Putting the smackdown on Darwinism
posted by Matt Friedeman at
12:34 PM
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Previous Posts
- Find out what your neighbors gave to presidential ...
- Teacher teaches for 17 years without being able to...
- Did Kansas tell the upcoming McCain story?
- Muslims don't want to scrub up
- DraftHaley.com
- Ten toughest places for Christians to live
- Pickering's most memorable moment
- Fun? On Ash Wednesday?
- Another perspective on Dobson
- Suspicious of McCain
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
18 Comments:
I think it's less an attack on Darwinism (although Stein has his issues with that) than it is on the stifling of opposing viewpoints, particularly those that break with the Darwin coterie.
Darwinism CLAIMS the following:
"Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift."
This is a lie! It's garbage! So how was it all created? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! How do I know this? It says so in the The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Smack Down Darwin indeed!
There is no doubt that Darwin was racist - he promoted racism in his theory. Eugenics work came from this "scientific" view that some people groups were more evolved than others and advancement would only take place as the less evolved groups were prevented from reproducing and spoiling the gene pool. At one point, the Americans were jealous of the Germans in their aggressive sterilization practices.
no/no,
You've got to be kidding me. Your Darwinism definition doesn't address OOL, but you're going to make fun of Christianity for what reason? Just because of your hatred of Christ? He still loves you even though you bow to a created god.
Jason, you said:
"There is no doubt that Darwin was racist - he promoted racism in his theory."
Did Darwin promote slavery like your "loving" god does?:
"Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Anonymous,
From what I have read of Darwin, he was not a fan of the slavery practices he saw in his day. If his philosophy were true, he wouldn't have cared about slaves one iota.
Clearly, God also wasn't a fan of these practices since He used Christian men such as William Wilberforce and John Newton to abolish the British slave trade.
Really, Anonymous, there's no comparison between God and Darwin if that's what you were seeking. No, I guess you were trying to shake my faith and justify your hatred. God still loves you, and so do I!
Jason,
No one hates you. You said Darwin was a racist. I simply pointed out that your god is/was a racist as well based on his own words supporting the slave trade in Leviticus.
Why is it when someone playfully points out where the Bible contradicts modern Christianity it becomes "faith shaking" and "hate"?
I just don't believe that the Bible is a good guide for morality that's all.
Not only have we evolved physically, but morally as well. We are always making strides forward even if we stumble and fall at times.
Anonymous,
Get in touch with reality. There are plenty of people that hate me. And people have not evolved - the Bible shows so many times that it is just as relevant today as it was during the times of Leviticus - we are exactly the same as we were 2000 years ago.
The Bible is the ONLY guide for morality. Name any other source that gives us an absolute moral framework.
I'm not sure how you think your comment came across as playful, but again it appears our worldviews are quite different.
Jason,
I remember when I was a Fundamentalist Christian and had your worldview of paranoia. It all seems so silly now.
I'm sorry, but we have evolved to the point where we no longer feel that slavery is okay like Jehovah did in Leviticus.
The Bible is not an "absolute moral framework". Jehovah says "Thou shalt not kill" but has no problem with ordering Moses to kill people by the bushel.
Jehovah commands "Thou shalt not commit adultery" but never got onto Solomon and David for all their wives and concubines.
Jesus is called the "Prince of Peace" but said "think not that I am come to bring peace but a sword."
I can give you links to dozens of contradictions in the Bible. You won't accept any of them just like Mormons refuse to see that the Book of Mormon is fiction.
I don't mind that you have the views that you do. I'm very big on freedom of religion. But the class room is not the place to promote your "Bible based" science over proven science of evolution.
I don't come to your church and force any of the teaching of Charles Darwin on fundamentalist so don't come to the class room with your version of "science".
Utterly amazing Anonymous!
You say I have a worldview of paranoia, yet you appear to be totally paranoid that if I had my way, I would subject you to a Christian theocracy and force you and your children to be taught "Bible based" Science. Nowhere in the text above did I state that this was my intention.
I forgive your prejudice against me. We are all guilty of prejudice at times, including me.
As far as the killing issue you raise, although God in the Bible is unique in declaring that we are made in His image, I do not see a problem with a perfectly just God destroying His creation while at the same time commanding His creation to hold sacred the lives of others. We did not create life; Therefore, we do not destroy it.
