Originally posted by rogue06

Jorge, are you going to end up running from this like you do every time you post a claim about Darwin providing the scientific justification for Hitler and the Holocaust and I refute it by showing a much more intimate link between Germ Theory, Pasteur and Nazi ideology?

Just wondering because I can hardly wait for you to start demonstrating that he was racist and that this somehow refutes the ToE.

My guess it that you cannot argue this about LP until you know absolutely every back-ground detail. However, Jorge can argue it about CD, even though he does not know absolutely every back-ground detail.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by rogue06

Jorge, are you going to end up running from this like you do every time you post a claim about Darwin providing the scientific justification for Hitler and the Holocaust and I refute it by showing a much more intimate link between Germ Theory, Pasteur and Nazi ideology?

Just wondering because I can hardly wait for you to start demonstrating that he was racist and that this somehow refutes the ToE.

************************************************************************************

Coming at you from cloudy/muggy/cold/windy Chicago, Illinois.

I'll just respond to yours, R06, since (1) I don't have much time and (2) there's
a lot of -- what else? -- mindless bleating and parroting in the other posts.

It would be thoughtless of me to steal Dr. Ware's thunder but I reckon it would
be okay to briefly mention one aspect that I explored, namely, the undeniable
connection that exists between Darwinism and Racism/Holocaust/Eugenics/
Euthanasia.

In my many years at this there is one common attitude that the Evo-Faithful
exhibit and that is a passionate denial of this connection. The earlier posts
here contain clear examples of this. The fact is that I can't blame these people
for wanting to distance themselves as far as possible from this aspect of Evolution.
I mean, who in his right mind would want to be associated with those horrible
human acts. My goal was to provide some evidence that all but seals the case
(to anyone except those for whom NO amount of evidence will suffice - plenty of those!).

I was asked to give that presentation but Dr. Ware is far, far more qualified (if you
know of Dr. Ware then you know what I mean) and so I gave him a call and the
rest is history.

I expect that the DWWC will be put either online and / or on DVDs. Like I said,
stay tuned ... got'ta go.


CTD : Yeah, ten is more like an 'appetizer' ... more like a hundred would've been the right number.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

It would be thoughtless of me to steal Dr. Ware's thunder but I reckon it would
be okay to briefly mention one aspect that I explored, namely, the undeniable
connection that exists between Darwinism and Racism/Holocaust/Eugenics/
Euthanasia. ...

What about the link between Darwin and All Evil and Darwin and baby eating, a habit of we atheists? Did you and Dr Ware explore those two issues as well Jorge?



Regards, Roland

According to "Darwin's Plantation", Jorge, "Darwinism" did not create racism but provided the best reasoning for it to date. Assuming that is true, how does the social climate in America today differ to the years preceding Darwin?

Even compared to 1900, there are far more people today who support evolutionary theory. The effect should be clear: more racism, more racial domination. Is that the trend we've been seeing in the United States?

—Sam

Originally posted by Jorge

It would be thoughtless of me to steal Dr. Ware's thunder ...

Except that from the below I can see there's no thunder for you to steal. Richard Weikart has already written about this subject. AiG has already written about this subject. ICR has already written about this subject. Harun Yahya has already written about this subject.

Originally posted by Jorge

... but I reckon it would
be okay to briefly mention one aspect that I explored, namely, the undeniable
connection that exists between Darwinism and Racism/Holocaust/Eugenics/
Euthanasia.

What is "Darwinism" in this context?

And clearly you haven't bothered to learn anything from your years at this site. I don't recall in how many threads we've been through this.

Originally posted by Jorge

In my many years at this there is one common attitude that the Evo-Faithful
exhibit and that is a passionate denial of this connection.

What denial? What you call 'denial' may rather be adding some much needed nuances to the picture.

Racism was alive and well before Charles Darwin.

The Holocaust cannot be defended with Darwin's theory of evolution. And, by the way, 'ethnic cleansing' is age-old.

And eugenics is age-old as well.

Originally posted by Jorge

The earlier posts
here contain clear examples of this. The fact is that I can't blame these people
for wanting to distance themselves as far as possible from this aspect of Evolution.

