Against Evolution

[Jack777]

Although the religion of evolution was instrumental in making Hitler possible, the Higher Criticism deserves some credit. Marxism and the Theory of Evolution were responsible more than anything else for the massacres of about 130 million people in the 20th century.

Was this predicatable? I think so. The denial of the Creator and the Redeemer has the same results.


"Just as Darwin discovered the misery in nature, so Karl Marx discovered the misery in society. In the same year in which Darwin's Origin of Species was published, Marx's Political Economy also appeared. At the grave of Marx, on the 17th of March,in the year 1883, Friedrich Engels declared that, as Darwin had found the law of the development of organic nature, so Marx had discovered that of the development of human society. Darwin believed that his natural selection, with its adjuncts, had once and for all disposed of teleology, miracles, and all supranaturalism; Marx was convinced that he had freed Socialism from all utopianism, and established it on a firm scientific foundation. Both darwin and Marx were thorough believers in the invio;ability of the laws of nature and the necessary sequence of events; both were moved by the fact that this necessary process of development has both in past and present brought into existence terrible conditions; and both cherished the fixed hope that development means progress, and carries with it the promise of a better world, a better race, and a better society.

It goes without saying that this mechanical and anti-teleological conception of evolution left no room for miracles, for a world of the supernatural, for the existence and deistic belief in creation, afterwards declined more and more to agnosticism. It was his custom to dismiss religious problems by saying that he had not sufficiently reflected upon them and could not lay claim to a strong religious feeling. And Marx was of the opinion that religion, 'that opiate of the people,' was destined to die a natural death in the perfect society of the future."

Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint of the L. P. Stone Lectures of the 1908-1909 academic year at Princeton Theological Seminary, Translator Henry E. Dosker, Louisville, KY.

What was the observation among some in Europe besides Bavinck about science and religion? Bavinck quoted Funt as follows:

"...the worldview, which formerly offered itself under the name of 'the scientific,' has not essentially changed, but has simply, owing to its various influences, assumed now a religious form, and taken up its position as a new faith over and against the old faith. The difference consists merely in the doctrine of evolution no longer contenting itself with standing as 'science' by the side of or over against Christianity, but pressing on determinedly to usurp the place of Christianity as dogma and religion."

Funt, "Religion der Immanenz oder Transcendenz?" in Religion und Geistestkultur, 1907.

quoted by:

Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint of the L. P. Stone Lectures of the 1908-1909 academic year at Princeton Theological Seminary, Translator Henry E. Dosker, Louisville, KY.

[rogero]

Although the religion of evolution was instrumental in making Hitler possible, the Higher Criticism deserves some credit. ...

"Religion of evolution" --- trying to dig a deeper hole for yourself, huh? I will ask for an apology for that ridiculous assertion, but I won't hold my breath for your response.

Just keep it up, Jack, and you will shortly be the poster child for abject stupidity --- and what's even more sad, you will close the door of heaven in more and more peoples' faces. You have lots of competition here -- Jorge and Willowtree are the two most obvious examples -- but if you keep up this unsupported nonsense, you will be the winner going away.

You were completely shot down in your "TE, Creation and Marytrs (sic)" thread. Are you a glutton for punishment? Don't you ever feel the least bit of shame? Are you proud of yourself?

R

[George Murphy]

Although the religion of evolution was instrumental in making Hitler possible, the Higher Criticism deserves some credit. Marxism and the Theory of Evolution were responsible more than anything else for the massacres of about 130 million people in the 20th century.If you were a student in one of my seminary courses I would not allow you to say another word until you had read a serious discussion of theistic evolution and other views of creation such as Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003), and handed in a report that showed that you had understood it (which is not to say, agreed with it.)

Note that I am not going back on my statement on the other thread that I wasn't going to try to converse with you further. But I will feel free to post critiques of your silliness to try to keep you from either misleading gullible Christians or giving unbelievers the impression that all Christians are as foolish as you.

BTW, it's now a pretty generally accepted rule of political and cultural discourse that anyone who is driven to playing the Hitler card loses the argument.

Shalom,
George

[EvoUK]

Uh- what do these grievances have to do with evolution anyways- if evolution is to be refuted it's to be on scientific grounds. It's like you're saying

"Evolution might be true- but if you were a nice person you wouldn't accept it anyways".

Evolution is by definition amoral.

[shunyadragon]

Although the religion of evolution was instrumental in making Hitler possible, the Higher Criticism deserves some credit. Marxism and the Theory of Evolution were responsible more than anything else for the massacres of about 130 million people in the 20th century.
Your assertion here is as rediculous as the rest of your post, which goes down hill from here. Adolph Hitler was made possible by the overwelming support of the Anti-semitic Christians of Germany and Italy, along with widespread support from other countries. Hitlers 'solution for the Jewish problem' was enthusiastically supported by the Christians, and the Manual for his policies was writen by Martin Luther. The rallying cry was German Nationalism and the Jews were blamed for the economic failure of Germany. If it were not for the support of the Christians, Hitler would have remained an unknown frustrated artist and paper hanger.

Hitler was an admirer of many people like Aristotle, Socrates, Charles Darwin, and Martin Luther, but Marin Luther is the only one that deserves to be associated with him.

In reality Hitler exterminated most atheists with the Jews, like the communists, artists, intellectuals and gays.

[JamesD]

Hitler was xtian.
BTW, it's now a pretty generally accepted rule of political and cultural discourse that anyone who is driven to playing the Hitler card loses the argument. You're right, but I'll play the hitler card anyway.

Hitler didn't believe in evolution. He believed in god and the bible. He was a creationist.


Hitler Xtian Quotes.....
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamp (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395925037/thesecularweb/)

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html), April 12, 1922

“I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . . Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922

“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395925037/thesecularweb/)


My all time favorite Hitler quote.......

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933

Being against evolution is like being against a sunrise. :lol:

[George Murphy]

Your assertion here is as rediculous as the rest of your post, which goes down hill from here. Adolph Hitler was made possible by the overwelming support of the Anti-semitic Christians of Germany and Italy, along with widespread support from other countries. Hitlers 'solution for the Jewish problem' was enthusiastically supported by the Christians, and the Manual for his policies was writen by Martin Luther. The rallying cry was German Nationalism and the Jews were blamed for the economic failure of Germany. If it were not for the support of the Christians, Hitler would have remained an unknown frustrated artist and paper hanger.

Hitler was an admirer of many people like Aristotle, Socrates, Charles Darwin, and Martin Luther, but Marin Luther is the only one that deserves to be associated with him.

In reality Hitler exterminated most atheists with the Jews, like the communists, artists, intellectuals and gays.Unfortunately Jack has provided an opportunity to spread another misconception. Luther's book in the last years of his life, Against the Jews and their Lies, is appalling and I make no attempt to defend or excuse it. It is, however, necessary for the sake of accuracy to point out that Luther criticized the Jews on religious rather than racial grounds, and that while he spoke about burning synagogues &c, he did not propose genocide. Thus your last sentence is wide of the mark.

