there's a lot of this stuff out there recently. they're trying to hide the fact that Darwin was a racist and that his theory was largely motivated by that. this "abolitionist" stuff is just trying to cover over the real issues.
Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the very title itself of Hitler's book ("My Struggle"), was influenced by Darwin's subtitle, "Struggle for Existence," and by the German advocate of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, who published a book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over Evolutionary Thinking").
Jesus said we should judge a tree by it's FRUIT. And the fruit of "evolution" has been genocide and slaughter.
Christian blood libel against science again, I see.
When pro-slavery types were called upon to justify their position, they always went to the Bible. Why is that?
Could it be that the Bible explicitly allows slavery? See Ephesians 6.
posted on 02/01/2009 3:06:50 PM PST
The NYT gets Herbert Spencer wrong by the way. The common understanding of Spencer as author of social darwinism is quite wrong.
posted on 02/01/2009 3:10:54 PM PST
(He who has the guns makes the rules)
On what philosophical basis would biological evolutionary theory contradict the practice of slavery?
posted on 02/01/2009 4:24:00 PM PST
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
A New York Times writer of Darwin should be taken as seriously as Obama on economics.
Weigh in, almighty coyoteman. Owooooo!
posted on 02/01/2009 9:25:33 PM PST
(Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson