Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.
The results of Darwin’s theories
"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.
Isn't it painfully obvious? He's either an atheist, a Jew or a Christian that is really mad at the obvious Christian haters because that proves they are secret Jew haters! And evos are baaaad, mmmkay?
"In no way has intelligent design been scientifically shown to be supernatural. Nor has the connection between intelligent design and intelligibility been scientifically challenged in the slightest."
As I have already explained, the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Meyer, Demski, Behe, et al.) have already defined the Designer to be a non-natural intelligent agency. The entire premise of the "theory" is supernatural. I don't understand your second sentence. What's "intelligellibility?"
"Furthermore, the very existence of chemicals that behave according to laws is ample evidence of intelligent design. For reasons only a brainwashed philosopher would understand, you and your cheerleaders continually mistake the results of intelligent design for intelligent intervention at every point. Who's being childish here? I thought you knew better. Even a child knows a shovel doesn't have brains but is organized to perform a specific function and hence might be a product of intelligent design."
No, there's no logical connection to that. There's no evidence to suggest so and the positive evidence offered by ID, CSI and IC, have been refuted multiple times.
"How does the reality of quantum physics (which incidentally is theoretical and subject to wide speculation) coupled with an intelligibly functioning universe militate against the concept of intelligent design? Look at the code behind a computer grahic and it has all the attributes of randonmess, purposelessness, chance, etc. So what?
If one is going to arrive at conclusion that particle matter and its attributes are not a product of intelligent design, then he will have to explain why so much particle matter happens to retain its consistencies and perform purposefully. Of course there have been, and will be, incorrect assumptions and conclusions along the way. This in no way negates or militates against intelligent design, nor does it make intelligent sdesign a mystical, superstitious, religious, or unscientific notion."
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is solid. It's not speculation and neither is quantum physics speculation. A theory in science is any well-substantiated explanation for a broad range of related phenomena. While there exist speculative predictions inside the theory, the theory itself is solid. Besides which, that statement is contradicted with this:
"You touch on some good and interesting points at the end of this post. I take the unpredictability and general inaccessibility of particle matter as another sign of intelligent design, which leaves open a means for direct intervention upon the processes we study, thus making possible physical anomalies, free will, and a host of other potentials that cannot and will not be realized apart from intelligent design."
I don't understand; in the first statement you attacked the Uncertainty Principle in that it seemed to contradict ID. Now, you praise it in that it supports ID? That doesn't make sense.
"I (like most of Western science that seeks purpose, function, order and the like) start with the assumption of intelligent design. Who does not design an animate object without taking care for contingencies and allowing a way to intervene in the course of that object's history?"
I don't think most scientists support ID. In any case though, the reason is simply because ID isn't falsifiable. And its falsifiable predictions, IC and CSI, have been refuted by Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, and other biologists.
Anyway though, a pleasure talking with you.
It's not as though I am inclined to run to you for enlightenment. Sheez. You can't even explain why intelligent design should be considered supernatural when it is found around us all the time, as natural as can be.
Of all the nuts and ravers on these threads, there is only one I will scroll by completely.
Okay, I'll scroll by Elsie's "Look at my neat concordance" posts as well, but he's not on autoignore.
CP for Elsie
He doesn't listen.
Don't waste your electrons.
So, anyone that disagrees with your personal interpretation of religion is an "enemy of America" and a "Christian basher," even if they are a Christian themselves?
Sir Francis Dashwood (#343): (hey, this is a "conservative" forum, in case you didn't see the mission statement).
Sir Francis Dashwood (#335)... I am not a "conservative" and never said I was...
You've claimed to be an atheist and now say you are not a conservative. Why should anyone on FR listen to you? In fact, why shouldn't you banned?
Good thinking. The last thing we need is children from the card table pulling on the tablecloth at the grown-ups' table.
"You can't make this stuff up" placemarker.
That is a mistake on their part. Intelligent design is a natural occurrence. If it were not, we would call it a miracle every time someone (i.e. an intelligent designer) writes a word or sentence.
He is as two-faced a poster as I have seen on FR. And he flings the crap like a monkey at the zoo.
How can it be a mistake on their part? They are the ones who proposed the "theory." However, the thing is, I believe you are commiting a non-sequitur. Whereas humans are naturalistic intelligent designers, the Intelligent Designer as outlined in the ID "theory" is by definition non-naturalistic and untestable. If the ID community can find a way to test for a naturalistic Intelligent Designer, then more power to them.
Note: I'm not being sarcastic when I put "theory" in quotes. The thing is, in science, nothing starts off as a theory. You have to form hypotheses explaining a range of related data and if it is confirmed enough and is very accurate, it will graduate to a theory. Nothing starts off as a theory
What false premise?
No it isn't.
The higher power could be evil.
So, you have a Gestapo complex... elaborate more please...
I don't see your point.
Homosexuality is a negative characteristic and you don't need Genesis to know that.
If you are an atheist, and you believe that morals stem from a higher power, are you amoral then?
That's not an answer. Pretend like you understood what I was saying and try again.
Apparently you've never heard of Buddha. He never mentioned any God, unless you consider the supernatural forces of Karma a "higher power."
I will grant you that then. I guess technically karma is a "higher power."
So, you have a Gestapo complex... elaborate more please...
Anyone who cares to investigate can look at the posting history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.