This writing of Luther's was also embarassing to many of Luther's followers & later Lutherans, and it got very little circulation among the general German populace. This was so much the case that the Nazis complained that it had been suppressed by the Jews! The idea that Luther was a major source of Nazi anti-Judaism is largely due to William Shirer, who was more of a journalist than a trained historian. It simply is not very accurate.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Hitler was xtian.
You're right, but I'll play the hitler card anyway.

Hitler didn't believe in evolution. He believed in god and the bible. He was a creationist.


Hitler Xtian Quotes.....
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamp (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395925037/thesecularweb/)

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html), April 12, 1922

“I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . . Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922

“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395925037/thesecularweb/)




Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933

Being against evolution is like being against a sunrise. :lol:Er - do you think Hitler might have been lying just a teensy bit for political purposes? I think he did do that once or twice.

Hitler believed in God. ("Who says I am not under the special protection of Providence?" he exclaimed after surviving the bomb plot.) To say that he was a Christian in any meaningful sense after abandoning his RC upbringing is another matter.

Shalom,
George

[JamesD]

Hitler believed in God. ("Who says I am not under the special protection of Providence?" he exclaimed after surviving the bomb plot.) To say that he was a Christian in any meaningful sense after abandoning his RC upbringing is another matter. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. ect...
Er - do you think Hitler might have been lying just a teensy bit for political purposes? I think he did do that once or twice.Hitler, and xtians lie?! NOOOOOOOOOO Like saying a scientific theory caused millions of deaths. Why not blame the theory of gravity for every plane crash in the world.

[rogero]

... ect...
...

Is this an abbreviation for "ectoplasm" or "electro-convulsive therapy"?

[JamesD]

even xtians theorize

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately Jack has provided an opportunity to spread another misconception. Luther's book in the last years of his life, Against the Jews and their Lies, is appalling and I make no attempt to defend or excuse it. It is, however, necessary for the sake of accuracy to point out that Luther criticized the Jews on religious rather than racial grounds, and that while he spoke about burning synagogues &c, he did not propose genocide. Thus your last sentence is wide of the mark.You say no defence, but then again you try, and it does not work. Germans and many Europeans had an overwhelming sense of racial superiority as well as a religious identity fostered by the Roman, Orthodox and Lutheran churchs related to antisemitism. This racial hatred extends to other minorities like the Gypsies. It actually makes little difference whether the motive was religious or racial, the result is the same, venomous irrational hatred.

If not genocide, what would the following propose? What do you think would happen to a people subjected to this kind treatment? It was indeed the Manual Hitler followed, and I will stand by that statement and support further if need be. Hitler followed to the letter.Hitler just went a bit further than 3,000, which would be an acceptable interpretation of the following.

Against the Jews and their Lies[/i]]

"I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."


This writing of Luther's was also embarassing to many of Luther's followers & later Lutherans, and it got very little circulation among the general German populace. This was so much the case that the Nazis complained that it had been suppressed by the Jews! The idea that Luther was a major source of Nazi anti-Judaism is largely due to William Shirer, who was more of a journalist than a trained historian. It simply is not very accurate.You underestimate the number of sources that would document this. Christian anti-semitism was pervasive and dominant in Europe. Passion plays depicting Jews as the Christ killer were common throughout Europe and still reinacted in places today.

Unfortunatly you are still doing what you said you were not going to do, which is defend which should not be defended and minimized. The embarrassment has been expressed very late after the damage has long been done. It has been only very, very recently that the book has been officially rejected by the Lutheran Church. I think you grossly underestimate the influence of the book and over estimate the level of embarassment.

[shunyadragon]

Er - do you think Hitler might have been lying just a teensy bit for political purposes? I think he did do that once or twice.

Hitler believed in God. ("Who says I am not under the special protection of Providence?" he exclaimed after surviving the bomb plot.) To say that he was a Christian in any meaningful sense after abandoning his RC upbringing is another matter.

Shalom,
George
Well, maybe for political purposes, because 95%+ of his support were Christians. This is more the problem, not Hitler. Hitler would have been nothing more than an insane frustrated artist and poor paper hanger if it were not for the support of Christians. On the other hand he was not atheist. He was a fervent Aryan Nationalist, first above all.

[George Murphy]

You say no defence, but then again you try, and it does not work. Germans and many Europeans had an overwhelming sense of racial superiority as well as a religious identity fostered by the Roman, Orthodox and Lutheran churchs related to antisemitism. This racial hatred extends to other minorities like the Gypsies. It actually makes little difference whether the motive was religious or racial, the result is the same, venomous irrational hatred.To say what a thing is is not to defend it. It would be foolish to deny that the anti-Jewish attitudes which had been allowed to develop for centuries in Europe were a major factor that allowed Hitler & the Nazis to do what they did, & for that all Christian communions have to bear some responsibility. Singling out Luther is another matter.

BTW, "anti-Judiasm" is the proper term, not "anti-semitism." This may seem like a trivial matter until one realizes that actually "anti-semitic" is a term invented to make anti-Judaism seem scientific - though of course now it's passed into popular parlance. "Semitic" is a term originally referring to language families, just as "Aryan" is. Both got turned into pseudo-scientific racial terms.

You underestimate the number of sources that would document this. Christian anti-semitism was pervasive and dominant in Europe. Passion plays depicting Jews as the Christ killer were common throughout Europe and still reinacted in places today.

Unfortunately you are still doing what you said you were not going to do, which is defend which should not be defended and minimized. The embarrassment has been expressed very late after the damage has long been done. It has been only very, very recently that the book has been officially rejected by the Lutheran Church. I think you grossly underestimate the influence of the book and over estimate the level of embarassment.Again, to explain is not to defend. Quoting a mid-16th century writing of Luther & then saying that it must have influenced the rise of 20th century Naziism is a big historical leap which you have not justified.

Shalom,
George

[shunyadragon]

To say what a thing is is not to defend it. It would be foolish to deny that the anti-Jewish attitudes which had been allowed to develop for centuries in Europe were a major factor that allowed Hitler & the Nazis to do what they did, & for that all Christian communions have to bear some responsibility. Singling out Luther is another matter.

BTW, "anti-Judiasm" is the proper term, not "anti-semitism." This may seem like a trivial matter until one realizes that actually "anti-semitic" is a term invented to make anti-Judaism seem scientific - though of course now it's passed into popular parlance. "Semitic" is a term originally referring to language families, just as "Aryan" is. Both got turned into pseudo-scientific racial terms.

Again, to explain is not to defend. Quoting a mid-16th century writing of Luther & then saying that it must have influenced the rise of 20th century Naziism is a big historical leap which you have not justified.

Shalom,
George
I have decided to not justify it hear but start another thread. I have kept quit a file over time on our friend Martin Luther. The volumes Martin Luther wrote could fill a sizable bookshelf and few are known in the west. I will give you a hint for openers, check out sometime what our gentle friend wrote concerning the Peasant rebellion of Germany in 1525.

My thread will not be hard to find!

[George Murphy]

I have decided to not justify it hear but start another thread. I have kept quit a file over time on our friend Martin Luther. The volumes Martin Luther wrote could fill a sizable bookshelf and few are known in the west. I will give you a hint for openers, check out sometime what our gentle friend wrote concerning the Peasant rebellion of Germany in 1525.

