Posted on 05/30/2009 8:50:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post
by Christine Dao*
Texas State Representative Don McLeroy (R-College Station) narrowly lost his bid on May 28 to retain his position as chairman of the State Board of Education. The 19-11 vote, which ran strictly along party lines, failed the two-thirds majority required for the nomination to pass.
Opponents of McLeroy cited his creationist viewpoint as a leading factor in the vote, while defenders, such as Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) stated, “It is not fair to say that if you don’t believe Darwin’s theory of evolution or accept the argument that global warming is occurring, that you should not be on the State Board of Education.”[1]
McLeroy had pushed to keep...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies
Ping!
Evolutionists do not allow anyone to hold a faith different from their own. They are as dogmatic as Muslims in denying Christians their Biblical viewpoint.
How many times must it be said that Evolution is a religion? Here is yet more proof of it. They have taken the stand of, “If you don’t believe what we say, then you are not an educator”. Well, I do no know where they were educated, but I learned in college that you always question what you are reading and hearing and use facts and sound logic to come to conclusions. Evolutionists are guessing and hoping that their theory is true, they have no right to remove someone from leadership simply because they refuse to have faith in Evolution. That is not what education is about, and it most certainly isn’t what science is about. Where is the diversity that educators so praise every moment of their lives? Hypocrites, phony hypocrites.
Thanks for the ping!
That is why we must push back, and push back hard. We actually outnumber the Evos, but you would never know it by our actions.
A good lesson in “bipartisanship” for Senator Cornyn, but I don’t think he’s listening.
What is also sad is that the American people lack the ability to understand what you have explained here.
==Where is the diversity that educators so praise every moment of their lives? Hypocrites, phony hypocrites.
I never thought of it that way, but you are absolutely correct! I just wish Creationists and IDers would realize that we way outnumber the Evo-atheists, and start acting accordingly.
[[They are as dogmatic as Muslims in denying Christians their Biblical viewpoint]]
Bingo
And worldnetdaily has an article showing that in California, those hwo have held bible studies i ntheir homes for decades, are now being targetted by officials- one couple has been told they will be fined in increasing amounts if htey continue to hold their bible studies because the state government is claiming htey are ‘breaking hte law’ by not having ‘environmental impact studies done’ (apparently because of the ‘impact’ that parking has on the area when folks park to go to the study), and they are goign to be required to apply for special permits that cost thousands
Apparently, only the government endorsed religion of secularism is allowed in public now, and apparently, if you are a secularist, you can meet anywehere you like as often as you like, and never be subjected to heavy burdens of hte government rules. I wodner if California will give superbowl party goers the same harrassments? I wonder if they will require family reuinion hosts who hold reunions each year to apply for permits that cost 1000’s of $$ etc? Yeah- didn’t htink so- and I doubt the government is goign to go after Muslims meeting every tuesday in someone’s home, or Atheists meeting every Wednesday in someone’s home etc- just hte Christians, because apparently, it’s just the Christians who impact the environment by parkign several cars in someone’s private driveway!
I know this is a serious issue, but I'm still amused that the evos are forced to publicly declare their opposition to critical thinking.
WELL said!
bump
I got a good chuckle out of that myself :o)
Congratulations, you've worn them down!
Or they are just trying to lull me into a false sense of security :o)
C’mon people, the science is settled. Anybody who says otherwise is on a level with the Holocaust deniers.
/s
Science? Who needs it when you have the Bible?
The UFO cultists are almost all Evos. Creationists tend not to fall for little green men on mars, astrology, Big Foot, and whatever other superstitions and fairytales the Evo-cultists generally fall for. Even geocentrism came from one of your fellow Evo-astrologists, Ptolemy. And it is the Creationists and IDers who are calling for open scientific debate between derwood’s atheist creation myth and Creation/ID. The darwin drones, who represent a small minority of Evo-cultists, are the ones who are behaving like thugs. We have the numbers to open up the debate, and that is exactly what we should do. We have no interest in using force to shut down the Darwin-cult. We want to destroy them in a scientific debate for all to see, which, be definition means, we want people to be able to make up their own minds.
Or worse yet, Global Warming deniers! After all, Hitler only wanted to destroy non-native species...err...the Jews. Whereas the Global Warming deniers want to destroy the whole planet!
You said — Or they are just trying to lull me into a false sense of security :o)
—
Yeah..., it’s more like a “Hudna” that the Islamic Terrorists agree to... they never have a “peace treaty” with their enemies, but only lulls in the action in order to regroup and resupply for the next round of terrorism and killing and maiming...
