Skip to comments.Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post
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 dont believe Darwins theory of evolution or accept the argument that global warming is occurring, that you should not be on the State Board of Education.
McLeroy had pushed to keep...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
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!
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.
I do not read Daily Kos, or Huffington Post, but it refreshing to see even Libs 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.
The link I provided shows the quote as presented in the hand out, and then the quote in the correct context.
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...)
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY, BY RICHARD WEIKART
By: M. D. Aeschliman
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 Weikarts 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. Bismarcks success in unifying Germany through warfare and Germanys 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 Weikarts 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 Weikarts 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 Bryans ethical critique of Darwinism, which was the product not only of Bryans 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. Weikarts book itself draws on Detlev J. K. Peukerts 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.
Weikarts 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 Nietzsches 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. Nietzsches 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. Hitlers 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.
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:
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:
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.
"The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality."
-A. Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, March 23, 1933
Well, it reminds me of our politicians, too..., telling people certain things but operating on a different level, and even contrary to what they tell the people, until they get into power and then their *actions* tell the story.
At least the book written by Weikart, (From Darwin to Hitler) pretty much documents what was done and acted upon and the philosophy behind it. It permeated his regime, so there’s ample evidence of that. I don’t have any problem with the information that he’s presented, from the writings that I’ve read from him.
And also, I guess Chamberlain thought he “had something” too, with Hitler’s words, when he came back with a piece of paper from him and said it was “peace in our time”.
I’ll go by what he did and the philosophical underpinnings for that. Weikart makes that amply clear...
“Well, it reminds me of our politicians, too..., telling people certain things but operating on a different level, and even contrary to what they tell the people, until they get into power and then their *actions* tell the story.”
—But with Hitler, we don’t just have public statements, we have reams of material from stenographers of his meetings, and casual conversations, and he sounds every bit like a pre-Darwinian Creationist.
One of the big surprises I had when I read Hitlers book, and speeches, and other material recording his words, is that he DIDNT use Darwin. Not that Darwin or Darwinism says anything to justify any of Hitlers deeds but that never stopped Hitler before. So its actually a bit puzzling to me that Hitler didnt try to use Darwinism, even if Darwinism actually had nothing to do with his ideology. He twisted anything he could think of to try to justify his deeds so perhaps he never thought of Darwin or Darwinism? Or perhaps Darwin disgusted him, just as Oparin did? Considering what he thought of Oparin, and what he thought of us evolving from apes, thats probably the answer. But its interesting that he never mentioned Darwin even just in passing to deride him.
Or maybe I missed something? I might have to check out Weikart’s book to see if he found material I missed. But if he has, no one seems to be posting any of it online anywhere.
As for the actions of the Nazis, it was nothing new. For the Jews, the only thing new they were facing with the Nazis was their technology. The reason the Holocaust occurred when it did was because the technology was available to pull it off - not because of any change in culture.
You don’t have to invoke the name of someone who is part of a philosophy to engage in that philosophy. You see..., it’s like Weikhart was saying in that this wasn’t a “regression” to the past and being inhumane — but rather, it was a “progression” to the future and a better way of doing things and how the human race was to improve. That’s the philosophy that was engaged in by Hitler.
That’s definitely not the philosophy of the Christian church (even if Hitler wanted to invoke the “name” of the Christian church in Germany, but he didn’t abide by its philosophy, that’s for sure) — and so — it’s the philosophy of thought that comes out of Darwin’s “thought” (the philosophy that stems from that) and of where there is survival of the fittest, so we (as a society) help the fittest to advance and rid society of the “useless eaters” who are a drag on society. Hitler’s Germany had institutions to rid society of the “useless eaters” because they were a drag on society. I see some of the same type of thinking evident in today’s society, in the U.S., too.
The only thing that would or can hold us back, as a society, from engaging in that (as efficiently as Hitler tried to do it), is what comes from Christian thought and morality as evidenced by what the Bible teaches and tells us about God and how we are to be in relationship to Him and others around us.
And what comes out of Darwin’s “thinking” (the philosophy from that) and the evolutionary thought — there can be no morals of the same type as we have in Christian thinking, but rather, the individual must be submerged to the good of the whole and if someone is a drag on society, then it’s better for them to be eliminated (for the good of all, as that’s “progression” doncha know...). Hitler seems very well to exemplify that, for sure...
” it was a progression to the future and a better way of doing things and how the human race was to improve. Thats the philosophy that was engaged in by Hitler”
-You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People weren’t thinking of “better ways of doing things” until he came around? THAT’S a link between Darwin and Hitler?! Umm, I’m pretty sure that such thinking goes to the beginning of humanity. It’s why we don’t still live in caves.
“Thats definitely not the philosophy of the Christian church”
-I don’t think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to “find better ways of doing things” and to improve humanity. Or were the Christian abolitionists not really Christians?
And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists - Christian or not - are against it. So “Christian thought and morality” is not the “only thing holding us back” from such a thing. That’s a groundless and silly argument.
“And what comes out of Darwins thinking (the philosophy from that) and the evolutionary thought there can be no morals of the same type as we have in Christian thinking, but rather, the individual must be submerged to the good of the whole and if someone is a drag on society, then its better for them to be eliminated (for the good of all, as thats progression doncha know...). Hitler seems very well to exemplify that, for sure...”
—What sort of morals would be lacking without Christianity?