My thread will not be hard to find!My, what a surprise. Luther and the Peasants rebellion! I never heard of that before - before, that is, reading about it 40+ years ago! Educated people don't need any "hints" about such things.

Apparently you think Germany is not part of "the west." The Weimar Ausgabe (as well as other editions) is quite thorough & widely known there, & in fact in many university & seminary libraries in the U.S. for those familiar with the original languages. The 55 volume edition of Luther's Works is available to anyone who reads English.

Nobody - including Luther himself - said that Luther was "gentle." But he was not appreciably more ungentle than many other figures of the 16th century. One reason he stands out is that people still read his works & those about him whereas nobody except specialists cares about a lot of his contemporaries.

I won't be following you to your new thread. Besides the fact that this has all been hashed over before, it's obvious that you're going to pick out the relatively few objectionable things Luther wrote - probably taking them out of context - & not bother to deal with his more significant works.

Shalom,
George

[jason]

Well, maybe for political purposes, because 95%+ of his support were Christians. This is more the problem, not Hitler. Hitler would have been nothing more than an insane frustrated artist and poor paper hanger if it were not for the support of Christians. On the other hand he was not atheist. He was a fervent Aryan Nationalist, first above all.
He was also an Occultist.

To say that Hitlers supporters where Christian is rather mistaken. Within the Nazi party occultism and the like was rife, and the state run Lutheran Church by this time, after the ravages of the Higher Critics was largly devoid of any meaningful Christian content.

To say "95%+ of his supporters were Christians" is to use the word is the worthless cultural sense and you should no better.

Many genuine Christians opposed Hitler and paid with their liveslike Deitrech Bonhoffer.

And Hitlers problem with the Jews was entirely different to Luthers problem with the Jews. Hitler's hatred of the Jew's stemmed from Hitler's hatred of their God and what he represented. He had everybit as much of a problem with Christians and their God as he did with the Jew's. Hitler's view of ethics was radically power based, centered on men of will and the exercise of power, something that Jew's and Christian's would have had a problem with.

Also, in quoting Luter you are misrepresenting him. Early on in his life he loved Jew's as wished to see them saved and embrace their messiah. It was after they rejected their messiah that his writings took the nasty turn. To paint him as you did as a life long hater of Jew's is mistaken.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Jason

[George Murphy]

He was also an Occultist.

To say that Hitlers supporters where Christian is rather mistaken. Within the Nazi party occultism and the like was rife, and the state run Lutheran Church by this time, after the ravages of the Higher Critics was largly devoid of any meaningful Christian content.

To say "95%+ of his supporters were Christians" is to use the word is the worthless cultural sense and you should no better.

Many genuine Christians opposed Hitler and paid with their liveslike Deitrech Bonhoffer.Your dig at the "higher critics" is misplaced. Apparently you aren't aware that many of the members of the Confessing Church who opposed Hitler were Christians such as Bonhoeffer who accepted the historical-critical approach to scripture. Hitler's appeal was not limited to one part of our liberal-conservative spectrum, either politically or theologically. Many people, not just in Germany but in other parts of the world, thought of Naziism as a progressive movement in the early 30s. (It was, remember, called "The National Socialist German Worker's Party.")

Shalom,
George

[sylas]

... after the ravages of the Higher Critics was largly devoid of any meaningful Christian content

....

Many genuine Christians opposed Hitler and paid with their lives like Deitrech Bonhoffer.


Um, are you aware that Bonhoeffer was a very "liberal" theologian who used Higher Criticism and much else that I suspect you would find theologically dubious?

This goes to show, I suggest, that you are completely wrong about placing such a central importance on disputes such as are associated with higher criticism. What is essential in the gospel, and what will determine whether it has significance and impact for the modern world, is not how liberal or conservative are the theological views. It is how one lives out the faith; and the shining examples of that come from right across the theological spectrum.

Sorry... off topic. Or perhaps not. The persistent lesson of this thread is that people are using Hitler and the Nazis as a cudgel to beat up anything they don't like. Lutherans, evolution, higher criticism, whatever; and not always with much care for accuracy or fairness. It is not pretty.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Jack777]

I see you guys think I am beating up on youse.

Nope. I could care less if I were not correct.

Higher Criticism made Hitler possible. Period. That there are extremely decent folk who are taken in by it is another matter.

[rogero]

I see you guys think I am beating up on youse.

Nope. I could care less if I were not correct.

Higher Criticism made Hitler possible. Period. That there are extremely decent folk who are taken in by it is another matter.
It appears your degree in English is serving you well. :blush:

Well, if you "could care less" then there is some hope for you, since you would then care at least somewhat.

On the other hand, if you really could NOT care less, then why start threads like this? Why make the appallingly inflammatory statement "Higher Criticism made Hitler possible. Period."??? Just trying to be a disruptive troll?

R

[Jack777]

Sorry about the grammar. I will take time to reply from now on is that is a real issue. Vernacular is acceptable on some web sites, I was not aware of the rule about this.

First, I would like to take a bit of time on this.

Okay, I include the others in association with Hitler, I give.

QUOTE BY GEORGE MURPHY (this means it is not my writing)

"If you were a student in one of my seminary courses I would not allow you to say another word..."

UNQUOTE (Notice these marks " " those are quote marks)

I know it and I am ever thankful that I did not go to a seminary. Those are them palces thar whut do not believe the Bible is the WORD of GOD ain't they? That thar is duh place ware people thunk up thet higher criticism ain't it?

It is also a place where they baptized Cabbage Patch dolls and made fun of the sacraments is it not?

My respect for seminaries is low, very low. That is a place where students get taught not to love God and make excuses for evil and condone abomination.

I would never be one of your students.

Please don't goad me into telling you that seminaries are responsible for most of the apostasy and heresy seen in the world today. I do not want to explain exactly why seminaries were instrumental in making Hitler possible. It is more than passingly strange that people who are going to seminaries and such do not think ideas are important and do not know that ideas were everything to Hitler. Sheeeesh.

[Lion]

I went backand read the entire thread and all it was a diatribe against Hitler with a few remarks against the higher critics. There was not a single thing about evolution. I grew up in the days of Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist (NAZI) party.

But that has zero to do with evolution. Neither does it have anything to do with higher criticism. Higher criiticism might have been aiding the trend to national socialism, but they were not the cause of the evolutionary dogma that is so prevalent in our schools and scientific circles today.

The dogma of evolution is responsible for the breakdown morals we see in society today. It permits a godless society and that is the problem.

[grmorton]

The dogma of evolution is responsible for the breakdown morals we see in society today. It permits a godless society and that is the problem.

What permits a godless society is the failure of Christian apologetics to answer the scientific challenge presented by all the sciences. YECs slip into a make-believe world of science and most TEs try to remove historicity from the Scripture by saying it is not telling us anything real about how trees were created. That creates the appearance that Genesis tells us nothing about how God created and that makes people think God has no bearing upon our lives.

[rogero]

Sorry about the grammar. I will take time to reply from now on is that is a real issue. Vernacular is acceptable on some web sites, I was not aware of the rule about this.