Except that it isn't in particular an aspect of (the theory of) evolution. That is a much too superficial understanding.

Originally posted by Jorge

I mean, who in his right mind would want to be associated with those horrible
human acts. My goal was to provide some evidence that all but seals the case
(to anyone except those for whom NO amount of evidence will suffice - plenty of those!).

As mentioned, you are behind the times. Have you been sleaping for your entire life?

Originally posted by Jorge

I was asked to give that presentation but Dr. Ware is far, far more qualified (if you
know of Dr. Ware then you know what I mean) and so I gave him a call and the
rest is history.

I know nothing about Dr. Ware, but from what I know about you, I'll concede that he couldn't possible be less qualified.

Originally posted by Jorge

I expect that the DWWC will be put either online and / or on DVDs. Like I said,
stay tuned ... got'ta go.

Oh, dear, what a waste of harddisk space or DVDs!


- FreezBee

Originally posted by Jorge

************************************************************************************

Coming at you from cloudy/muggy/cold/windy Chicago, Illinois.

I'll just respond to yours, R06, since (1) I don't have much time and (2) there's
a lot of -- what else? -- mindless bleating and parroting in the other posts.

It would be thoughtless of me to steal Dr. Ware's thunder but I reckon it would
be okay to briefly mention one aspect that I explored, namely, the undeniable
connection that exists between Darwinism and Racism/Holocaust/Eugenics/
Euthanasia.

In my many years at this there is one common attitude that the Evo-Faithful
exhibit and that is a passionate denial of this connection. The earlier posts
here contain clear examples of this. The fact is that I can't blame these people
for wanting to distance themselves as far as possible from this aspect of Evolution.
I mean, who in his right mind would want to be associated with those horrible
human acts. My goal was to provide some evidence that all but seals the case
(to anyone except those for whom NO amount of evidence will suffice - plenty of those!).

I was asked to give that presentation but Dr. Ware is far, far more qualified (if you
know of Dr. Ware then you know what I mean) and so I gave him a call and the
rest is history.

I expect that the DWWC will be put either online and / or on DVDs. Like I said,
stay tuned ... got'ta go.


CTD : Yeah, ten is more like an 'appetizer' ... more like a hundred would've been the right number.

Jorge

Well I see you still won't deal with the problem that if you guys think Darwin and evolution provided the scientific justification for the Holocaust then how do you respond to Hitler and other Nazi's directly citing Pasteur and Germ Theory as their justification? Can't blame you of course. I'd hide from that one too if I were you.

In the meantime...

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Press Release on April 29, 2008

“Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”



Source

---

© source where applicable

So tell me Jorge... Is the ADL just part of the "Evo-Faithful" in their "passionate denial of this connection"? Or could they have another reason to be upset about this fabrication on the part of YECs and their fellow-travelers?

Originally posted by FreezBee

And eugenics is age-old as well.


- FreezBee

How true. If you think of eugenics as "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding," then traditional Indian culture has been practicing that for thousands of years with their cast system and long history of prearranged marriages.

Originally posted by Jorge

In my many years at this there is one common attitude that the Evo-Faithful
exhibit and that is a passionate denial of this connection. The earlier posts
here contain clear examples of this. The fact is that I can't blame these people
for wanting to distance themselves as far as possible from this aspect of Evolution.
I mean, who in his right mind would want to be associated with those horrible
human acts. My goal was to provide some evidence that all but seals the case
(to anyone except those for whom NO amount of evidence will suffice - plenty of those!).

Jorge

Er Jorge, there is a long well documented history of Christian missionaries committing horrible atrocities against native peoples in the name of spreading the Christian religion

The Christian missionary mindset is generally depicted as that of simple religious folk with a pure desire to peacefully spread their gospel and message of love. In reality, their methods of propagation are often anything but peaceful and usually leave behind a native population stripped of their culture and often decimated. With Christianity failing in the west, the evangelists seek new and greener fields in the poor and uneducated sections of third world countries, backed by huge coffers from the less zealous, who are nonetheless convinced that to bring civilization and religion to the poor natives is a noble cause, even if they don't want it. Missionaries often intermix military campaigns with missionary campaigns in their fervor to "civilize the heathens," who are often simple happy natives, whose only crime is that they are not Christians. This mood of conquering the heathens by any means, at any cost, is supported in the Bible:

In the words of one resident of Thailand, “They [Christian missionaries] seemed that they did not show any interest for our culture. Why? They are just eager to build big churches in every village. It seems that they are having two faces; under the title of help they suppress us. To the world, they gained their reputations as benefactors of disappearing tribes. They built their reputations on us for many years. The way they behaved with us seemed as if we did not know about god before they arrived here.”[1]

“Why do missionaries think they are the only ones who can perceive God?”

