument. That reveals their insecurity.

Do you have a birthday coming up Jody? You could ask for the book as a gift! Or, put it on your Christmas list! Oh wait...you probably don't believe in Christmas either so that won't work...

Ray Comfort is the author of more than 50 books including the best seller, "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists". In August of 1998, a professing atheist who read Comfort's "The Atheist Test," wrote to him and asked why he didn't accept the "scientific facts" that supported the theory of evolution. Ray wrote back that there was more proof that the earth was flat. That was in the beginning. In time, this book evolved.

Get it? His latest book evolved... heh heh.

Oh darn...just noticed that comments have to be "approved" by the site owner. I sincerely doubt that what I have written would meet the approval of a rabid atheist like you, Jody.

All that typing for nothing!

tsk tsk...

[Plus, when I attempted to post it all I got was a blank white screen!] Glad I saved it for here! ;-)

Boo said...

"The point is that the popularization of "Darwinism as fact," has given rise to Social Darwinism which has led many "minds of evil" towards a chance to flourish and wreck havoc on our world."

And once again, if you would read up on Social Darwinism (and not just what Creationists have to say on the topic) you would discover that its lineage goes back to Malthus, not Darwin. Darwinism and Social Darwinism are two quite different things. Insinuating that they are the same belies a big, flaming contradiction which I'll get to in a bit.

"Boo said, " I didn't say the Bible teaches that idea, I said that fundamentalist Christians believe it. Read Pat Robertson sometime."

Wrong again! That's strike two...care to try again?"

The book is called The New Millenium, published in 1990. The author is Pat Robertson. The assertion is that Israel has to exist to bring about the End Times which will result in the destruction of all Jews who do not convert.

Also:

"Millions of Jews will be slaughtered at this time but a remnant will escape and God will supernaturally hide them for Himself for the last three and a half years of the Tribulation, some feel in the rose-red city of Petra. I don't know how, but God will keep them because the Jews and the Chosen People of God." (December 2, 1984 sermon)- Jerry Falwell

I'd feel a little uneasy about people whose support is conditioned on the belief that it will hasten the mass slaughter of my people. The idea of supporting Israel to hasten the Last Days which will involve mass deaths of Jews is pretty common in fundamentalist circles.

"Boo also said, "Besides being a moral horror, the Holocaust was a disaster from a strictly evolutionary point of view as well, as it removed a large amount of genetic variability from the human population."

Not according to Hitler's ability to convince a portion of the German population that such an "evolutionary point of view" would be advantageous to remove Jewish "genetic variability" from the gene pool. His horrific mindset was twisted. No doubt about that. But he used Darwinistic ideas to put some scientific weight behind his socialistic ideas."

Here's where the contradiction with your previous claims comes in. In earlier threads, you objected to evolution on the grounds that it is non-teleological. Now, you blame it for Hitler's particular teleological thinking. If Hitler viewed evolution teleologically, then by your own earlier statements, Hitler did not understand evolution. Evolution involves natural selection for a non-teleological end. Hitler used artificial selection for a teleological end. The Social Darwinist/Eugenicist is someone who does not trust evolution to produce the kind of world the Social Darwinist/Eugenicist wants and so decides to try and take over for evolution.

Is the perversion of something the fault of the thing which is perverted, or is it the fault of the perverter? If the former, then Christianity is responsible for the long list of atrocities I posted above, and many more. If the latter, then Darwinism is not responsible for Hitler. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

In fact, much of Hitler's perversion of Christianity can be traced back directly to Martin Luther's antisemitism. Reading Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" is like reading the blueprints for Kristalnacht. (especially the part where he advocates burning down all synagogues)

"Your positions appear to me to be more like "Deism" than Christianity. But that's just my opinion..."

I believe that God exists outside time so I'm not sure if the question of whether He is "still" actively intervening or set it all in motion "at the beginning" even makes any sense. My position is that supernatural influence probably cannot be detected naturalistically, which is the only way science can detect things. If God caused mutations and natural selection to produce humans I have no idea how you could test for that, but if you can think of any way let me know.

"In the book I am currently reading, Cornelius G. Hunter states, "Darwinists and even many Christians hold on to the assumption that "creation is an end unto itself and a thing that God would certainly strive to make perfect if it were possible.""

There go those athiestic non-teleological Darwinists being teleological and believing in God again, silly athiestic non-teleological Darwinists!

"Evolution's overconfidence is now being challenged by many Christians. Those, like me, are willing to look at the entire picture and desire scientific, philosophical and theological responses to the claims of evolution. Admittedly, I'm still learning. But what I have already learned about it is its many failures in all three of these areas. I will endure the criticism and mocking by visitors here who "think they know better" than God's Word. Know why? Because they don't! They don't know any better!"

Actually, evolution is challenged by some Christians on theological grounds because they find it threatening to their particular brand of theology. However, they have found that a theological challenge by itself is insufficient, so they are trying to claim the authority of science in support of their theological beliefs. The problem is that they have failed to do the heavy lifting required to establish their claims as science. Thousands of articles are published in dozens of journals every year testing and refining scientific ideas on evolution. In response to this, creation/ID advocates have... press releases, and one article by Meyer published in a journal which does not normally deal with evolution, whose editor happened to be a creationist, and which relies entirely on negative arguments. Since creationists/IDers are unwilling to do the work necessary to establish scientific support for their ideas, and would likely be unwilling to accept the results when it fails to pan out, they are trying to bypass the normal process by using political and public relations strategies to inject their views directly into science classrooms and cloak them with an air of authority they have not earned. From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design to Teach The Controversy to Critical Analysis Of Evolution, the pattern is always the same. Only the name changes.

"About Behe. Isn't he a theistic evolutionist? Because he still supports Darwinism, (despite his own research pointing towards evidence of Intelligent Design regarding the irreducible complexity of the cell), it's no surprise that he would "distance himself" from the negative social implications that history has shown to have arisen in the light of (or, should we say dark of ) certain aspects of a theory that he, like you, chooses to believe in. No surprise there!"

It doesn't look good for Kennedy's enterprise that even the "mainstream" part of the fringe is distancing itself from him.

Phronk said...

Angel turned into a bad soap opera after the second season

I have a strong intellectual objection to this proclamation. Angel's increasing focus on continuing storylines in seasons 3 and 4 only served to enhance the show. I would say that season 3 was its high point; upon rewatching season 4, it was somewhat cheesy and soap opera-ish, but still enjoyable. Season 5 was a departure from all previous seasons, but also highly entertaining. I have scientifically proven this by watching each season and observing my emotion reaction to each.

In conclusion, your assertion that Angel got worse after season 2 is demonstrably false. This is not opinion, but fact.

Steven Carr said...

Hitler, of course, believed that mankind was specially created.

Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'


And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler also wrote 'Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'


I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

Boo said...

"In conclusion, your assertion that Angel got worse after season 2 is demonstrably false. This is not opinion, but fact."

Wesley kept a woman chained up in a closet. Everyone hated everyone else. Everything turned out to be the fault of worm-face lady. Case closed.

Phronk said...