Point of information: Saying "could care less" when you mean "could not care less" is not a grammatical problem. It's perfectly good grammar, but poor semantics -- it says the opposite of what you mean.

Use all the vernacular and Kentucky folkisms you want as far as I'm concerned. In fact it's kind of cute. But using poor semantics is simply confusing.

BTW, I still don't know whether you really meant you could NOT care less! In any case you didn't answer my question about why you start threads like this if you could NOT care less if you were not correct?


...
On the other hand, if you really could NOT care less, then why start threads like this? Why make the appallingly inflammatory statement "Higher Criticism made Hitler possible. Period."??? Just trying to be a disruptive troll?

R

[HRG_new]

He was also an Occultist.

To say that Hitlers supporters where Christian is rather mistaken. Within the Nazi party occultism and the like was rife

Quite false. Rosenberg's work was regarded as a bit kookish by the Nazi majority.

, and the state run Lutheran Church by this time, after the ravages of the Higher Critics was largly devoid of any meaningful Christian content.

To say "95%+ of his supporters were Christians" is to use the word is the worthless cultural sense and you should no better.


A nice example of the True Scotsman fallacy. Who are you to decide which people are "true Christians" and which ones are not ?


Many genuine Christians opposed Hitler and paid with their liveslike Deitrech Bonhoffer.

Bonhoffer's liberalism has already been pointed out. It was the conservative wing of the church (both Protestant and Catholic) which did not condemn or fight Hitler.


And Hitlers problem with the Jews was entirely different to Luthers problem with the Jews. Hitler's hatred of the Jew's stemmed from Hitler's hatred of their God and what he represented. He had everybit as much of a problem with Christians and their God as he did with the Jew's.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Hitler saw himself as the tool of Providence = the Christian God, whose teaching had been obscured by the Jews.

Also, in quoting Luter you are misrepresenting him. Early on in his life he loved Jew's as wished to see them saved and embrace their messiah. It was after they rejected their messiah that his writings took the nasty turn. To paint him as you did as a life long hater of Jew's is mistaken.

What he did write about them is quite sufficient, isn't it ? Hitler probably wasn't a "life-long hater" of Jews either.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Jason

And here are my 2 Eurocents, which currently are worth more than your 2 US cents! :tongue: :tongue:

BTW, it is silly to make Darwin etc. responsible for Hitler. If there were any difference between human races, they would be due to micro-evolution (within a species), which even hard-boiled creationists dare not deny today.

[Lion]

Glenn, what fosters the godless society is the FACT that there is a conflict between what passes for science, or is called science. It is a real problem when no one can "Prove" either creation or evolution. Creation and evolution are both BELIEFS, not proven facts. Creation is based on the Bible, and evolution is based on the writings of Darwin and others.

Christians have failed to agressively pursue their doctrine, and in many instances accepted evolution. They have failed in in their mission.

[HRG_new]

Glenn, what fosters the godless society is the FACT that there is a conflict between what passes for science, or is called science. It is a real problem when no one can "Prove" either creation or evolution.
[quote]
You are mixing up apples and oranges. The counterpart of the Christian creation story are the Hindu, Navajo, Shinto, Parsee etc. creation stories, and not evolution, which is a scientific theory.
[quote]
Creation and evolution are both BELIEFS, not proven facts. Creation is based on the Bible
and evolution is based on the writings of Darwin and others.

No, evolution is based on objective observations that everyone can repeat. It is a fact which has been established beyond reasonable doubt. You of course have the right to harbor unreasonable doubts; I agree that evolution has not been proven beyond unreasonable doubts, but neither has the atomic theory of matter, nor the germ theory of diseases.

Christians have failed to agressively pursue their doctrine, and in many instances accepted evolution.

Yes, just as they have accepted a round earth and heliocentrism. Sometimes the pressure of reality is too great and the evidence in favor of scientific results amounts even to proof beyond unreasonable doubts.

[George Murphy]

Sorry about the grammar. I will take time to reply from now on is that is a real issue. Vernacular is acceptable on some web sites, I was not aware of the rule about this.

First, I would like to take a bit of time on this.

Okay, I include the others in association with Hitler, I give.

QUOTE BY GEORGE MURPHY (this means it is not my writing)

"If you were a student in one of my seminary courses I would not allow you to say another word..."

UNQUOTE (Notice these marks " " those are quote marks)

I know it and I am ever thankful that I did not go to a seminary. Those are them palces thar whut do not believe the Bible is the WORD of GOD ain't they? That thar is duh place ware people thunk up thet higher criticism ain't it?

It is also a place where they baptized Cabbage Patch dolls and made fun of the sacraments is it not?

My respect for seminaries is low, very low. That is a place where students get taught not to love God and make excuses for evil and condone abomination.

I would never be one of your students.

Please don't goad me into telling you that seminaries are responsible for most of the apostasy and heresy seen in the world today. I do not want to explain exactly why seminaries were instrumental in making Hitler possible. It is more than passingly strange that people who are going to seminaries and such do not think ideas are important and do not know that ideas were everything to Hitler. Sheeeesh.The seminary at which I teach (and others with which I'm familiar) has no resemblance to the kind of thing you describe. But what's at issue is not a matter of seminary education in particular but of education period. I would have said the same thing about you being a student in one of the college physics or astroonomy courses I used to teach. My point, which you unerringly missed, is that you shoot off your mouth without having any idea what you're talking about and without any attempt to understand what the other person is saying. A competent teacher would make you engage seriously with people with whom you disagree and try to help you abandon the loutish behavior you display here.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

Glenn, what fosters the godless society is the FACT that there is a conflict between what passes for science, or is called science. It is a real problem when no one can "Prove" either creation or evolution. Creation and evolution are both BELIEFS, not proven facts. Creation is based on the Bible, and evolution is based on the writings of Darwin and others.

Christians have failed to agressively pursue their doctrine, and in many instances accepted evolution. They have failed in in their mission.


The YECs always claim they are arguing for real science. what they are arguing for is solipcism. You can't know anything therefore I can beleive anything. That is the YEC argument in a nutshell

[Jack777]

Interesting.


I will post a couple of things from my files. I am not a YEC first. I shoot off my mouth...well, I guess so. Not know what I am talking about? Maybe, maybe not. I think I do.

I take umbrage to someone who lived during that period of time, Lion. Experiential knowledge does count, a lot. I stand by what I said. I am not without resources from people that lived at that time on a personal level as well as indirect, including literature. One dear friend is from Hunagary and lived in Germany throughout the war. Another who died years ago had a tattoo on a pale white arm. A former in law went to Spain as he was convinced that Franco was the man and he became close friends with Hemingway. They looked alike and he died an ex-patriot. Relative married to one of Hermann Goering's kin. Ex-in law married to someone that was relative of the guy that wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The only reason I mention this is that while I have impressions that are experiential, that is not the crux.

Here are some things to consider I dug from my files from internet resources that scratch the surface.