In fact, most of the civilizations which were overrun by zealous Christians in their conversion fervor, were highly evolved in their moral standards, with complex social structures, high standards of cleanliness and hygiene, decorative art and evolved sciences, and content with their own religion.

The arrival of Christianity actually caused these civilizations to move backwards. In this regard we need only look to Europe, for the Dark Ages of Europe is a time when the Church was in control. The Age of Enlightenment (Renaissance) began when the common people were freed from the tyranny of the Christian church.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY ATROCITIES

Suppose I adopted your disingenuous tactics?

"In my many years at this there is one common attitude that the Christian Faithful
exhibit and that is a passionate denial of this connection. The link
above contains clear examples of this. The fact is that I can't blame these people
for wanting to distance themselves as far as possible from this aspect of Christianity
I mean, who in his right mind would want to be associated with those horrible
human acts. My goal is to provide some evidence that all but seals the case
(to anyone except those for whom NO amount of evidence will suffice - plenty of those!)."

See how stupid your argument sounds now?

- T

In the words of one resident of Thailand, “They [Christian missionaries] seemed that they did not show any interest for our culture. Why? They are just eager to build big churches in every village. It seems that they are having two faces; under the title of help they suppress us. To the world, they gained their reputations as benefactors of disappearing tribes. They built their reputations on us for many years. The way they behaved with us seemed as if we did not know about god before they arrived here.”

That's an Akha tribe member speaking and it certainly is true of some, if not many missionary efforts in Northern Thailand. In Akha villages, cultural symbols have been torn down, concrete churches erected, "Christianized" Akhas financially supported while non-Christian Akhas in the same village suffer. Not all missionaries are like that, certainly (my friends with the sick baby are missionaries serving the Akha in Thailand) but historically, it's been a large problem.

It's a good point; the misappropriation of a good idea does not invalidate the good idea. People have used Christ and Christianity for evil and people have used Darwin and evolution for evil — what does that do to logically invalidate the original ideas, Jorge?

—Sam

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

In the words of one resident of Thailand, “They [Christian missionaries] seemed that they did not show any interest for our culture. Why? They are just eager to build big churches in every village. It seems that they are having two faces; under the title of help they suppress us. To the world, they gained their reputations as benefactors of disappearing tribes. They built their reputations on us for many years. The way they behaved with us seemed as if we did not know about god before they arrived here.”

That's an Akha tribe member speaking and it certainly is true of some, if not many missionary efforts in Northern Thailand. In Akha villages, cultural symbols have been torn down, concrete churches erected, "Christianized" Akhas financially supported while non-Christian Akhas in the same village suffer. Not all missionaries are like that, certainly (my friends with the sick baby are missionaries serving the Akha in Thailand) but historically, it's been a large problem.

It's a good point; the misappropriation of a good idea does not invalidate the good idea. People have used Christ and Christianity for evil and people have used Darwin and evolution for evil — what does that do to logically invalidate the original ideas, Jorge?

—Sam

Reading your reply and questions to Jorge reminded me of an incident as a young kid, and a follow up some decades later.

As a 6 year old kid, we were horrified to hear of the death of missionaries in Ecuador:-

http://www.maf.org/nate_saint

Decades later, (and decades ago) I watched a program on TV about the event, which included an interview with Saint's wife and his sister (I think it was). There were two aspects to the interview I remember - the deaths of the missionaries and the destruction wreaked on the Indians by diseases the missionaries brought with them. Saint's wife was very humble. One could see that she was still saddened by the incident including the earlier deaths inflicted upon the locals. "Why" was a question she wanted to ask God. Saint's sister saw no issue with "why". The Indians deserved everything they got - men, women and children. I remember something about their literal sickness was the sin oozing from their mouths.