Wesley kept a woman chained up in a closet. Everyone hated everyone else. Everything turned out to be the fault of worm-face lady. Case closed.

Yeah, case closed. It was AWESOME. Wesley's going badass was great - and, apparently, he became hot when he stopped shaving. Everything being wormface's fault was a deep exploration of the nature of free will, coincidence, and predestination.

Personally, I also enjoyed the vaguely atheistic undertones inherent in the condemnation of Jasmin's world takeover.

Buffy was a better show overall though.

What do you think Christine? A Christian perspective on this perplexing issue would be invaluable.

Boo said...

I AM a Christian, Phronk!!

The fundies don't run everything yet.

Boo said...

Wesley was annoying, Conner was more annoying, the whole Beast thing was pointless, letting Angelus out was just a way to get Faith over to Buffy, Fred and Gunn were symptomatic of Joss Whedon's inability to write a romance that actually works (because it always has to be about PAAAIIINNN!!!) and Lorne just sat around being useless.

But I don't blame Joss Whedon. Like I said, none of this had happened before Coral Ridge Ministries came along.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Steven,

Thanks for your input. You put forth a good argument. However, isn't it true that although Hitler may not have wanted to believe in the "molecule to man" theory of evolution, that he did, in fact, find it advantageous to use Darwin's "survival of the fittest" portion of the theory to promote his evil intentions?

Although he may have thought (and labeled) himself a creationist (or even a "Christian"), he certainly didn't follow the tenets of Biblical Christianity.

Apparently, Hitler made a sport of hating and dividing different kinds of people. The Jewish people suffered the most deaths from the Holocaust, but there were also many Christians (Polish) and homosexuals killed back then.

I'm probably going to get blasted for saying this, but didn't Hitler put to death the "effeminate" homosexuals because he thought that the "macho" homosexuals were superior in some way?

I heard many strange, ugly and disgusting things about Hitler's sexual proclivities when studying about him in college (it was a liberal college BTW). Ugh! I don't even want to list what the professor told us! Of course, this extra information was not written in the textbooks. But I think that the professor took some sort of perverted glee in seeing the horrified, sickened looks on the faces of the women in the class.

Hitler was bisexual; a closeted "macho" homosexual who, at the same time, also seemed to have his own kind of special hatred towards women. This might explain his hatred toward "effeminate" homosexuals, as well.

Phronk,

I do not watch the TV show "Angel" so I can't comment about any of the episodes. Did you want my opinion about "Wesley going badass"?:

You stated: " Yeah, case closed. It was AWESOME. Wesley's going badass was great - and, apparently, he became hot when he stopped shaving. Everything being wormface's fault was a deep exploration of the nature of free will, coincidence, and predestination."

Are you asking me about the main character going from a good angel to a demon? If you could give me more information (or a link to a synopsis of the episode) it might help.

Christinewjc said...

So. The show, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" is on tonight and tomorrow (August 26th & 27th) night. Anyone here willing to take me up on my challenge to watch it, then discuss it here at this blog on Monday?

Steven Carr said...

From Mein Kampf - Volume 2 Mein Kampf

"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."

"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."

Still Christians like Lee Strobel lend their names to TV programmes trying to show that Hitler believed Darwin's theory that man descended from creature that were not Homo sapiens

Steven Carr said...

Can you find one place where Hitler said Darwin was right?

Hitler's ideas were no more based on evolution than the idea that throughbred horses are superior to non-thorough bred horses.

Hitler was also not bisexual , nor a vegetarian , for that matter.

Juan Buhler said...

Anyone here willing to take me up on my challenge to watch it, then discuss it here at this blog on Monday?

I don't have television (I waste too much time as it is.) But if I find it on Youtube or Google video I'll watch it.

Juan Buhler said...

Although he may have thought (and labeled) himself a creationist (or even a "Christian"), he certainly didn't follow the tenets of Biblical Christianity.

Well, I bet *you* would say the same thing about the Pope, no Christine?

Steven Carr said...

Hitler's ideas were based far more on the idea of the fall of man from a purer state.

Guess which race he thought had fallen the most?

Boo said...

"However, isn't it true that although Hitler may not have wanted to believe in the "molecule to man" theory of evolution, that he did, in fact, find it advantageous to use Darwin's "survival of the fittest" portion of the theory to promote his evil intentions?"

You mean just like he used Christianity and socialism and capitalism and nationalism and anticommunism and parades (parades are evil!) and the kitchen sink to promote his evil intentions?

"Hitler was bisexual; a closeted "macho" homosexual who, at the same time, also seemed to have his own kind of special hatred towards women. This might explain his hatred toward "effeminate" homosexuals, as well."

If Hitler was bisexual then he was by definition not homosexual. The "evidence" for Hitler's homosexuality comes largely from the claims of one of his former WWI comrades who claimed to have seen him bedded down with a man while their unit was billeted in a barn once during the war:

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=80&story_id=1367&name=Was+Hitler+homosexual%3F

This account came from a guy who was at the time making money trading on his Hitler recollections and who told different stories to different audiences. The rest of the case is very weak circumstancial evidence- Hitler surrounded himself with men in his public life. If that's evidence of homosexality, then almost every businessman in the world is gay. Hitler thought women were weak. Ok, so every sexist man is now gay. Hitler indulged in bizarre sexual practices with his niece. So bizarre heterosexual activities now makes you gay. Hitler had associates who were gay early in his quest to gain power. This might provide a glimmer of evidence until you consider him as a whole. Hitler only cared about getting power. He used anything and everything available to that end. He used Christianity, as has already been documented. He overlooked the homosexuality of many of his SA associates because they were politically useful to him. As soon as they became a liability, he used their homosexuality as an excuse to murder them.

"Although he may have thought (and labeled) himself a creationist (or even a "Christian"), he certainly didn't follow the tenets of Biblical Christianity."

Although he may have thought himself an evolutionist (or even a "Darwinist"), he certainly didn't understand the tenets of Darwinism or evolution.

Never mind, one standard for you, another for everyone else.

Juan Buhler said...

Juan,
You say that I "don't have a point." What leads you to such a conclusion?


Just for the record, I am not ignoring this. I think the others, Boo especially, answered this question far more eloquently than I could.

But Christine, I am wondering: will you recognize that you were wrong? Or will it be yet another thread that you drop, seemingly tired of having your arguments refuted to death, only to bring them back later, over and over again?

Boo said...

And here's another oopsy, Christine: you have gone on record saying you accept the fact of microevolution. Microevolution is change within a species. Hitler was trying to "improve" (i.e. change) the human species. Therefore, Hitler was attempting to practice artificial microevolution, which you have already said you accept the existence of. Whoops.

Christinewjc said...

Juan and Boo,

Why would I have to admit that I was wrong? The show hasn't even aired yet!!

Besides, this recent press release shows that all the negative "hype" stirred up by Collins and Foxman were, in reality, totally unnecessary.

Lapin's article is really good too. My negative surprise and disbelief at the questionable comments made by the ADL became more clear after I read Lapin's piece.

Here's a great line:

"It now turns out that the ADL represents yet a third category of Jews: those passionately dedicated to defending Darwin. Once again, like a friendly and frolicsome puppy with a large, bushy tail that constantly knocks down expensive vases, the ADL, though filled with good intent, is utterly, completely clueless. Not only is it misrepresenting Judaism, but it may well be shattering the priceless vase of Jewish survival."

So, Boo...are you going to watch the show on TV?

Christinewjc said...

Juan,

I think that the pope follows more of the specific, Biblical tenets than even some Protestant denominations do!

True Christian belief is not within any specific denomination. I know of several born-again, Catholic Christians. I've seen a visiting priest present the Gospel invitation in a Catholic church! The reasons for staying in a church that mixes tradition with Biblical truth can vary, however, one reason is to evangelize within the denomination.

I have attended many women's Bible studies where people from all different denominations come to study a portion of the Bible together. We have even had Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, and two years ago a Muslim woman attended! This is what genuine evangelism is all about. People come in with their current beliefs and through Bible study, learn the truth of God's Word without the bias of any particular denominational adherence.

Don't want to get too far off topic, but I felt the need to explain that a bit.

Christinewjc said...

Coral Ridge Ministries responds too.

This portion is particularly telling:

But evolution was not incidental to Hitler’s thought. It was a “central aspect of his worldview,” according to Weikart, a leading scholar on the Darwin-Hitler nexus. “It drove pretty much everything that he did. It was not just a peripheral part of his ideology.”

The argument for evolution’s impact on Hitler is strengthened by the fact that Darwinian thought heavily influenced Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hitler was hardly alone in his racist ideas fueled by Darwin and his intellectual progeny, who include Ernst Haeckel and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics which was a critical component of the Nazi killing machine. Hitler, according to Weikart, “was drawing on what many other scholars, biologists, and geneticists in Germany were preaching and teaching in the early twentieth century.”

Christinewjc said...

Oops! Correction. Depending on where you are from will determine at what time the broadcast will be aired in your area. In some cases, it will be broadcast in the morning.

Check for broadcasting times here.

Steven Carr said...

Actually, Hitler was more into trying to design human beings.

Steven Carr said...

Coral Ridge Ministries still cannot find one word by Hitler saying that human beings evolved, or that Darwin was right.

Meanwhile, I can find tons of stuff by Hitler saying he believed in Creation - for example on 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Steven Carr said...

Coral Ridge Ministries quoted Sir Arthur Keith's work 'Evolution and Ethics'

Curiously they did not post the following from 'Evolution and Ethics'


'"It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation.

God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it."

And, of course, Hitler denied that human beings had evolved from other creatures.

Juan Buhler said...

Why would I have to admit that I was wrong? The show hasn't even aired yet!!

You are wrong because Social Darwinism is not equal to Darwinism. As Boo said, it is almost the contrary.

Where in Hitler's procedures was the idea of natural selection? The whole connection doesn't make sense.

You post a quote by Richard Weikart, a "leading scholar on the Darwin-Hitler nexus." Weikart was funded by the Discovery Institute to write his book. From his own CV:

Research Fellowships from the Center for Science and Culture, 2000-2001, 1998-99, 1997; partial funding for a sabbatical and released time, plus funding for three trips to archives in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Poland.

(whole CV in his page, here.)

The Center for Science and culture is part of the Discovery Institute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture

So Christine, the inventors of ID fund some guy to write a book trying to discredit evolution, then someone makes a tv special about it, and use the author of the original book to defend it from criticism, while trying to make him appear as an independent observer. Doesn't it seem fishy to you? Wouldn't you expect to see some really independent party being interviewed in a way that is not disingenuous?

Really, Christine, open your eyes please. You are willingly acting as a tool for these people. This isn't about God, it is about basic logic, common sense, and intellectual honesty.

Steven Carr said...

Hitler used creationist arguments that creationists adore.

From 'Mein Kampf' Volume 1 Chapter 11

'The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.'

Boo said...

"The argument for evolution’s impact on Hitler is strengthened by the fact that Darwinian thought heavily influenced Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hitler was hardly alone in his racist ideas fueled by Darwin and his intellectual progeny, who include Ernst Haeckel and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics which was a critical component of the Nazi killing machine. Hitler, according to Weikart, “was drawing on what many other scholars, biologists, and geneticists in Germany were preaching and teaching in the early twentieth century.”"

Two problems with this argument:

1- Haeckel and Galton rejected natural selection. Eugenics is in fact the exact opposite of natural selection. Therefore, to hold Darwim responsible for the way they perverted his ideas is to say that the perversion of an idea is the fault of the idea, not the perverter. Under this principle, Christianity is to blame for every bad thing that anyone has ever done and attempted to justify by invoking Christianity. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the person invoking Christianity is right to do so, does not understand Christianity, or is not a true Christian, as Galton and Haeckel misapplied darwinism yet darwinism is, according to Christine and Coral Ridge Ministries, still to be held responsible for them. So Christine, I will ask you yet again: is Christianity responsible for all the bad things wrongly done in its name, or is Darwin not responsible for Hitler? It has to be one or the other.

Secondly, you hold that microevolution is a real process, which is change within a species. Hitler was trying to achieve change within the human species. If Darwin was correct about microevolution as you claim, why is he to blame merely for describing a real process? Are physicists to blame for creating the theories that led to human flight and allowed Hitler to create the Luftwaffe?

Boo said...

"It now turns out that the ADL represents yet a third category of Jews: those passionately dedicated to defending Darwin. Once again, like a friendly and frolicsome puppy with a large, bushy tail that constantly knocks down expensive vases, the ADL, though filled with good intent, is utterly, completely clueless. Not only is it misrepresenting Judaism, but it may well be shattering the priceless vase of Jewish survival."

Because, as everyone knows, Jewish survival depends on fundamentalist Christians slandering Darwin. If Darwin is not slandered, the Jews shall surely perish from this earth. Someone's being a lapdog alright, but I don't think it's the ADL.

Christinewjc said...

Hey Boo & others,

You may like this article: Cardinal Schönborn Proposes Evolution Debate; Calls for More Science, Less Ideology.

Then again, maybe you won't like it.

However, it does make a distinction between "the theory of evolution," and "evolutionism."

I haven't heard that term before. "Evolutionism." Is it considered the same as "Darwinism"? Hmmm...have to do more research.

This part was good and could be considered related to the subject here:

In fact, he added, there is "no conflict between science and religion," but, rather, a debate "between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation."

Cardinal Schönborn, who sparked a worldwide debate in 2005 with an article in the New York Times on the subject, called for clarification of the difference between the "theory of evolution" and "evolutionism," the latter understood as an ideology, based on scientific theory.

By way of example, the cardinal mentioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who saw in the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species," "the scientific foundation for their Marxist materialist theory. This is evolutionism, not theory of evolution."

The archbishop of Vienna warned against the application of this evolutionist ideology in fields such as economic neo-liberalism, or bioethical issues, where there is the risk of creating new eugenic theories.


Found this part interesting too:

"What I desire intensely is that, also in school programs, questions be explained, at the scientific level, opened by the theory of evolution, such as the famous question of the missing rings," Cardinal Schönborn said.