The Birth Control Review



OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE AMERICAN BIRTH CONTROL LEAGUE

MARGARET SANGER, Editor

DECEMBER, 1921



"Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds"


Slogan of Margaret Sanger - Founder of Planned Parenthood



There is ample evidence that The Theory of Evolution was elemental in the policies of Adolf Hitler. Few people now know how popular this theory was for many years after Darwin first published it. It was thought to be a justification for emptying the mental hospitals and prisons in Germany by euthanasia in Nazi Germany. To begin, the doctors and nurses were trained to help useless members of society die in medical hospitals and then as they gained experience the application of eugenics was applied to mental hospitals, prisons, and finally death camps. People do not realize that abortion and live birth abortion are an application of eugenics. Eugenics was tried in the United States with sterilization of inferior people.



Part of the attempt to apply The Theory of Evolution in making a super race was experimenting on humans. The following example is one of many.



“In November 1944, 20 Jewish children, ten boys and ten girls, had been brought from Auschwitz to the concentration camp of Neuengamme, just outside Hamburg. The youngsters, aged between 5 and 12 years old, came from all over Europe. Plucked from their homes the children had witnessed the murder of parents, siblings, and relatives. They faced starvation, illness, brutal labor and other indignities until they were consigned to the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Now they were to be human guinea-pigs in a series of medical experiments conducted by the SS doctor Kurt Heissmeyer. Dr. Heissmeyer removed the children's lymph glands for analysis, and he injected living tuberculosis bacteria in their veins and directly into their lungs to determine if they had any natural immunities to tuberculosis. They were carefully observed, examined and photographed as the disease progressed. The condition of all the children deteriorated very rapidly and they became extremely ill.



On April 20th, 1945, the day on which Adolf Hitler was celebrating his fifty-sixth birthday and just a few days before the war ended, Heissmeyer and SS-Obersturmführer Arnold Strippel decided to kill the children in an effort to hide evidence of the experiments from the approaching Allied forces.



To conceal all traces the SS transported the children to the former Bullenhuser Damm School, which had been used as a satellite camp since October 1944. They were immediately taken to the basement and ordered to undress.

An SS officer later reported: "They sat down on the benches all around and were cheerful and happy that they had been for once allowed out of Neuengamme. The children were completely unsuspecting."



The children were told that they had to be vaccinated against typhoid fever before their return journey. Then they were injected with morphine. They were hanged from hooks on the wall, but the SS men found it difficult to kill the mutilated children. The first child to be strung up was so light - due to disease and malnutrition - that the rope wouldn’t strangle him. SS untersturmführer Frahm had to use all of his own weight to tighten the noose. Then he hanged the others, two at a time, from different hooks. 'Just like pictures on the wall', he would recall later. He added that none of the children had cried. At five o' clock in the morning on April 21st, 1945, the Nazis had finished with their work and drank hard-earned coffee ...”



http://www.auschwitz.dk/Bullenhuser.htm (http://www.auschwitz.dk/Bullenhuser.htm)





The experiments on humans in death camps in Europe by the Nazis were all done in the name of science, The Theory of Evolution—Darwinian Evolution. Goering rightly pointed out at Nuremburg that he and the other Nazis were simply doing what was accepted in the United States by people like Sanger. Hitler got his ideas from Darwin and others.This is the darker side of The Theory of Evolution and Theistic Evolution. People refuse to acknowledge all that goes with these religions. Mercy, grace, and helping the widow and orphan are out of the question in these religions. The point is to mercilessly rid society of the unwanted and the excess people in the religion of Evolution. Coupling Evolution with Christianity should be opposed by any Christian. It is the religion of anti-Christ.



The following represents a small portion of the huge amount of literature available. These are a few excerpts of articles collected several years ago. It has been about four years. Things have gotten worse in some ways. Advocates of “social justice,” such as Jesse Jackson, said that Jesus would approve of abortion. The complicity of clergy is plain and it has blunted public awareness. That statement was just weeks ago. The public is sold this idea under the penumbra of a woman’s right to privacy, civil rights, and other nonsense. Killing children up to the age of three years old has been proposed now in the United States and the concerted effort to get rid of “human weeds” is still seriously being pursued. Christianity is not compatible with the practices of Hitler, Sanger, and Planned Parenthood. However, Theistic Evolution ignores the darker side of the “survival of the fittest” as espoused by The Theory of Evolution. The need to have more space and no inferior people by Hitler was simply carrying out what was advocated by people in Great Britain and the United States on the continent of Europe. There is a reason it ended up as it did.



The banner-head above summarizes the philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Like Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger considered herself to be part of a genetically superior elite who had to protect themselves against "hereditary taints." She set out to start a "New Race" - "A Race of Thoroughbreds." This elitist attitude is clearly at odds with the leftist, social worker image that is commonly attributed to her by the mass media. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which was renamed "Planned Parenthood" in 1942. In 1952 she helped found the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), serving as its first president until 1959. Even today, Planned Parenthood proudly proclaims Margaret Sanger as its "visionary" founder. Margaret Sanger's 1922 manifesto, The Pivot of Civilization, states the following:



"Birth Control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science. . . as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health."



Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization. Brentano's Press, NY, 1922, p 189.



http://www.lancasterlife.com/NurembergFiles/ (http://www.lancasterlife.com/NurembergFiles/)



Institute of Public Law and Policy at the University of Virginia



"A second factor has also contributed to the resurgence of interest in eugenics. New work on the history of the Holocaust has followed the opening of previously secret archives of the Nazi era in the former East Germany and Soviet Russia. The wave of memorials marking the 5Oth anniversary of the end of World War II, the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and the prosecution of Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg tribunals have also added to the interest in study of the so-called "scientific racism" that characterized the Nazi regime."





From the Eugenics Bibliography of the Institute of Public Law and Policy at the University of Virginia





THE MEN BEHIND HITLER: A German warning to the world by Bernhard Schreiber



CHAPTER II THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST



In 1900 the founder of racial hygiene in Germany, Dr. Alfred Ploetz, participated in an essay contest. It was sponsored by the industrialist Alfred Krupp, who gave a prize for the best essay on the subject "What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism for application to Inner Political development and the laws of the state?"



Many people entered, and most essays agreed that a biological blue-print and a group of biologically fit must maintain a pure strain to ensure the further existence of the state.



Wilhelm Schallmeyer, who won first prize, interpreted culture society, morality, and even "right" and "wrong" in terms of the struggle for survival. He wanted all laws brought into line with these concepts to prevent the white races from degenerating to the level of the Australian Aborigines. Such a degradation would be unavoidable if society continued to pander to the physically or mentally weak. His colleague, Dr. Alfred Ploetz, endorsed the whole essay and supported the superiority of the Caucasian race from which, of course he excepted the Jews' while the Aryans were claimed as the apex of racial perfection. For instance, he suggested that in times of war in order to preserve the race, only racially inferior persons should be sent to the front. As the soldiers in the front lines are usually the ones who are killed, this would preserve the purer part of the race from being unnecessarily weakened. He further suggested that a panel of Doctors be present at the birth of each child to judge whether the child was fit enough to live, and, if not, kill it.



http://www.eugenics-watch.com/ (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/)



ITS BEGININGS--THE Eugenics Societies



In 1901 Galton delivered a lecture to the English Royal Anthropological Society stressing the various possibilities of improving human breeding under the present social, legal and moral conditions. In 1904 the first chair in Eugenics and working society in Eugenics were instituted at University College, London, and these led to the establishment of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics in 1907. Soon Eugenics groups began to spring up all around the world.