I often wonder about the relationship between personality of a believer, the kind of god a believer worships and hence the believer's approach to worship. If the believer has a good attitude towards humans, then the believer's god is likely to be seen in such a light and worshiped that way. If the believer has a bad attitude towards others, then the god is likely to be seen in such a light and worshiped that way. Saint's wife and sister typified those two different aspects. His wife impressed me.



Regards, Roland

I guess I'll sign up to speak at the WWC that this thread is turning into.

Originally posted by Jorge

It would be thoughtless of me to steal Dr. Ware's thunder but I reckon it would be okay to briefly mention one aspect that I explored, namely, the undeniable
connection that exists between Darwinism and Racism/Holocaust/Eugenics/Euthanasia.

Codswallop! See below about the Southern Baptists. For that matter, who were the most vocal opponents of the Civil Rights movement? Which states had anti-miscegination laws and "separate but equal" facitilies and schools? Southern states - the states whose citizens are most likely to reject evolution because of relgious convictions. What do racist groups like the Klan and Kingdom Identity Ministries cite for their hatred? It ain't Darwin.

The Holocaust certainly had some bad science involved, but it was hardly Darwinian evolution (for one Origin refers right in the title "by Natural Selection", not "by human caused genocide"). There was more crappy archeology - the whole Aryan thing was a twisted farce of the actual discoveries - than biology. And let's not forget the historic anti-Semitism of the Lutheran and Catholic churches which just about every German belonged to at the time if Hitler's rise (well, those that weren't Jewish).

And Eugenics/Euthanasia didn't exist before Darwin? Have you never heard of Sparta or Hippocrates?

Originally posted by Jorge

I was asked to give that presentation but Dr. Ware is far, far more qualified (if you know of Dr. Ware then you know what I mean) and so I gave him a call and the
rest is history.

I just checked his bona fides at Crossroads and while he sounds like a great guy, I don't think he's that qualified for a discussion of history and biology especially as regards Darwin.

Dr. A. Charles Ware
President
Professor, Teaching Bible and Cross Cultural Ministry
B.R.E., Baptist Bible College, Clark Summit, PA; Graduate studies at Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA; M. Div., Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD; D.D., Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA; Pastor 20 years in PA and MD; Founder/Administrator, Bethel Bible Christian School; Co-founder, Voice of Biblical Reconciliation; Board Member of Association of Baptist for World Evangelism, 1991 and The Association for Biblical Higher Education (AHBE)-2003; Author: Prejudice and the People of God (Kregel); Co-edited: Reuniting The Family Of God (BBCI); Contributed: Just Don’t Marry One (Judson), Building Unity In The Church Of A New Millennium (Moody), and Called To Lead: Wisdom For The Next Generation Of African American Leaders (Moody).
At Crossroads since 1991.

I guess that's why he doesn't list Darwin's Plantation under his books and I'd note that his education came from northern Baptist schools. Is he unaware of why the Southern Baptists split from the rest?
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899

WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and

WHEREAS, In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and

WHEREAS, Racism has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence, both in the Civil War and throughout the history of our nation; and

WHEREAS, Racism has divided the body of Christ and Southern Baptists in particular, and separated us from our African-American brothers and sisters; and

So tell us , was the racism and support of slavery that led to the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention rooted in Darwin or the Bible? (Hint, the SBC was formed 14 years before the publicaction of Origin.)

Originally posted by Jorge

Coming at you from the not-so-sunny mountains of Manchester, Tennessee.

On my way here I saw the following advertisement:
VISIT RACCOON MOUNTAIN & CAVERNS, ESTABLISHED 500,000 BC
I kept wondering where the '500,000 BC' label was printed.
I also wondered if, besides that date, the label also showed
Made in Taiwan or China or Mexico or Korea or Japan.
Those kinds of questions stay with me for a long time.