We could discuss all your other doubts about the Bible, but we are straying from the topic which is that Darwin was a racist and his theory is collapsing (really already has since the discovery of DNA). To get back to your last statement, personally I would prefer that we not teach Darwin's realigion nor Christianity's religion in the Science classroom. I'm just as much of a taxpayer as you and I have the right, as a student, to bring Christianity into the classroom whenever I want (not to force-feed it to anyone mind you, but I have the right to pray, share, and discuss as it pertains to my classes. In addition, I shouldn't have to be subjected to the Naturalistic religion in the classroom any more than you should have to be subjected to "Bible based" Science.
Jason,
You wrote:
"You say I have a worldview of paranoia, yet you appear to be totally paranoid that if I had my way, I would subject you to a Christian theocracy..."
No I did not mean you personally unless you are a member of the Christian Right.
I don't think I'm paranoid about a movement who's leaders have said the following:
"If we are committed and involved in taking back the nation for Christian moral values, and if we are willing to risk the scorn of the secular media and the bureaucracy that stand against us, there is no doubt we can witness the dismantling of not just the Berlin Wall but the even more diabolical 'wall of separation' that has led to increasing secularization, godlessness, immorality, and corruption in our country."
D. James Kennedy, Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul(p.126-127)
"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 (pp. 52-53)
"We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we are going to take over."
Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally.
Sorry, but I don't want those guys OR their followers running this country.
I disagree with your idea that a perfect god can break his own rules. It's almost like saying if he wanted to molest children who are we to question it.
Of course the whole point is moot to me anyway.
You wrote:
"I'm just as much of a taxpayer as you and I have the right, as a student, to bring Christianity into the classroom whenever I want..."
I would agree if it were a world religions class or a philosophy class. But would you be okay with a Mormon explaining that Darwin was wrong because Elohim, Jehovah and Micheal came down and created the earth following the pattern set forth by all the gods before them?
What about the Bakuba account where Darwin was wrong because the god Mbombo vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars and all of the creatures of earth out upon a dark earth.
Which one of these does not belong in the classroom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Anonymous,
You directed the comment at me specifically if you'll read what you said, but it's no big deal - I'm used to it.
As far as a perfect God breaking his own rules, I'm not sure what you mean. The molestation analogy doesn't even come close to fitting in with what I said.
The comments I will skip since I didn't say any of them.
Again, on the creation issue, I do not want Darwin, Bakuba, Mormon, Christian(Jewish) creation taught in schools. We have one too many right now and it's time to pull Darwinism out since it's a sham.
There is a difference between students expressing their faith and schools forcing religious views in the classroom curriculum.
Jason,
Could you quote where I were I directed my comments specifically at you. I looked over what I had written and can't find it.
I agree with skipping the Bible discussion since we will never be on the same page there.
Perhaps we need to define what Darwinism means to you. Do you see it as a philosophical concept that poses a threat to Christianity?
Are you equating the vague term Darwinism with evolution?
I see it as explaining such things as natural selection and genetic drift. How populations change over time. It helps us understand how anti-biotics become less effective.
Since there are many Christians who believe in evolution I can't understand why it's such a threat for some of you.
Again, I am sorry if I have made you feel like you are hated. It was never my intent. Sometimes we become very passionate about a subject and forget that there is a human being behind the other computer screen.
"I remember when I was a Fundamentalist Christian and had your worldview of paranoia. It all seems so silly now." - maybe it was a different anonymous...
Speaking of can't find something, I don't remember saying that Darwinism was a threat to me - I did say it was a sham.
To define Darwinism, I would prefer to plainly define it, not to define what Darwinism means to me. Unfortunately, there are too many people that feel they can define Darwinism for themselves and be happy with that definition expecting others to "believe in it" as you say. According to your belief system, to completely define Darwinism, you would have to include the history of Darwinism including his belief that there exists superior human races and the "science" of eugenics that came from his theory.
By the way, it's not you that makes me know that I'm hated - it's that there are thousands of people being killed each year for believing what I believe (and no other reason) that assures me I'm hated.
Merriam-Webster Definition of Darwinism - "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors"
Ironically, Darwin never addressed the issue of the origin of life other than speculation in his writings, yet the above definition speaks of it. So, if there is no science here (only speculation even today) what else could it be but philosophy as you say? Why does your definition not line up with Merriam-Webster?
For newest news you have to visit world wide web and on web
I found this site as a most excellent website for latest updates.
my webpage :: Generateur de Code PSN
Hello my loved one! I want to say that this post is amazing, nice written and come
with approximately all vital infos. I would like to see
more posts like this .
Feel free to surf to my blog post Microsoft Office Gratuit
Inspiring story there. What occurred after? Thanks!
my homepage :: Your Anchor Text
I am sure this piece of writing has touched all the internet people,
its really really fastidious post on building up new web site.
Look into my web page - Codes Psn Gratuit
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home