In 1908 the Eugenics Education Society (renamed the Eugenics Society in the 20's) was founded in England and in 1910 the Eugenic Record Office in the United States. Both institutes used the research results of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics to propose practical applications, and they made it their task to intensely propagandise the eugenic idea to the public.



Dr. Alfred Ploetz, the same man who had assisted Schallmeyer with his prize essay, in 1905 founded the "Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene" [Society for Racial Hygiene] in Germany. Later it changed its name to "Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene (Eugenik)", which means the Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics). This change of name took place after Galton's announcement that racial hygiene and eugenics were in fact synonymous terms. These terms used in the German language were not only interchangeable, but racial hygiene was taken to be the German translation of eugenics. As racial hygiene was closely connected with political anthropology - a pseudo-science developed by Gobineau - eugenics was used as the scientific basis upon which racialist and political ideas, especially those of the Nazis, were based.



http://www.eugenics-watch.com (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/)







Malthus's ideas had great impact, only a few asked on what his claims were actually based. Yet neither Malthus nor his later disciples ever managed to put forward any scientific proof for his theory. Many scientists have disproved Malthus' theory and the ideology resulting from it.



However, with the book, Malthus created an atmosphere which moved his adherents in 1834 to pass a new law providing for the institution of work- houses for the poor, in which the sexes were strictly separated to curb the otherwise inevitable overbreeding. This kind of philosophy urged the calling forth of drastic measures. The full title of Charles Darwin's famous book is not so famous: The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In it he explains the development of life-forms as a struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.



Francis Galton (1822-1911) was an english psychologist and a half-cousin of Darwin. Galton extended Darwin's theory into a concept of deliberate social intervention, which he said was a logical application of evolution to the human race. He called his theory "Eugenics", the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.



Modern racism really began with Arthur Count de Gabon (1816-1882) who published his Essay on the Inequality of Human Races. He wrote in of a fair-haired Aryan race that was superior to all the others whose remnants constituted a tiny racial aristocracy decaying under the overwhelming weight of inferior races. A revival of his work in Germany began ten years after his death by the Pan-Germans, an extremely nationalistic and anti-jewish group.



In 1899, Gabon's disciple, Houston Stewart Chaimberlain (1844-1927), an Englishman, published The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, in Germany. He upheld the German race to be the purest and damned the inferior races, the jews and negroes, as degenerate. From this point on, Eugenics, Social Darwinism and racial hygiene fused into a single concept.



In 1904 the first chairs in Eugenics were instituted at University College, London, followed by the establishment of the Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics in 1907. In 1910 the Eugenic Record Office was founded in the United States, both institutes used the research results of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics to propose practical applications. Eugenics was used an the "scientific" basis upon which racism was fused to politics.



Eugenicists believed that the child of a mentally-ill person and a mentally healthy person would be a mentally-ill offspring. This led to a series of escalating regimens: separation from society, restraint, separation of the sexes in defective's colonies, and sterilizations.



In Great Britain one of the leaders of the mental hygiene movement was Miss Evelyn Fox. She had been an active member of the Eugenics Society before the foundation of the National Council for Mental Hygiene, of which she was an officer and founder. among the board members was Sir Cyril Burt, who later founded Mensa, a high i.q. group which espoused eugenic principles. The mental hygiene movement drew strongly from the eugenic movements of whatever country they were in.



Shortly after the turn of the century eugenic organizations were set up throughout the world. While the whole world was being prepared by propaganda for the sterilization of the insane, the adherents of mental hygiene and eugenics were preparing their next step, euthanasia.



In the U.S.A., Dr. Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize winner who had been on the staff of the Rockefeller Institute since its inception, published his book Man the Unknown in 1935. In it he suggests the removal of the mentally ill and the criminal by small euthanasia institutions equipped with suitable gases.



http://www.crystalinks.com/hitler.html (http://www.crystalinks.com/hitler.html)





For all of the people in favor of The Theory of Evolution and Theistic Evolution, I would like to hope I am gone when if all of this comes down again in the world. I pray that it does not occur in the United States if it does. The support for the Death Culture comes from the Left, Progressives, Neo-Nazis, and Muslim Jihadis. The Liberal mainline denominations of apostate churches such as the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, and others also think that support of euthanasia and “partial birth abortion” is fine. People are forgetting God and think other things are more important. So did the Liberal Theologians of Germany who made Hitler possible. I hope that should those who want to make sure their religion conform to “science” get their way that the spirit to resist this evil lives as it did for one young girl long ago.



“Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, a 18-year-old schoolgirl from Moscow, voluntarily joined a partisan detachment in 1941, when Nazi forces invaded Russia and mounted an offensive in the direction of Moscow. The brutality of the Nazis accelerated with murder, violence and terror, and on the night of the 27 November 1941, Zoya, together with two comrades, set fire to a German stable near Moscow. Nazi officers quickly caught one of them - Wassilij Klubkow. Under interrogation he betrayed Zoya.



The Nazis arrested her immediately and brutally tortured her in order to get some information on the partisan detachment. Rape, torture, and mutilation could not break her, so they hanged her in public in Petrishchevo near Moscow on the 29th November 1941. Just before she was pushed off the platform with a loop about her neck she shouted to the Nazis:



'You can't hang all 190 million of us.'



Zoya met her death with amazing courage and demonstrated a strong streak of defiance. Her words became a pithy saying.



In same partisan squad with Zoya was another young russian girl, Vera Voloshina. Several days before Zoya's execution Vera was wounded in her shoulder during combat and captured. After torture Vera Voloshina was also publicly hanged, later in the same day.



http://www.auschwitz.dk/ (http://www.auschwitz.dk/)









Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.







Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:



Fear God, and keep his commandments:



for this is the whole duty of man.



For God shall bring every work into judgment,



with every secret thing,



whether it be good,



or whether it be evil.



Ecclesiastes 12:13-14







The Holy Bible, The King James Authorized Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

[rogero]

Interesting.


I will post a couple of things from my files. I am not a YEC first. I shoot off my mouth...well, I guess so. Not know what I am talking about? Maybe, maybe not. I think I do.

I take umbrage to someone who lived during that period of time, Lion. Experiential knowledge does count, a lot. I stand by what I said. I am not without resources from people that lived at that time on a personal level as well as indirect, including literature. One dear friend is from Hunagary and lived in Germany throughout the war. Another who died years ago had a tattoo on a pale white arm. A former in law went to Spain as he was convinced that Franco was the man and he became close friends with Hemingway. They looked alike and he died an ex-patriot. Relative married to one of Hermann Goering's kin. Ex-in law married to someone that was relative of the guy that wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The only reason I mention this is that while I have impressions that are experiential, that is not the crux.

Here are some things to consider I dug from my files from internet resources that scratch the surface.

(Evidence of the evil of Hitler and Eugenics snipped)...

The Birth Control Review
It seems to me you are confusing some issues here.