LOL...
—
A quote about Hudna...
Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.
When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad’s hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments “on the road to Jerusalem,” the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, “when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel.” Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.
[ http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp ]
And another...
HUDNA - Arabic word often translated as “cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition.
[ http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=886017&ct=1181591 ]
—
I think this is your Hudna... :-)
You'd have to use science for that.
What do you think about the proposed wording of the Texas science education standards?
You mean the persecution of ignorance.
You can see this documentary too...
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
with Ben Stein
You can buy it here...
http://www.expelledstore.com/product.php?productid=26&cat=6&page=1
It’s on Amazon, too...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001BYLFFS/
It’s interesting to see that there are 318 5-star ratings and then, 180 1-star ratings, with hardly anything in the middle... LOL...
—
You can also get it for just viewing if you want to download it on a BitTorrent site (using BitTorrent client software)...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4443154/Expelled.No.Intelligence.Allowed%5BDVDRip%5DXviD-NeDiVx
Even that site generates a lot of “hate talk” about this documentary... :-)
Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection to evolution. The concept of evolution had already been around for thousands of years.
Spam tends to get ignored after awhile.
You said — Really? You must not read any of the posts here about UFO’s, crop circles, etc. You might want to check out posts by Quix, who IIRC is also a creationist.
—
You should be pinging Quix, when talking about him... LOL... [don’t think he’s around for the moment; think he’s on a trip right now, but he’ll get this when he gets back...]
But, I think it’s fairly true that the Evolutionist thought *does* generate the concept of other extra-terrestrial civilizations, if “life” develops like they say, over millions of years. It’s only “natural” in their way of thinking to have a concept of millions of other extra-terrestrial civilizations out there, based on that idea. I can’t see how anyone can deny that. They “make a lot of hay” out of the idea that there should be a lot of extra-terrestrial life out in the universe if their ideas are right.
So, when we hear reports about UFOs and other such things, it’s also only natural for those who believe in evolution — in that it is the process by which life comes about and evolved everywhere in the universe — that they would think that these many reports of UFOs are those advanced life forms that exist out there, on this basis of evolutionary thought.
HOWEVER, you’ll also have other who say that these UFO reports may be real (they say “something” is actually happening there, that people are reporting) — but — that they are actually *not* what a large number of people (steeped in evolutionary thinking) may think it is (i.e., advanced civilizations, elsewhere, coming to visit).
These people that say that there are not these evolutionary processes going on in the universe (supposedly creating life in many, many other places), say that these UFO reports may be “something” but they are basically hoaxes, perpetrated upon the gullible “evolutionary-thinking” people to convince them to believe that these are advanced and other civilizations (since these evolutionary types think that there *has to be* all sorts of other life out there in the universe).
In other words, the ones who don’t believe in this evolutionary process creating life from inanimate matter, over a period of millions of years, from some vague and undefined process — think that people are being “hoaxed” into believe UFOs are representative of advanced civilizations (heck..., there are people reporting that they’ve been told that by those UFO-races, themselves... LOL...).
So, it would appear that the evolutionary-thinking people are being hoaxed into believing UFOs do represent this “reality” since they are told that there *has to be* all sorts of life (and intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe, and that “we” — definitely *cannot be* the only intelligent life/civilization in the universe.... :-)
—
Now, as to *what* these things are (i.e., UFOs), well perhaps 90% are misperceptions and misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge, along with, perhaps, some “enthusiasm” on the part of the viewer (especially enthusiasm born out of “evolution” no doubt... LOL...).
For the remainder (of those things seen), which do represent something going on and seen and not explained by our conventional mechanisms in this world we live in, there are many who think it represents being *hoaxed* and *fooled* by what the Bible tells us are beings who are evil and who have evil purposes and designs in our world. The Bible makes it very clear that they exist and are real and are around in our world.
I think “evolutionary thought” simply produces *more easily fooled people* rather than smarter people... LOL..
Look Who's Irrational Now
--snip--
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."
Seems that the ICR failed to mention Don Mcleroy D.D.S. dishonest and un-Christian quote mining………………
“Regrettably, inaccurate statements are now included in the current draft of the standards. These changes were adopted on the recommendation of Board Chairman Don McLeroy. To bolster his argument in favor of the changes, McLeroy presented quotes from various “authoritative” sources and passed them off as supporting his own doubts about evolution. By removing the “fine print” from his list of quotes, Dr. McLeroy forced his fellow board members to base their vote on incomplete and misleading information.
When the chair of the state school board uses out-of-context quotes in order to persuade others to act as he desires, he is undercutting the trust that has been placed in him. When he apparently plagiarizes those quotes from a website and then attempts to pass them off as the result of his own research, he is displaying a disappointing lack of academic integrity.”
http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/index.htm
very fascinating. Thanks
My pleasure—GGG
All I see from your link is a bunch of quotes mined from Don Mcleroy (R), ripped away from their original context. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
So what are we to take away from this, Ira? That whenever a conservative happens to be a creationist, you are happy when they lose their position of power?
PS It would appear that your buds over at the Daily Kos are in full agreement with you:
And wouldn’t ya know it, your fellow travelers over at the Huffington Post are in full agreement with you too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/the-evolution-of-texas_b_178544.html
No it was Don Mcleroy who violated the 9th commandment by using out of connect quotes to bear false witness.
That was not a very Christian thing to do.
P.S.
I do not read Daily Kos, or Huffington Post, but it refreshing to see even Lib’s are able to call out dishonesty that is this blatant.
First, reinterpreting the Evo’s data, or catching them admitting something that weakens Darwin’s atheist creation myth, is not bearing false witness. Second, how would you know if Don Mcleroy was quoting the Evos out of context, since your source does not quote Mcleroy in context. Third, as a supposed Christian, why do you take such great pleasure when a conservative Christian is thrown out of office?
PS Your joy over the Daily Kos and Huffington Post being in full agreement with you over the sacking of a conservative Republican is duly noted.
The quotes are from a hand out that Mr. Mcleroy passed during the meeting and read into the public record. You must have overlooked the link provided on the page.
http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/mcleroy_handout.pdf
The link I provided shows the quote as presented in the hand out, and then the quote in the correct context.
http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/examine.htm
If to the Christian a lie is creating a deliberate falsehood them Mr. Mcleroy just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I do not rejoice when a conservative Christian is thrown out of office, I rejoice when a proven dishonest politician is thrown out of office.
A dishonest Christian no matter how well intentioned presents all Christians in a bad light, Even your buddies over at Creation Ministries International advise against using such dishonest techniques.
You said — For more on the persecution of Creation and ID scientists, teachers, etc., read the book “Slaughter of the Dissidents.”
—
Well, of course, any such persecution will come from the Darwinists, and their rabid and dictatorial goal of enforcing their views on everyone, no matter what. And we can see what this kind of “Darwinian mentalilty” leads to in the world, from the book below (a book review given...)
MURDEROUS SCIENCE
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY, BY RICHARD WEIKART
By: M. D. Aeschliman
National Review
March 28, 2005
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, by Richard Weikart (Palgrave Macmillan, 324 pp., $59.95)
It is an open question whether civilization will survive Darwinism, whose inspiration for Nazism, militarism, racism, wars of extermination, eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia is amply documented in Richard Weikart’s excellent new book. In precise and careful detail Weikart narrates an indispensable chapter of cultural and intellectual history that had tragic consequences: the growing ascendancy in Germany in the period 1860-1933 of Social Darwinist ideas that fostered a ruthless, amoral view of the human person and of the relations between individuals, groups, nations, and races. Though in this period all “advanced” Western nations (and Japan) were affected by the Darwinian bacillus, whose revival in new and seductive forms we see today, for complex reasons Germany was the land in which it grew strongest and had the most tragic consequences. Bismarck’s success in unifying Germany through warfare and Germany’s growing industrial power in competition with Britain and France gave prominence and prestige to “blood and iron” and ideas of ruthless realpolitik, which a century earlier had been articulated by the Machiavellian Frederick “the Great.” Like distinguished earlier scholars such as Carlton J. H. Hayes and his student Jacques Barzun, Weikart has no doubt that “Darwinism undermined traditional morality and the value of human life.”
The key figures in German “Darwinismus” were Ernest Haeckel and Nietzsche, but Weikart’s book is also largely concerned with a host of less well-known German biologists, medical doctors, and social scientists who promoted Darwinism to great effect. Much valuable documentation appears here in English for the first time. Darwin himself was very pleased at the growing influence of his thinking in Germany. In 1868 he wrote to a German scholar: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.” Haeckel, his most important German disciple, praised Darwin in a letter a decade later for having “shown man his true place in nature . . . thereby overthrowing the anthropocentric fable.” The “anthropocentric fable” is the belief in the special character of human life, the sacredness of the human person, and the absolute warrant of conscience and Christian or Kantian ethics. Many contemporary Darwinists, such as Peter Singer and James Rachels, are exhilarated by the Darwinian liberation from ethics, conveniently forgetting the 1914-1945 chapter of modern moral history that had so much to do with the “liberated” cynicism, fury, and cruelty of Social Darwinism.
On the first page of his book Weikart quotes from the same critical 1859 letter to Darwin from his Cambridge mentor, Adam Sedgwick, that Jacques Barzun quoted from in his magisterial 1941 book, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage: “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.” To break the link between the material and the moral, Sedgwick went on, would “damage” and “brutalize” humanity and “sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.” The hysterical, obscene strife, carnage, and cruelty of the period 1914-1945 are here foreshadowed with prophetic power.
In fact Weikart’s book raises without treating — as being beyond his task — one of the most painful dilemmas of contemporary civilization, a dilemma of which most common citizens are often dimly aware but which many scientists, caught in the grip of curiosity (libido sciendi), the will to power (libido dominandi), and dangerously vague utilitarian idealism, resolutely wish to ignore or deny: the destructive threat an omnicompetent science poses to ethics. Even liberal commentators such as Richard Hofstadter and, more recently, Stephen Jay Gould (in Rocks of Ages) have found themselves defending parts of William Jennings Bryan’s ethical critique of Darwinism, which was the product not only of Bryan’s Christian religious beliefs and democratic political loyalties but also of his revulsion at the German Social Darwinism and militarism that he believed had been a major cause of World War I. Though Bryan was no intellectual, Weikart, Hofstadter, and Gould credit him with powerful insight on this point. (Along the same lines, Albert Alschuler has recently documented — in his book Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes — the American Social Darwinist nihilism of the “mature” Oliver Wendell Holmes.)
One book on the widespread participation of German medical doctors in Nazi human experimentation, sterilization, euthanasia, and genocide is titled Murderous Science. Weikart’s book itself draws on Detlev J. K. Peukert’s important essay on the Holocaust with the haunting title, “The Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’ from the Spirit of Science.” It was the lonely “knight of faith” Kierkegaard who, like his English Christian contemporary Adam Sedgwick, warned in the 19th century that “in the end, all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences.” The uses of the words “nature” and “natural” in contemporary moral and educational discourse are utterly ambiguous, promiscuous, and obscurantist.
Weikart’s book displays in detail how “the survival of the fittest,” the purposeful extermination of the weak and vulnerable and of “racial enemies,” came to seem the obvious dictates of “natural law” and science to thousands of apparently well-educated German intellectuals in the period 1860-1933, a period in which the German university system was the envy of the world and the model for other nations (such as America). He notes that by and large only Catholics and some Socialists resisted the ascendant Darwinian picture and the political, social, and moral ideas that came with it. Yet they were easily and widely mocked as retrograde, superstitious, and sentimental “humanitarians,” a term connoting weakness and timidity.
Weikart notes Nietzsche’s role in promoting an alluring, amoral, post-Darwinian philosophy throughout Germany and the educated world, helping create what Carlton J. H. Hayes called “a generation of materialism.” Nietzsche’s brilliant rhetoric promoted “the higher breeding of humanity, including the unsparing destruction of all degenerates and parasites” (Ecce Homo). We are not far from Darwin and his eugenic cousin Galton here, or from the influential racist Gobineau, much admired in Germany, whom Tocqueville rebuked on Christian grounds. We are also not far from Hitler.
In conclusion, Weikart treats Hitler not as an anarchic criminal and madman, but as a charismatic but principled Social Darwinist with a racist, utilitarian worldview that was the fruit of the 70 years of Darwinist thinking in Germany that Weikart has documented. Hitler’s idolatry of the Germans as the “culture-bearing” people reminds us of the seductive temptation, not only in Germany or in the past, to replace traditional Christian religion and ethics with “culture” (often so much more exciting, bold, and novel) and science (apparently so much more certain). He also suggests that celebratory contemporary Darwinists such as Singer and Rachels — and all who believe in the omnicompetence of natural science — have learned nothing from the tragic 20th century.
Mr. Aeschliman is a professor of education at Boston University, professor of English at the University of Italian Switzerland, and author of The Restitution of Man: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism.
Yes, a very apt description of Darwinian thought, or the Theory of Evolution — “Murderous Science”...