The cardinal said that 150 years after Darwin's theory, "there is no evidence in the geological strata of intermediate species that should exist, according to Darwin's theory."

He continued: "He himself said in his book that this is a hole in his theory and asked that they be found.

"This should be discussed in a serene manner. If a theory is scientific and not ideological, then it can be discussed freely."


That's certainly a thoughtful, intelligent position to hold! Although, when faced with foaming-at-the-mouth Darwinists, it might end up only being some wishful thinking on the Cardinal's part!

Cardinal Schönborn, don't hold your breath on that goal!

Christinewjc said...

Oh boy...

Oh Boo...

talk about taking a man's (Lapin's)comments out of context!

Shame on you!

Apparently, anything goes in your mind when attempting to try and prove a dead-horse point...

tsk tsk tsk!

Christinewjc said...

Juan,

What seems "fishy" to me is you spouting off about a show that hasn't been broadcast yet! You're making accusations without having even seen it first!

Jody said...

Christine, thanks for stopping by my site. Sorry you got that white page when you posted your comment. That was a server error (out of disk space) that has since been fixed.

Your comment is there in all its glory.

As a matter of fact, I thought your thoughts deserved a top level response. So stop back on over and take a look.

Boo said...

"Apparently, anything goes in your mind when attempting to try and prove a dead-horse point..."

Lapin's comments only make sense if he sees fundamentalist Christians as "the priceless vase of Jewish survival." One might concede that he doesn't recognize Coral Ridge Ministries' false witness as slander, but that only means he didn't bother to educate himself, but just let himself be trotted out as The Jewish Token. And that is quite lapdoggish.

"In fact, he added, there is "no conflict between science and religion," but, rather, a debate "between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation.""

And here is the part you consistently fail to understand, Christine: this conflict IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE. Whatever philosophical interpretations anyone wants to draw out of science are philosophy, not science. And that is why this debate has no place in science classrooms. Who on earth are these "foaming at the mouth Darwinists" you keep going on about who are trying to push some kind of athiestic materialist philosophy on schoolchildren through science classes? Name some names.

"What seems "fishy" to me is you spouting off about a show that hasn't been broadcast yet! You're making accusations without having even seen it first!"

No, we are responding to the comments you and Kennedy have already made about the show. I don't have to wait for the show to know that Kennedy blames "Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed 'inferior,' the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness" on evolution, because he's already said it.

And if I keep beating a dead horse, it's because you keep dodging my question. So here it is yet again one more time: Is Christianity responsible for the actions of evil people who try to justify their evil actions by appealing to Christianity? Yes or no? It's a simple question and one that I have asked many times. You have never answered me.

Christinewjc said...

Boo's question: "Is Christianity responsible for the actions of evil people who try to justify their evil actions by appealing to Christianity?"

The evil people are responsible for their own evil actions.

The fact that a person could use Christianity (or, more likely is a "false convert" like the BTK killer...forgot his name)as an excuse (or hide behind a fake mask) to do evil actions, doesn't mean that Christianity itself, is at fault.

It is the misinterpretations of Christianity that lead to such heresy, apostasy, and evil actions (e.g. David Koresh).

Christianity itself is often misunderstood by those who claim that it is the religion, per se, that is at fault for their evil actions (think about the woman who drown her 3 children).

In the case of Darwinism, Social Darwinism is an outgrowth as a result of adhering to the philosophical tenets of the theory; and what it means to, and for, humanity.

The application that you try to make regarding Christianity vs. Darwinistic thinking is like comparing apples and oranges. However, I doubt that you will agree with me.

Boo said...

"In the case of Darwinism, Social Darwinism is an outgrowth as a result of adhering to the philosophical tenets of the theory; and what it means to, and for, humanity."

No, it is not. The theory is science, not philosophy. It describes, it does not proscribe. That's the point that keeps going over your head, even though you've contradicted yourself on this over and over again. First you complain that evolution is not teleological, then you complain that it is, then it's not, then it is.

"It is the misinterpretations of Christianity that lead to such heresy, apostasy, and evil actions (e.g. David Koresh)."

And it is the misinterpretation of evolution that lead to eugenics and Social Darwinism. Ironically, it's the same misinterpretation you keep making, that of trying to make evolution teleological. Evolution describes, eugenics proscribes. They are not the same anymore than the descriptions of prophecy in Revelations are the same as Koresh's insistence that he would be the one to fulfill them his way. That some people find comfort for their athiestic views from their interpretation of evolution is no more relevant to the theory itself than the fact that some people find comfort for their racist beliefs from their interpretation of Bible passages about Ham being cursed or everything going after its own kind is relevant to the Bible itself. It makes as much sense as blaming the theory of gravity for someone's choice to push someone else out a window. If you didn't know about gravity, you wouldn't know you could kill someone by pushing them out a window. Therefore Newton and Einstein are to blame for everyone who's ever died by falling.

The idea that life is meaningless or there is no God or that humans are nothing but blobs of cells is an interpretation people such as yourself place on evolution, it is not part of evolution. Evolution does not, cannot, address meaning. Chemistry doesn't ask you how you feel about the Periodic Table, physics doesn't tell you whether or not to make atom bombs. Science cannot tell you what you ought to do with it, because as C.S. Lewis reminds us, ought does not come from is.

Hitler's teleological beliefs about what the human race ought to be led him to attempt artificial selection to create a race to his liking. One can blame this on evolution only by ignoring the fact that Hitler imposed teleology, which evolution has no interest in, and attempted artificial selection, whereas evolution employs natural selection. Furthermore, if he had succeeded, it would not necessarily have meant the race he produced would have been well adapted to survive, it only would have meant the race was more to his personal liking. Very likely, the lack of genetic diversity in all those blond, blue-eyed Aryans would have ended up being problematic somewhere down the line.

"The application that you try to make regarding Christianity vs. Darwinistic thinking is like comparing apples and oranges. However, I doubt that you will agree with me."

I do agree with you, at least when you're not contradicting yourself about this. Christianity tells us what humanity ought to be like and gives us meaning. Darwinism does not do either of those. Apples and oranges indeed.

limpy99 said...

Wow, I disappear for a weekend or so and all heck breaks loose. Hitler was gay? Hilter was a vegetarian? Hitler was a Creationist? A Darwinist? A Social Darwinist? Angel sucked after season 3?

I don't know where to begin, so I'm not even going to try. As usal, Boo has made most of my arguments and done so more eloquently than I do. I'm going to have to start paying her.

Christine did ask a couple of uestions of me and I will answer them, as fair is fair. I'm not going to watch the show for two reasons. One is that I suspect that it is just another attack on evolution from fundamentalist religious organizations fronting as "science", and I'm not interested in seeing that. Still, I would take you up on your challenge anyway, but "Deadwood" has its season finale on at about the same time, and I'm not going to miss it for this show.

You are correct, I am no longer Catholic. It did not occur at my leftist college, however, but probably in my mid-teens while I was in Catholic hig school, after several years of Catholic grade school. It may have been because of the uniforms, it was more likely becuase I fail to see the need for a strangely dressed hierarchy between me and God. While religion fascinates me as a motivating factor, for good and ill, throughout history, my personal opinion is that if there is a god, we probably willnever understand exactly what that god is, at least at our current level. I certainly hope that if there is one, he/she/it has better things to do than go around disparaging homosexuals and deciding which football player gets to thank his personal lord and savior at the end of the big game.

Christine, no one has ever heard an informative comment on the Sean Hannity show. Ever. If Islamo-fascists ever did take over the US, I suspect that the first thing they'd do is eliminate female Christians who feel strongly about their beliefs. And perhaps whoever was responsible for the 4th season of Angel. And if that happened I'd defend the first group, but probably not the second.

Lest you think I never follow your suggestions, I did go out and buy Larson's "Summer for the Gods", after you had referenced it in one of your earlier entries. I'm only three chapters in, but it is interesting to note that the point you, and others, keep bringing up, namely that Darwin's theory drags our hmanity down and makes humans more likely to do horrible things to each other, is hardly a new one. The book itself seems promising. I recommend it.

Just not during Deadwood.

limpy99 said...

I checked your TV listings link. Connecticut apparently isn't putting this show on the air.


They are showing reruns of Angel.

Christinewjc said...

Boo stated: "Christianity tells us what humanity ought to be like and gives us meaning. Darwinism does not do either of those."

I think that Darwinism has often been used to inspire depraved minds. It has also, obviously, been used as an excuse to dismiss what God reveals in His Word as to what humanity ought to be like.

Boo said...

"I think that Darwinism has often been used to inspire depraved minds. It has also, obviously, been used as an excuse to dismiss what God reveals in His Word as to what humanity ought to be like."

As Christianity has been used to support slavery, genocide, segregation, mass suicide, witch burning, etc. etc. etc. People can twist just about anything to justify evil if they try hard enough. People are inventive. Natural selection, mutation, gene transfer and all that have no moral implications, no more than electricity. Since evolution describes solely natural processes it cannot by nature say one way or the other if humans are more or not more than animals or matter or whatever.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Limpy99,

I bet you are saddened that the program is not being broadcast in Conn. (yeah right...!)I checked the radio listings and it was broadcast from Bridgeport on Aug. 25th. Darn...ya missed it!

Regarding your leaving Catholicism, you said, "It may have been because of the uniforms, it was more likely becuase I fail to see the need for a strangely dressed hierarchy between me and God."

Then try Biblical Christianity! The only Mediator between God and man in the Bible is Jesus Christ. Have you read the Bible? I'd suggest starting with the book of John. It is the book that reveals the love of Christ and what he did for our salvation at the cross.

I'm a former Catholic, myself. I'm grateful to my mother for raising me in the faith. But, in a similar manner as you, I found it a bit wanting. Personal Bible study answered those pressing questions that were not always answered during my Catholic Mass-attending days. If you are interested, you can read a summary about my transformation in this post. [Since it's archived, you might have to scroll down to "My Journey to Christ."]

You said, "Lest you think I never follow your suggestions, I did go out and buy Larson's "Summer for the Gods", after you had referenced it in one of your earlier entries."

Are you sure it was me that recommended that book to you? I think maybe it was someone else? Sounds interesting...though.

You said, "While religion fascinates me as a motivating factor, for good and ill, throughout history, my personal opinion is that if there is a god, we probably willnever understand exactly what that god is, at least at our current level."

Of course we can't know everything about God. If we could, then we would be "as Gods" [Satan's temptation to Adam and Eve to disobey God]. But the Bible gives us enough to know in order to be reconciled back to God. Through His written Word, as well as His Living Word, (His Son, Jesus Christ), we learn all that we need to know this side of heaven. At least that has been my personal experience.

We are called to share the gospel with the unsaved. God has appointed imperfect, sinful, but forgiven believers to participate in the Great Commission. You may think that what is brought up in order to encourage people to turn from their sin and repent as "trivial." Well, it's not. It is what turns our hearts of enmity towards God into born-again, lovers of the the Savior, Jesus Christ. When the Holy Spirit indwells the heart of a believer, we are forever His and NOTHING can separate us from the mercy, grace, love and power of Christ Jesus, our Lord. For the Christian, there is no greater goal than to point others towards the saving grace of Christ. Sometimes, we may do it sloppily...been there...done that! But it is only our job to share the gospel. The Holy Spirit knocks on the door of heart of the unsaved; and it is His job to ultimately do the work of salvation on the individual.

This may all sound a bit "foreign" to you, and that is understandable. However, if you read and study the book of John, what I have shared might become much more clear.

Are you willing to pray to God anymore? Would you ask His help to open your eyes to the truth? Sincerity makes all the difference in the world.

Steven Carr said...

'The documentary was done to "show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history," according to Wikipedia'

Isn't 'the dustbin of history' a phrase first made famous by Leon Trotsky?

There you have it. Conclusive proof that the makers of the shows are Trotskyites.

As conclusive as the evidence the makers of the shows put forward themselves at any rate :-)

I see Christine has pretty much given up on trying to find anything Hitler ever said or wrote which mentions Darwin or any belief that mankind evolved from other animals.

Christinewjc said...

Watching "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" right now! I'm recording it too!

Juan Buhler said...

I think that Darwinism has often been used to inspire depraved minds. It has also, obviously, been used as an excuse to dismiss what God reveals in His Word as to what humanity ought to be like.

I think that all evolution does is to contradict the creation myth that you believe.

I believe this is your main problem with it, and that's why you attack it. This makes me think that you are being disingenuous. Really, Christine, your arguments seem to me to be the less honest ones in this thread. You are the only one who is not open to change her opinions.

You already stated in another thread that logic and reality are not going to change your mind. You must be terrified inside, to say such a thing.

Why would it be so terrible if evolution really described the way life works?

Christinewjc said...

It was a great show! Highly informative! But I will have to write about it later. Going outside on this beautiful, gorgeous day in God's wonderfully made Creation!

:-)

Steven Carr said...

It is one year since God's wonderfully made Hurricae Katrina.

I am reminded of the words of the Psalm

Psalm 89

8 O LORD God Almighty, who is like you?
You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you.

9 You rule over the surging sea;
when its waves mount up, you still them.

Those words are as true today as when they were written.

limpy99 said...

Jeez, Christine, don't you read your own entries? You referenced "Summer for the Gods" as the basis for an argument that the ACLU and others "conspired" to set-up the Scopes trial. It's in your archives.

The book itself is very interesting. I recommend reading it.

Biblical Christianity doesn't interest me, at least not to follow it. I can't explain myself much better than to say that spiritually I'm quite happy where I am. You find that same sort of fulfillment in the Bible, and that's great. Where we differ, I think, is how our own beliefs affect how we react to others.

And apparently our choices in TV. Deadwood was great.

GMpilot said...

Again, I exercise my duty (and my pleasure) to disagree:
------------------------------------
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Aug 27, 2006

JOHN BRUMMETT: Christians who'd make Taliban proud

The Holocaust wasn't Hitler's fault. Darwin made him do it. Complicit as well are any who buy into the scientific theory that modern man evolved from lower animal forms.