Everybody knows that Hitler was evil. Your personal ancedotes are interesting, but, again, we already know he was evil.

Also, the eugenics business is interesting, but what does this have to do with whether or not biological evolution happened?

There are several issues and questions here:

1) One must be very careful to distinguish the physical truth or falsehood of biological evolution from the philosophical points of view that individuals have chosen to derive from it.


2) The Nazi master race concept that perfect Aryan humans are to be derived from selective breeding could just as easily have been stumbled upon without evolution. It is, after all, merely an aspect of artificial selection, which has been used with animals and plants for thousands of years. There is nothing intrinsically evolutionary about it. Whether the Nazis used Darwinism as an excuse for this is another issue, but it's certainly not Darwin's fault his scientific observations and conclusions were misused by a bunch of idiots.

3) One could argue equally that the natural theology of the pre-Darwin era was often misused to abuse and subjugate people. The Divine Right of Kings and the "natural order" of nature and humanity was thought by many to be proscribed by God. Lots and lots of humanitarian abuses have been falsely wrought in the name of the God of creation. This issue has been discussed on TWeb before -- mainly as Christian-bashing, and it wasn't pretty.

4) But the main issue is the scientific physical truth or falsehood of biological evolution! Biological evolution -- common descent and modification of species over time via natural selection (BE) -- either occurred as most scientists assert, or or it did not. Those are the alternatives. Do you agree with this, Jack?

It is very very important for us to separate out the science of BE from the philosophies that certain humans derive from it! Your arguing of how "evil" BE is simply does not make the putative science of BE false. As an analogy, take hydrogen fusion. Does hydrogen fusion exist? Is it "true"? Well, how could it be "true", since look at all the potential evil that can result from thermonuclear weapons? For pity's sake, all of humanity could be wiped out by the fusion weapons we have now, if they fall into the wrong hands! What an evil concept, that hydrogen fusion, and every humanist in the world should join in rejecting the scientific concept of hydrogen fusion. Since the possibility of real evil can be derived from it, the concept -- nay, it's very existence -- should be denied at all costs. It's an immoral concept after all!







Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.


Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:



Fear God, and keep his commandments:



for this is the whole duty of man.



For God shall bring every work into judgment,



with every secret thing,



whether it be good,



or whether it be evil.



Ecclesiastes 12:13-14







The Holy Bible, The King James Authorized Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769. Why the weird formatting?

Thanks for telling us it was from the KJV. I doubt we could have figured that out for ourselves. :wink:

[Jack777]

Coulda been stumbled upon...yeah right...No one heard of evolution in Germany and no one heard of it in the United States? I just gave a extremely small bit of evidence that The Theory of Evolution was known.

My point is that Hitler did not stumble upon all new ideas on his own. He did not live in a vacuum. He was influenced by The Theory of Evolution most certainly. Margaret Sanger was influenced by it, everybody and their brother was influenced by it. To miss that means you are blind. The Creator matters is the point too. Heterodoxy is not good in the first place.


So, you want refs and I give one and you mock me for it. Which is it? Refs or not? I could care less in that I do not misrepresent the truth or apologize for evil.

Proving my point again. Instead of dealing with a valid point of fact you act as apologist for evolution and do the moral relativism thing. Evolution is presented as science, although it is flawed scinetifically. So then, there is a Theistic Evolution case made (theism refers to God by the way) and now you ask what my thread has to do with evolution because it is science. That is insipid.

[rogero]

Coulda been stumbled upon...yeah right...No one heard of evolution in Germany and no one heard of it in the United States? I just gave a extremely small bit of evidence that The Theory of Evolution was known.



Who is arguing that the Theory of Evolution was unknown to Hitler and Sanger????



My point is that Hitler did not stumble upon all new ideas on his own. He did not live in a vacuum. He was influenced by The Theory of Evolution most certainly. Margaret Sanger was influenced by it, everybody and their brother was influenced by it. To miss that means you are blind. The Creator matters is the point too. Heterodoxy is not good in the first place.


You missed the very basic point I mentioned in my last post. There is a vast difference between the scientific theory of (biological) evolution and the (false) philosophical derivatives from it.

I thought this was a simple point, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Sorry!



So, you want refs and I give one and you mock me for it. Which is it? Refs or not? I could care less in that I do not misrepresent the truth or apologize for evil.


Your refs were about the putative misappropriation of the theory of biological evolution for dubious and/or evil social purposes.

I see you're repeating the "could care less" semantic error again. You really need to concentrate on being more clear in your exposition. Saying the opposite of what you mean is not the way to foster that activity.



Proving my point again. Instead of dealing with a valid point of fact you act as apologist for evolution and do the moral relativism thing. Evolution is presented as science, although it is flawed scinetifically. So then, there is a Theistic Evolution case made (theism refers to God by the way) and now you ask what my thread has to do with evolution because it is science. That is insipid.
Proving what point, Jack? Why do you insist upon being so confusing and obtuse?

Jack, God bless you --- but you've devolved into rambling gibberish again.

1) How exactly is (biological) evolution misrepresented as science? You have a science background. Please illuminate us.


2) Do you understand the difference between evolution as a (misinterpreted) philosophy and a scientifically falsifiable theory?

Yes or no!

3) How in the name of all that is good am I acting "as apologist for evolution and do the moral relativism thing"? What are you talking about? How you gone off the deep end?


4) Thanks for the definition of "theism". I didn't know that before. :lol:


A prerequisite for a reasoned discussion is that each party should be at least coherent. You fail in this criterion. Jack, maybe you need to take a break from TWeb, because you're getting more and more incomprehensible and illogical -- as evidenced by your final quote "and now you ask what my thread has to do with evolution because it is science. That is insipid."

The main point remains, Jack. Did biological evolution occur or did it not? That is a scientific, not a philosophical question.

R

[Jack777]

Goodness.

God bless you too.

As science evolution helps give a framework to view taxa in reference to the geologic record. If we viewed natural history from a Catastrophic view rather than Gradualist or that of Punctuated Equilibrium we would have a difficult time conceptualizing natural history. Did evolution occur as Darwin and Huxley might think it did? No.

You must realize that the misappropriation or appropriation of evolution as a philosophy drives scientific thought, whether for bad or good. To think that philosophy has nothing to do with science is a mistake. When evolution replaced Theology as the Queen of Science, quite naturally a philosophy and a religion replaced Christian Theology. I am not saying that we should look to our Bibles to study crystal chemistry. What I am saying is that evolution understood or misunderstood functioned in the world imperfectly or well and has results from application.

I understand that I am not clear to you. That is fine. Some people might understand. That is all.

[rogero]

...

As science evolution helps give a framework to view taxa in reference to the geologic record.

Agreed. But I will add that biological evolution, i.e., common descent with modification, provides the most consistent framework to view the fossil record as well as similarities in anatomy and biochemistry. That's the reason most scientists accept the theory, not because it denies God.



If we viewed natural history from a Catastrophic view rather than Gradualist or that of Punctuated Equilibrium we would have a difficult time conceptualizing natural history. Did evolution occur as Darwin and Huxley might think it did? No.

Perhaps you should start a new thread to discuss the science of a Catastrophic view and support how such view explains the fossil record as well as similarities in anatomy and biochemistry.

