Posted on 02/11/2006 5:52:00 PM PST by gobucks
Actually I have, and in fact use it frequently in my teaching.
I am very familiar with this passage, and cite it often. What's your point?
Who were the "not-favored" races...the Zulus that the British were fighting with, along with all of the other African tribes, and, of course, the Aborigines of Australia.
This isn't magic! If you understood Darwin the only conclusion
you could come to is that the existing Races were Favored and
therefore were Preserved as evidenced by the fact that they
still existed up to that moment.
Your effort to twist the observation of natural selection into some
filthy Nazi plot is disgusting!
So when do they start exchanging gifts on it?
mm
You people keep putting words in my mouth which I have not spoken, or written. Can't you do any better than that?
Guess who said this?
Ummmm...Charlie?
Sorry. We are talking about truth.
Wow! Mention the word "truth" and venomus untruths suddenly come to life.
You and me both. I would be hot footing it out of that church if this rhetoric was being cast as truth.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Sir, your parochial thinking prevents you from seeing anything
but what you think you should. Open your heart and your mind,
and you may see that Darwin gleaned a tiny bit of God's Plan.
It doesn't have to harm anyone's faith at all. I've seen much
more in the Bible to make me doubt it than anything in Darwin
that would make me doubt natural selection. When Preachers
keep up these absurd Taliban like positions they drive people
away from Churches in flocks
When Preachers keep up these absurd Taliban like positions they drive people away from Churches in flocks
What is the point of this statement? For what it is worth, those people you refer to are abandoning churches - like the Episcopal Church because they refuse to teach the Bible, and have compromised with the Naturalistic community. Those people are responding very positively to scientific evidence presented by Creationist Scientists, and to biblical teaching which you apparently seek to denigrate.
Such as...?
Flash - creationists believe in Natural Selection also. We see it as the mechanism for speciation.
Who were the "not-favored" races...the Zulus that the British were fighting with, along with all of the other African tribes, and, of course, the Aborigines of Australia.?
How could your words mean anything but a Racial attack
against those that accept Evolution?
Doesn't necessarily mean evolutionary biologists today, but the roots are there.
I just saw it a few nights ago and it was an angry leftist screed on par with something George Clooney would have produced. All the religious people are either hate-filled zealots or self-aggrandizing lunatics. Rather than making a case for Darwin's theory, the writer took a sledgehammer to religious people. Not very persuasive.
Start with Genesis: The Sons of God saw the Daughters of
Man and saw that they were fair and took them for their wives.
Don't try to explain it. Nothing you could say would give any
enlightenment. It is a sordid situation no matter how you might
parse it.
The whole book of Ezekiel starting with his precise description
of how he is lifted up continuing through his seeing the Living
Wheels and the visit to the Temple. His subsequent visitations
that he relates in great detail.
One can read parable-after-parable which are only allegorically
applied yet other passages must be accepted literally with no
room for earthly interpretation.
You may be able to explain away anything I present you but at
least 20 major Christian Religions say that you'll get it wrong
whatever you say.
All Darwin said was creatures adapt to their circumstances
and those that adapt in a positive way will continue to exist.
If you want to climb back in the trees and deny your existence
then go right ahead but don't insist I climb up there with you
and don't insist I let my grandchildren be taught that "ID" or
"Creationism" in Science Class.
That's a non sequiter, Churches at that time were racist too.
[Many still are.]
What has largely driven most Creationist's rhetoric is an effort
to prevent racial mixing.
Natural Selection shows us that black-haired, brown-eyed,
dark-skinned persons are racially superior (dominant) to the
typical fair-haired, blue-eyed, light-skinned person (recessive).
If the two mate, the offspring will have (dominant) traits.
Darwin is to be hated because he implied that racial mixing
can be a natural thing.
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.