That's the latest lunacy from one of our more fanatical right-wing American Christian television outfits, the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Coral Ridge espouses that America is not a free-religion nation, but a Christian one. It argues there should be no separation of church and state.

Thus, it's America's Taliban, America's Shiite theocracy.

It certainly has a propensity for explaining or excusing Hitler. A few years ago it brought in a conference speaker to argue that American abortion was a more horrible atrocity than the Holocaust.

One year it disinvited Cal Thomas as a conference speaker after Brother Cal got too liberal. You're thinking I must be kidding. But I kid you not. Brother Cal had displayed the utter audacity to co-author a book contending that American Christian conservatives ought to worry a little more about spreading the gospel from the bottom of the culture up rather than from the top of politics down.

Now this: Coral Ridge is airing a couple of cable installments of a "documentary," called "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," that seek to make a case that, without Darwin, there could have been no Hitler.

Authoritative sources for the program include no less than columnist Ann Coulter, noted scientist, who says she is outraged that she didn't get instructed in Darwin's effective creation of Hitler when she was in school. She says she has since come to understand that Hitler was merely a Darwinist trying, by extermination of a group of people he considered inferior because of their religion and heritage, to "hurry along" the natural survival of the Aryan fittest.

Also quoted is Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project, who tells the Anti-Defamation League that his comments were used out of context and that he is "absolutely appalled" by the "utterly misguided and inflammatory" premise of Coral Ridge's report.

The documentary's theme is really quite simple: Darwin propounded the theory of evolution. Hitler came along and believed the theory. Hitler killed Jews. So, blame Darwin for the Holocaust. Blame, too, all others who agree with or advance Darwin's theory. Get back to God and Adam and Eve and all will be right again.

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries. "The legacy of Charles Darwin is millions of deaths."

Obviously, the theme is breathtaking nonsense. You can't equate academic theory with murderous practice. You can't equate a thinker and a madman, or science and crime.

And you can't ever blame one man for another's actions. That once was a proud conservative precept. In a different context, you'll no doubt find Coral Ridge fervently preaching personal responsibility. Except, apparently, for Hitler, to whom these religious kooks issue a pass. Ol' Adolf, it seems, just fell in with a bad crowd.

By Coral Ridge's premise, Mohammad is to blame for Osama bin Laden. Actually, Coral Ridge might not argue with that. So how about this: The pope is to blame for the IRA. And Jesus is to blame for Mel Gibson, not to mention Coral Ridge Ministries.

John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@ arkansasnews.com.
-------------------------------------
Just for the record, Christine, I watched this so-called documentary, too. If this is such a social cancer, why wasn't it broadcast on A&E or PBS, rather than TBN? I mean, it's not as though Coral Ridge Ministries hasn't got the cash and/or influence to get it there. Heck, even the cheerleaders at FOX should be glad to run it.

Nope: having had ID's head handed to them in Dover last year, God's Gestapo has stepped up the tempo to overthrow evolution by popular fiat.
Since they can no longer worm their way in academically, they now treat Darwinism as the origin for much that's evil in the world.

This is rather like legislative attempts in the 19th century to declare that pi=3, not 3.1415926+. That didn't work then, and this won't work either.

Ubersehen said...

This is why I believe that, unless definitive social and political action is taken on the part of more left-leaning individuals in North America, that the religious right will overrun the continent.

I suspect that the majority of individuals that watch this program that hold anything resembling D. James Kennedy's religious views will walk away from this program thinking "Wow, I had no idea that evolution was so evil!". They'll tell their friends about it, maybe even lend them the VHS recording they made of it. All this because nobody is critically examining the information they're being given. Don't believe everything you see on TV, indeed. And when the problems are pointed out, no matter how clearly, they are unwilling to cut down one of their own to strengthen the argument. This has the effect of decreasing the overall intellectual integrity of the argument, but of also increasing the overall numbers of individuals that buy into it. It's sort of like bringing Wal Mart into a small town. It gradually puts all the diverse higher quality competitors out of business and gets them hooked on progressively cheaper crap until the community is left not only with nothing but cheap garbage for selection, but also with no alternatives. After all, since there's nowhere else to shop, if Wal Mart were shut down, the community would be completely screwed. Except that they're already screwed. By the same token, devotees of this set of ideas will find themselves subscribing to cheaper and cheaper arguments that are lacking more and more in factual integrity until they must agree with the most glaring and harmful of inconsistencies or throw away everything they've been tricked to stand for.

I think it's time to be conscious, and maybe a little afraid, of those who refuse to be critical of glaringly false information because they feel that they would be disagreeing with their overall cause. They're going to be making a lot more decisions for you and me in the near future.

Christinewjc said...

Here's one article expressing a different view than GMpilot's article:

Deadly Mixture: Darwin and Hitler

Boo said...

"I think it's time to be conscious, and maybe a little afraid, of those who refuse to be critical of glaringly false information because they feel that they would be disagreeing with their overall cause. They're going to be making a lot more decisions for you and me in the near future."

Come November Americans will have a third, and possibly final, chance to say to to being ruled by fear. We'll just have to see what happens.

Boo said...

say to to=say no to ;-)

Boo said...

"Here's one article expressing a different view than GMpilot's article"

Actually, it seems to be pretty much the same view as GMpilot's article. What someone wants to do with science is the responsibility of the someone, not the science:

"As we all know, or should know, anything that man invents-develops-makes has polar uses, good and evil. Many times, as proven by mankind’s history, man’s intentions for behavior, actions and inventions are for good, but other mens’ intentions may use an invention and carry it out to evil ends.

It is just so with all ideas, philosophies and religions. But the core of all of those is man himself. So what makes man so vulnerable and gullible to do great good and gross evil? Natural selection cannot explain it nor can the genes."

If we want to blame someone for Hitler let's start with Hitler. And then let's end with Hitler. And inbetweem let's have all-Hitler.

Ubersehen said...

Christine,

You said: "Here's one article expressing a different view than GMpilot's article:

Deadly Mixture: Darwin and Hitler"


"So you would conclude Darwinists would want as many born as possible to ensure the human species will survive and improve." - from Deadly Mixture: Darwin and Hitler


But Bonnie Alba of the Conservative Voice has clearly committed the same error that you have, since what Darwinists "would want" has nothing to do with what Darwin's theory of evolution describes. As Boo has already made clear: "[the]theory is science, not philosophy. It describes, it does not proscribe.".

So, while it does present a "different view than GMpilot's article" (ie: yours), it ultimately suffers from the same flaws as your own view as well.

But let's be clear: Christine, do you believe that scientific theory is descriptive or proscriptive? If the latter, how so?

GMpilot said...

Perhaps I should remind you of a discussion we had many months ago, Christine.

It’s been pointed out by boo and others that Darwin is not to blame for Hitler. DJ Kennedy is surely being disingenuous (and so are you) to ignore Martin Luther, whom I quoted extensively to you way back in October ’04:

…Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.

Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they suck the marrow from our bones.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

(Quoted from www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html All emphases are mine.)

I went on to add:

Sounds straight from Mein Kampf, doesn’t it? But no: it’s from Luther’s book The Jews and their Lies, written by him in 1543, some 440 years before Nietzsche wrote of the Superman. “Mein Kampf” was written 40 years after that. I’m sure some German readers wished for a more muscular Christianity before 1933, but the vast majority of Germans were either Catholic or Lutheran. I’ll let you decide how many of them were “nominal”, since you seem to have the divine filter, and I do not. I do know that Luther was a much more influential figure in German society than Nietzsche was.
-------------------------------------------------------------
He was probably much more influential than Darwin was, too! The position is obvious: no Luther = no Holocaust. We may be sure that Luther didn’t believe in evolution, but he had some pretty clear ideas about who should live and who should die.
Will you—or DJ Kennedy—defend this position?

Christinewjc said...

I wanted to review the tape of the program, take some notes and then present my take on what was covered in this documentary. Since I haven't gotten around to it yet, I will just answer some of the criticisms leveled here against the show and post my own personal opinions on what I can remember from the broadcast.

1. The first point is that D.L. Kennedy must have mentioned at least 4 times that Darwin's theory itself, not the man named Darwin, led to ideas that successfully placed God out of the picture as our Creator and Sustainer and was the culprit in the deadly legacy. I specifically remember Kennedy saying, "Darwin probably could not even have imagined what the consequences of his theory might lead to..."

The premise of the show is to relate that ideas (even scientifically driven ideas) also have cultural, social, and moral consequences. Whether Darwin or any scientist in the field recognized this is not the point. The fact that ideas have consequences comes into play.

Many of you here have pointed out the fact that some people who adhere to Christianity have committed atrocities in the name of that religion. So it is too, that in the name of the secular humanist religion of Darwinism, atrocities have occurred (and history shows even more so).

2. The show did not state that only Darwinistic beliefs were at fault for the Holocaust. There were several factors involved and that was pointed out throughout the broadcast. However, when the words (including words written down and found afterwards) of Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris were revealed from the Columbine tragedy, they specifically used the words, "I love natural selection." They also verbally tormented the victims (who were known to be Christians) by screaming at them "do you believe in God?" before they killed them.

There was a combination of beliefs that caused these boys to do what they did. But there is no doubt that they used the term "natural selection," just as Hitler did in his writings. The boys did their rampage on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday. Are you going to continue to tell me that there is absolutely no connection between the ideas put forth by Darwin's beliefs and philosophy of natural selection, the boy's love of the fact that Hitler had agreement with, and misuse of, the "natural selection" ideas written in his book and followed to it's logical conclusion of the Holocaust and the crime these boys committed?

3. Pointing out what Luther had written and professed is not necessarily related to the conversation here. It might serve to make you feel better that someone's ideas (or, more specifically, misuse of ideas) other than Darwin's ideas have been responsible for atrocities. But it doesn't negate the fact that Darwin's ideas have largely affected the manifestation of some of the worst regimes (Communism, Nazism) in history. Again, Kennedy pointed out that Darwin could not have personally foreseen or known this. It wasn't his intention. But it is what happens as a result of people trying to take God out of the picture of our lives.

4. The Collins segment was not in any way related to the conversations about Hitler. In fact, at the end of the documentary, there was a written statement that claimed that Coral Ridge Ministries may not endorse all of what was said by each interviewed person. The reason for this is probably because of the fact that Collins is a theistic evolutionist whereas Kennedy and his ministry believe in Creation and ID.

5. The difference between micro and macroevolution was also covered. I thought it was interesting that although Darwin's book is titled, "The Origin of the Species," Darwinists often attempt to dismiss how life came from non-life within the theory claiming that answering such a question is not the theory of evolution's goal.

Ubersehen said, "But let's be clear: Christine, do you believe that scientific theory is descriptive or proscriptive? If the latter, how so?"

Let me ask you this. Do all ideas have consequences? If so, then why can't you and others here recognize the consequences of teaching children that God was not needed to create this world and we evolved from slime through natural causes and are not created in the image and likeness of God? We are just beings at the top of the food chain. We are born (unless the idea of a scientific medical procedure called abortion kills you in the womb), we live, eat, breathe, have sex, procreate, work, play, do evil things, do good things, create, think, write, etc. then we die and go to nothing. Is that a view of hopelessness or what? Whereas, with the soul, spirit and purpose given to us by God, all that we do in this life has consequences now and in eternity. Our decisions here will have consequences after physical death and determine where we end up in eternity.

It makes a huge difference in the way people live when their beliefs are guided by either secular humanism or the God of the Bible.

The combination of secular humanism, atheism, and Darwinism has caused the deaths of untold millions in this world. Is it the fault of only one of these ideas? No. But the combination of the three have been shown to affect the minds, hearts, souls, and spirits of individuals who are some of the most brutal and evil monsters in history.

Yes. People in history have misused religion to the detriment of mankind. But those who genuinely follow Jesus Christ throughout history (e.g. Billy Graham)have been known for their faithful service to God and man. They are not known for evil, destruction, and death. We could argue that people of this caliber are very few. But many go unnoticed and unheard of because they are in the background and out of the limelight of the news.

Well, I hope this answers some of the questions many of you have asked in this thread. I'm sure my response will probably generate even more criticism and additional questions.

Juan Buhler said...

we live, eat, breathe, have sex, procreate, work, play, do evil things, do good things, create, think, write, etc. then we die and go to nothing. Is that a view of hopelessness or what?

No, it isn't. I'm perfectly happy with death being the end of my being. Why would I feel hopeless when there isn't any reason to assume there's anything else after?

Hoplenessness implies that whatever is after is *bad*. If there isn't actually anything after, i won't be there to realize it, so it doesn't make sense to worry about it.

I guess it helps to have a happy and fullfilled life--I can see how religion would be an escape if I felt overly frustrated with things.

GMpilot said...

“The show did not state that only Darwinistic beliefs were at fault for the Holocaust. There were several factors involved and that was pointed out throughout the broadcast.”
Sure, but since the program was called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, it’s very clear that somebody thought Darwin was to blame!

”Pointing out what Luther had written and professed is not necessarily related to the conversation here.“
Of course it is! We’ve been trying to tell you all along that any idea, any concept, may be corrupted to evil use. Luther preached anti-Semitism, and it was common all over Europe in the centuries that followed; the Nazi death camps were simply the most literal manifestation of what Luther suggested.
It is true that Hitler believed in the “law of the claw”, but so have many others, and most of them have never heard of Darwin. Haven’t you ever thought it strange that someone would use the name of God to murder God’s Chosen, especially when both killers and victims worship that same God?

”I thought it was interesting that although Darwin's book is titled, "The Origin of the Species," Darwinists often attempt to dismiss how life came from non-life within the theory claiming that answering such a question is not the theory of evolution's goal.“
Obviously, you have never actually read the book. First, it’s “The Origin of Species”: there is no article “the” since it was intended to address all species, not merely humans. Second, evolution has no “goal” any more than tidal waves, sunlight, or any other force of nature; it simply is.
Just for giggles: if life can’t come from non-life, how’d your god get started, then? Or isn’t your god alive?