I've asked you this a number of times, but what exactly is your view of the history of the biosphere?

Darwin's basic concept of speciation via natural selection in response to differing environmental conditions has not changed. He did not have the advantage of the science of genetics, so had no idea how traits were passed to offspring. Classical and modern genetics in no way have falsified Darwin's work on natural selection.

You could easily make an analogous statement about Isaac Newton and his law of universal gravitation. Neither he (nor we) know what actually transmits gravitational force, yet the formula for the gravitation force between masses that Newton derived is still correct, regardless of our lack of complete knowledge.



You must realize that the misappropriation or appropriation of evolution as a philosophy drives scientific thought, whether for bad or good. To think that philosophy has nothing to do with science is a mistake. When evolution replaced Theology as the Queen of Science, quite naturally a philosophy and a religion replaced Christian Theology. I am not saying that we should look to our Bibles to study crystal chemistry. What I am saying is that evolution understood or misunderstood functioned in the world imperfectly or well and has results from application.

Theology is not a "science" in the sense of natural science, since it is not amenable to scientific method. Theology is not testable in the way that scientific hypotheses are. It is "science" in the sense of a branch of knowledge, but you are mixing two different concepts, this is very confusing to the casual observer.

I hate to do this again (honestly), but I'm having trouble understanding the bolded sentence.



I understand that I am not clear to you. That is fine. Some people might understand. That is all. You're clear enough on this point, at least. :wink:

[rogero]

I just read a post by Solly where he used a Latin expression that I feel is most appropos for this thread on Jack's assertion that evolution is "wrong" because it has (putatively!) spawned a philosophy that has led to much evil (Hitler and facscism, eugenics, etc.)

Abusus usum non tollit - "Abuse does not take away proper use."

In summary, the supposed philosophical misuses of the scientific concept of biological evolution by certain groups of people does not constitute a logical proof that biological evolution is scientifically falsified.

Thanks, Solly -- and I hope you don't mind me extracting and using your quotation in this manner in this context. :thumb: Also, that you don't mind being associated with a "liberal" historical-critical heretic! :lol:

[Jack777]

I understand and Solly's phrase is appropriate. Please understand that this thread is in the forum for cosmogony. I could use the Latin phrase myself.

[rogero]

I understand and Solly's phrase is appropriate. Please understand that this thread is in the forum for cosmogony. I could use the Latin phrase myself.
More confusing Jack-isms. Please explain yourself in a clear manner. Put that English degree to a good use.

R

[grmorton]

Thanks, Solly -- and I hope you don't mind me extracting and using your quotation in this manner in this context. :thumb: Also, that you don't mind being associated with a "liberal" historical-critical heretic! :lol:

Well, you are a lovable heretic. :teeth:

[Lion]

I am trying to figure out what he meant, too. Darwin was right in that he observed inherited traits, but wrong about crossing widely different kinds of animals. The definition of species is so blurred I hate to use it. Even the word kind has almost lost its meaning. I don't believe man evolved from some other form of creature.

[Jack777]

What is unclear Lion?

I think Darwin got some things wrong obviously.

rogero,

I did not say that the Theory of Evolution singlehandedly spawned all heresy and apostasy along with the Third Reich. I notice you have the dysfunctional habit of defocusing so views you do not agree with will be minimized. Hurts only you.

[rogero]

e things wrong obviously.

rogero,

I did not say that the Theory of Evolution singlehandedly spawned all heresy and apostasy along with the Third Reich. I notice you have the dysfunctional habit of defocusing so views you do not agree with will be minimized. Hurts only you.
This is post hoc rhetorical distortion, Jack. I didn't intimate that you said that TOE "singlehandedly spawned all" heresy and apostasy along with the Third Reich. Your insertion of the bolded phrase is disingenuous.

You did imply in this and in several other clone threads that TOE is "wrong" because some groups of people putatively derived an evil social/moral philosophy (loosely this would be "Social Darwinism") from it. I pointed out that this is a logical error in that the truth or falsehood of the scientific theory cannot be determined by these false social/moral derivatives.

Ergo, the conclusion is repeated: Abusus usum non tollit

So, I agree -- doing what you did hurts only you, not the truth or falsity of the TOE.

R

[Jack777]

I stand by what I said. I have posted several things that are questionings of evolution. Are you a Quibbler? Are you the Mr. Quibbler? I was thinking your last name was Hominem.

rogero wrote:

"Jack's assertion that evolution is 'wrong' because it has (putatively!) spawned a philosophy that has led to much evil (Hitler and facscism, eugenics, etc.)"

Booga booga:tongue: !

[rogero]

I stand by what I said. I have posted several things that are questionings of evolution. Are you a Quibbler? Are you the Mr. Quibbler? I was thinking your last name was Hominem.

rogero wrote:

"Jack's assertion that evolution is 'wrong' because it has (putatively!) spawned a philosophy that has led to much evil (Hitler and facscism, eugenics, etc.)"

Booga booga:tongue: !
Mature response, Jack! :lol:

I wasn't quibbling, and you completely missed the point, since you haven't defended it.

You stand by what you said then? So, you admit that you are making a case against the science of biological evolution by pointing out examples of misuses of the philosophy spawned by it?

Can you not see that this a logical fallacy? How does this assertion obviate empirical evidence for evolution? Biological evolution either occurred or it did not and this is a science, not a philosophical issue.

So again, Abusus usum non tollit...

[Jack777]

No I am not.

[rogero]

No I am not.
Do you actually read any of the responses to your posts? It seems not, since for example, your response here seems not to correspond to any post in this thread.

R

P.S. What's your explanation of a billion+ year old biosphere that has not experienced biological evolution? (Common descent with modification...)

[Jack777]

I do read and answered.

I am not going to do a version of evolution, I am posting in favor of recognizing God created and why. I got told I was wrong and God did not create, and I am in the process of answering.

I have also ignored a bunch of things that were said about me that are lies or exaggerations. Why do I have to give that kind of thing life, when it has none.

You just do not like my answers. Why do you think I posted a lot of different threads?

This Forum is about Cosmogony, not evolution. I can say things about cosmogony if I like, and I like.

It may seem strange to you, but doing TE and saying God and the opening verse of Genesis do not count much, matters.

[rogero]

I do read and answered.

I am not going to do a version of evolution, I am posting in favor of recognizing God created and why. I got told I was wrong and God did not create, and I am in the process of answering.

I have also ignored a bunch of things that were said about me that are lies or exaggerations. Why do I have to give that kind of thing life, when it has none.

You just do not like my answers. Why do you think I posted a lot of different threads?

This Forum is about Cosmogony, not evolution. I can say things about cosmogony if I like, and I like.

It may seem strange to you, but doing TE and saying God and the opening verse of Genesis do not count much, matters.If you answered my question about a billion-year old biosphere, then I must have missed it. Could you kindly point to the post where you answered that question?

None of the dozen or so threads you've started in the past three days seems to give an answer.

How can I not like your answers, when you don't give any answers? So, what is your view of the history of the biosphere? Can you defend that view on scientific and scriptural grounds?

R