About that... Thr Racoon Mountain caverns seem to have some very interesting geology behind their formation:

http://www.raccoonmountain.com/html/geology.html

Raccoon Mountain Caverns is located in a band of limestone from the Monteagle Formation, which formed during the Mississippian Period (approximately 320-360 million years ago), on the bottom of an ancient sea. In this sea, fragments and shells of various marine animals sank to the bottom and became compacted over time to form limestone rock. We have fossils of crinoids, coral, bryozoans, and echinoderms throughout our cave. Although fossils in the limestone tell us the age of the rock, they are not much help in determining the age of the cave. Most caves, including ours, are less than ten million years old.

By the end of the Permian Period (about 225 million years ago), tremendous mountain building forces resulting from the collision of the continents forced the seas to retreat and pushed and folded the layers of older rocks high above the level of the sea. This produced the anticlines (rocks folded into an arch) and synclines (rocks folded into a “u” shape) which are now the Appalachian Mountains. Raccoon Mountain caverns is at the edge of the Sequatchie Valley which is one of the largest and most spectacular anticlinal valleys in the world.

Limestone caves are formed when acids attack and dissolve the calcite contained within limestone. This acid is usually carbonic acid (also known as soda water or carbonated water) which is formed when carbon dioxide combines with water. Most of the carbon dioxide comes from decaying leaves and vegetation in the soil. Scientists believe that most caves form below the water table by slowly moving water. After a rain, the rainwater mixes with the carbon dioxide in the soil and dissolves the limestone underneath.

Two factors control the formation of cave passageways: vertical and horizontal fractures in the limestone, and the water table. A cave is formed by water moving slowly in the small fractures below the water table. The rate of flow below the fractures changes as some limestone is easier to dissolve than others due to variations in composition. (This is evident at Headache Rock which is viewed along the Crystal Palace Tour.) Some channels grow larger as they take in more water and, as a result, they grow faster.

The cave forming process may take thousands of years and can be stopped by either the lowering of the water table or the formation of air passageways in the cave system due to surface erosion. As outside air enters the cave system, the water quickly becomes supersaturated with calcite and the dissolving process eventually stops. This change usually marks the beginning of the depositing of calcite in the form of stalactites, stalagmites, and other deposits known as speleothems.

Layers and layers of limestone, bent (NOT crushed) by tectonic forces, then slowly eroded over thousands of years... Fascinating stuff.

Since jorge's pals chose to have their thing there, I'm SURE they'll find the time to explain their own theory for the caverns' formation, in equally fascinating detail.

And I'm sure that our friend jorge will find the time to explain it to us.

Originally posted by Faid

About that... Thr Racoon Mountain caverns seem to have some very interesting geology behind their formation:

http://www.raccoonmountain.com/html/geology.html


Layers and layers of limestone, bent (NOT crushed) by tectonic forces, then slowly eroded over thousands of years... Fascinating stuff.

Since jorge's pals chose to have their thing there, I'm SURE they'll find the time to explain their own theory for the caverns' formation, in equally fascinating detail.

And I'm sure that our friend jorge will find the time to explain it to us.

LOL! Good catch Faid. But you know what is going to say:

"DA FLUD DID IT!!"

..and scoot clucking for the door.

- T

Originally posted by Jorge

Ten presentations will be given at the DWWC by scientists such as
J. Sanford, J. Baumgardner, S. Austin,, J. Bergman and others.
Each presentation begins: [b]"Darwin Was Wrong About ..............

You should check out all the stuff Newton was wrong about. Or Einstein.

Originally posted by flipper

You should check out all the stuff Newton was wrong about. Or Einstein.

Yes, but providing you send your brain on holiday and don't think about it too much, neither Newton's nor Eintein's theories were used to cause harm to people.

However, if you have brains and you think about it, then just don't tell Jorge of the conclusions you reached.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

Yes, but providing you send your brain on holiday and don't think about it too much, neither Newton's nor Eintein's theories were used to cause harm to people.

However, if you have brains and you think about it, then just don't tell Jorge of the conclusions you reached.



Regards, Roland

Descartes then. According to the "New Cambridge Modern History," vol. IV, p.139:

[Descartes'] "innovations in mathematics and optics were welcomed but his mechanistic physics and physiology were at first opposed, in Protestant Ubrecht and Leiden as in Catholic Louvain and in Paris, because his doctrines were held to lead to atheism and to have theologically dangerous implications for the nature of the soul and for the eucharist."