”We are just beings at the top of the food chain.”
Actually, it’s not a chain--it’s a loop. Worms and bacteria eat us (sometimes while we’re still alive!), and the whole thing starts over again.
”We are born (unless the idea of a scientific medical procedure called abortion kills you in the womb), we live, eat, breathe, have sex, procreate, work, play, do evil things, do good things, create, think, write, etc. then we die and go to nothing.”
I’d bet there are far more miscarriages in the world every day than abortions, but I don’t see you getting your knickers in a twist about that; you probably mark it down to God’s Will© or human carelessness, and go on your merry way.
Your list of human activities is far from complete, but it’s basically correct. However, you neglected a couple of points. Some people do all those things, and pray and worship too, and they still ‘die and go to nothing’. Such people believe in another life in another place, but there is as yet no evidence of this.

”Is that a view of hopelessness or what?”
What.
Personally, it doesn’t make me feel the least bit hopeless. But I can see where it might terrify you; you once told me that your military-age relative got a may-I-be-excused slip because he’s the only son. You must realize that, in life, as on airplanes, someone must always be the last one off.

My comfort comes from what I leave behind: insurance for my family, freedom for my countrymen, books for some of my friends, memories for all of them. If they must all eventually die, what is that to me? If they think I was worthy, they'll pass on to others that I was once here. The nation survives; the species endures. That they didn’t all perish at the same time I did is enough, and there will always be others who will seek to improve the general welfare.
Once I am dead, of course, I will cease to care about anything. But while I live, I care not one bit about the “nothing” that comes after.

”Yes. People in history have misused religion to the detriment of mankind. But those who genuinely follow Jesus Christ throughout history (e.g. Billy Graham)have been known for their faithful service to God and man. They are not known for evil, destruction, and death.”
Thomas Edison was not a Christian believer. He is known for many inventions, most notably the electric light. No one doubts his faithful service to man; he is not remembered for any evil, destructive, or deadly things. But if a light from the neighbor’s house shines into your eyes while you’re trying to sleep, you’d be a fool to blame Edison for it. If a naked bulb is held in your face so you can’t see the faces of the men who’ve tied you into a chair to “interrogate” you, you’re a fool to blame Edison for it.
You can squirm all you like, Christine, but ANY human activity is subject to misuse. You Christers cannot claim to set yourselves above this with talk of “genuinely” following Jesus. After all, Martin Luther was just as “genuine” as you.

”We could argue that people of this caliber are very few. But many go unnoticed and unheard of because they are in the background and out of the limelight of the news.”
Yeah, because “Evil is what writes history. Goodness is silent” (Goethe). We know that.

”Well, I hope this answers some of the questions many of you have asked in this thread. I'm sure my response will probably generate even more criticism and additional questions.”
It hasn’t answered any questions at all; you’ve only responded to them with claims of your own, not answered them. Maybe you’ll do better next time.

Boo said...

"The first point is that D.L. Kennedy must have mentioned at least 4 times that Darwin's theory itself, not the man named Darwin, led to ideas that successfully placed God out of the picture as our Creator and Sustainer and was the culprit in the deadly legacy. I specifically remember Kennedy saying, "Darwin probably could not even have imagined what the consequences of his theory might lead to...""

Consider the above paragraph in light of the below paragraph:

"Yes. People in history have misused religion to the detriment of mankind. But those who genuinely follow Jesus Christ throughout history (e.g. Billy Graham)have been known for their faithful service to God and man. They are not known for evil, destruction, and death. We could argue that people of this caliber are very few. But many go unnoticed and unheard of because they are in the background and out of the limelight of the news."

Do you see the connection? If Christianity is not to blame for the people who have misused Christianity, then evolution is not to blame for the people who have misunderstood evolution. This has been explained to you so many times I find it hard to see how you can write what you do honestly. Try to absorb this fact, Christine: EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION. IT IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY. IT IS A SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF FACT AND AN EXPLANATION OF A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS.

"However, when the words (including words written down and found afterwards) of Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris were revealed from the Columbine tragedy, they specifically used the words, "I love natural selection.""

Which means they misunderstood what natural selection is. Darwin is not to blame for the fact that some people misunderstand his ideas anymore than the field of math is to blame for an engineer making an error that leads to a defective car being built that kills someone.

"Many of you here have pointed out the fact that some people who adhere to Christianity have committed atrocities in the name of that religion. So it is too, that in the name of the secular humanist religion of Darwinism, atrocities have occurred (and history shows even more so)."

Darwinism is not a secular humanist religion, or any other kind of religion. At this point, I don't see how you can assert that without being willfully dishonest. Science is not religion. Darwinism/evolution has no goals in mind. It is not teleological. It doesn't tell you anything about "ought" or "should." Therefore by definition it is not a religion and referring to it as if it is, is dishonest. Please stop bearing false witness.

"Are you going to continue to tell me that there is absolutely no connection between the ideas put forth by Darwin's beliefs and philosophy of natural selection, the boy's love of the fact that Hitler had agreement with, and misuse of, the "natural selection" ideas written in his book and followed to it's logical conclusion of the Holocaust and the crime these boys committed?"

Once again, natural selection is a description of a process, it is not a philosophy. If someone makes the observation "Muslim fanatics are suicide bombing people," are you going to accuse that person of supporting suicide bombing just for making that observation? Because it's the same thing.

"But it doesn't negate the fact that Darwin's ideas have largely affected the manifestation of some of the worst regimes (Communism, Nazism) in history. Again, Kennedy pointed out that Darwin could not have personally foreseen or known this. It wasn't his intention. But it is what happens as a result of people trying to take God out of the picture of our lives."

Once again, even though this keeps going over your head: science can neither refute nor confirm God. Science does not look at God. Darwin did not take God out of our lives. Darwin is not to blame for people changing his ideas to suit their own agendas, unless Christianity is also to blame for everyone who's ever twisted it for their evil agenda. If the principle is true for Darwin, it has to be true for Christianity too, so which is it, Christine? Is Darwin exonerated or is Christianity condemned? Cause you can't have it both ways.

"I thought it was interesting that although Darwin's book is titled, "The Origin of the Species," Darwinists often attempt to dismiss how life came from non-life within the theory claiming that answering such a question is not the theory of evolution's goal."

And if you honestly considered the title in context of what the book is about, you would recognize that it refers to how species proliferate, not how life began. See, you have just twisted Darwin's words to support your own agenda, but I blame you, not Darwin.

"Let me ask you this. Do all ideas have consequences? If so, then why can't you and others here recognize the consequences of teaching children that God was not needed to create this world and we evolved from slime through natural causes and are not created in the image and likeness of God?"

Indeed ideas do have consequences. For example, the false ideas you have about evolution have certainly had consequences such as warping your views of evolution and Darwin and leading you to make several untrue accusations. This highlights the need for accurate science education about evolution free of the sort of religious biases people such as yourself seek to inject. If the actual theory of evolution was more widely understood, people would be less likely to misunderstand and pervert it. If it were understood that Darwinism does not tell people that there is no God or that life is hopeless, then perhaps Harris and Kliebold would not have gotten the false idea that it does. Blaming the idea for people not understanding the idea is illogical.