Some others and their comments about the book
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY,
BY RICHARD WEIKART
“Richard Weikart’s outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and ‘racial hygiene’. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power.” — Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
—
“This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story.” — Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America
—
“This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history—a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English.” — Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914
—
“This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the progressive banner of biological ‘health and fitness.’ The book should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians but among ethicists and scientists too.” —Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University
—
“The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains.” —Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance
—
“If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler’s Germany were not reactionary; they were very much ‘cutting edge’ and in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart’s implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead to similar practices.” —Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth and co-author of The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We Live
—
“Richard Weikart’s masterful work offers a compelling case that the eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural elite’s enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life, morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human institutions: ‘ideas have consequences.’” —Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University
—
“Richard Weikart has provided bioethicists with an excellent resource in From Darwin to Hitler.” —Center for Bioethics and Culture Newsletter
—
“Weikart has written a significant study because it raises key ethical questions in broad terms that have contemporary relevance. His historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary pscyhology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced.” —H-Net review on H-Ideas
—
“. . . Richard Weikart’s excellent new book. In precise and careful detail Weikart narrates an indispensable chapter of cultural and intellectual history . . .” —National Review
—
“This important work of intellectual history will act as a catalyst for rethinking the scientific and social forces that shaped the racial policies of the Third Reich.” —Choice
—
“This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were.” —German Studies Review
It would seem that these Darwinian Evolutionists are honing up their skills of — Eugenics — first on those in positions of education and science and other public areas, to “do away with them” as “useless eaters” in society.... LOL...
After those comes the practice of Eugenics on the rest of those in society.
Here is some more of the clear exposition of what Darwin and evolutionary thought are all about — as it “works out” in our society...
A quote from an article by author, Richard Weikart...
So, to return to our original question, what accounts for the intensity of evil in Hitler and his Nazi regime? Is it a manifestation of human depravity lurking inside us all, or perhaps an outburst of the human lust for power that we all share? I don’t deny that these factors played an important role, and in fact, I wonder if we are often too quick to distance ourselves from Hitler, Stalin, and other ogres of their ilk, as though WE would never—even with unlimited power at our disposal—oppress or harm a fellow human being. Many “ordinary Germans” (and even many foreigners) assisted Hitler, after all, in carrying out his atrocities. He didn’t act alone, as Kershaw continually reminds us.
But there are, of course, other factors to consider in explaining Hitler’s evil. First of all, Hitler embraced a world view that denied any personal God or transcendent moral standards. Rather the cosmos and human history were products of an impersonal Fate, Providence or Destiny, which were synonymous with natural laws. The emptiness of the cosmos was reflected in his personal life, for Kershaw points out that Hitler had no real friendships or close relationships with anyone, not even his mistress Eva Braun. He refused to marry (until the day before he committed suicide) because of his devotion to the German people, but for him the German people was always an abstraction. Even during the war, he never visited hospitals or injured troops or bombed cities. He lacked all empathy with real people, and he even criticized those who allowed sympathy to influence their political decisions.
Secondly, since Hitler believed that nothing exists beyond nature, he tried to find his purpose in life in obeying the iron laws of nature. Darwinian biology was especially significant in this regard, as he tried to apply its lessons to politics and society. Darwinism—especially forms of it often disparagingly called Social Darwinism today—taught him that life is a constant struggle for existence leading to biological progress. Hitler embraced eugenics and racial extermination of allegedly inferior races as means to improve the human species and foster progress.
Finally, while spurning traditional moral standards, Hitler exalted evolution itself to the status of a moral absolute—everything that advances evolution is morally good and everything that hinders it is immoral. Since he viewed the Aryan race as the most advanced race on the earth, indeed the only race capable of creating civilization and a higher culture, this came to mean that whatever promotes the expansion of the Aryan race was good and whatever hindered their expansion was evil. Hitler sincerely believed that his policies and decisions were good and beneficial. His pursuit of a “noble ideal” to benefit abstract humanity in a universe without God, without morality, and without human rights, produced intense suffering, horror, and destruction for real people.
[ http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/hitler-evil.htm ]
Hitler, a “blast from the past”, but also, the “view to the future”, of those infected with Darwin’s thinking and of the Evolution mindset...
I’ve read much of Hitler’s words and have read a lot of science material from the 19th and early 20th century, and the philosophy of Hitler and other Nazis looks far more similar to those espoused by pre-Darwinian Creationists than to Darwinism. A good example of one of the pre-Darwinist Creationists is Gobineau, which, interestingly is mentioned in the review, but in a way that virtually any reader would interpret as being another Darwinist.
I haven’t read Weikart’s book (yet) but if you have I’d be curious what your thoughts are on a post I made on the subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2259552/posts?page=43#43
It looks to me that Hitler was a Creationist who would have despised Darwin as a secular Materialist. And Hitler wasn’t alone among the Nazis in how he felt; books espousing Darwinism were banned:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
thx
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.