As for the rest of the paragraph - huh?
You mentioned “progression” a couple times, perhaps thinking that’s from Darwin? Actually, one of Darwin’s unique ideas is that life changes, but that there is no “progression”. That’s one of the differences between Darwinism and Lamarckism (and the Catastrophists):
Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a tendency to progression.
Instead, due to mutation and selection, life merely diversifies.
If this is the sort of stuff Weikhart writes about, then it might be back off my “to read” list. heh
And among those actions were eugenics and genocide - both of which preceded Darwin and Jesus. It is junk reasoning to pin the blame on either.
At least the book written by Weikart, (From Darwin to Hitler) pretty much documents what was done and acted upon and the philosophy behind it. It permeated his regime, so there's ample evidence of that. I don't have any problem with the information that he's presented, from the writings that I've read from him.
Nevertheless, the regime was presented to the public as pro-Christian, and they apparently accepted it.
You were saying — You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People werent thinking of better ways of doing things until he came around?
I’m sure that people throughout history, in their normal state of fallen humankind were always thinking of ways to have an advantage for themselves over others, and to eliminate what they considered to be a drag on themselves and/or society and to maximize their resources at the expense of others. That is true.
However, when you have that kind of thinking “countered” by the teaching from God (the God who has always existed and who revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, at that certain point in time) — then it mitigates against and argues strongly against these types of people and they have resistance and they have no moral standing or ground to advance their agendas, other than being selfish or despotic or racist or other evil things like that.
But, when there has developed a philosophy that can be appealed to for some “reasoning” and “grounding” to justify these things, that some evil people have always wanted to do throughout history, this gives them that much more “moral impetus” and forcefulness to carry such ideas forward, especially if you “sell it” to the general population with these same ideas and philosophies. It takes away the “grounding” of the proper moral behaviors that we should have in society and instead, gives the opposite “moral standing” (from those philosophies) which work against that which is taught by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
However as far as *better ways*— what is “better” to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution — is not a “better way” to the teachings and moral framework that comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Advancement through evil means is never “progress” from what is taught by God in His authoritative word.
So, while all may be seeking “better” — one kind of “better” is “better for evil”, while the other kind of better is “better for righteous and moral behavior”.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — I dont think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to find better ways of doing things and to improve humanity.
As I said, this is *not* the philosophy of the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach any such philosophy that gains and/or progress should be made by evil means or procedures, such as (for one example) by eliminating “useless eaters” from society. It never has been the teaching of the Christian church and I can pretty well guarantee you that it never will (because we’ve got the authoritative Word of God for the “basis” of Christian church teachings).
But, there are all sorts of individuals who wish to ignore Christian teachings and do try to do so, while (at the same time) trying to maintain the “label” of “Christian” upon themselves. While they may succeed in keeping the label of “Christian” upon themselves (in the eyes of others in society), they’ll never actually *change* the teachings of the Christian Church, based on the Word of God, in these morals and/or in achieving any kind of “progress” through evil means.
As I said above, some try to achieve progress through evil means and achieve evil results, while others achieve progress through righteous means and morals that come from the authority of the Word of God and its teachings. And you’ll find that when it comes to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and is an outgrowth of his, the Christian Church’s teachings in its morals and conduct and how it plays out in society is *radically opposed* to that which comes out of those teachings stemming from Darwin and Evolution.
Thus, the “reasoning” and “basis” for improving humanity through evil means is what stemmed from the philosophy and teachings that grew out of Darwin and evolutionary thought. It’s a worldview that is opposed to the worldview that you will find taught by the Christian Church (even while both believe in “progress”).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You said — And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists
You’ll find that worldviews that have promoted these evil practices (as Weikart is talking about in his book in regards to Hitler’s regime) have not come about in their final form and full-blown when first introduced. They “grow” like anything else grows and gains a following. Darwin and the “evolutionary model” (of thought, and how things supposedly worked in the world) came out in a world which was totally against what would come to be the eventual outcome of that thought. It couldn’t be promoted or be known (at that time) — in the form that it logically developed into, from its beginnings. These people, in the beginning, were the product of their times, and they would have never allowed themselves to fully pursue the full logic of their positions, even if they were prompted to do so. You see this in plenty of other areas, where the ideas have a *foundation* laid down by a founder, which the “followers” then take up and expand according to the “logic” of the foundation as created by that founder. It’s not something that is not well understood. It happens all the time and it always proceeds from the *foundations* laid down by the principals or the founders, in the beginning. That’s what we have now, the outgrowth of that *foundation* as was laid down by those early proponents of this idea.
The “full flowering” of those ideas are coming to “fruition” today (in our lifetimes) and as we have seen in such regimes as Hitler exemplified.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then — You mentioned progression a couple times, perhaps thinking thats from Darwin?
“Progression” would be getting better or better ways to do things, or improving things. That’s the getting better that you also said was natural for people to do. And I’ve made the comments about that up above.
But, as to whether the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution does teach that things do progress and get better in and of itself, in this kind of “philosophy” or worldview of how things are — you might find those (in that camp) who say that things (perhaps as you say) simply change and that it’s not “better” one way or the other, but simply changes. Thus, in that camp, morals have absolutely no relevance, as what “we” (as a people, today) are simply here, the way we are, with no specific purpose or reason to be better or worse than some other manifestation of “life” that might have appeared, if it wasn’t us that appeared here. There is that thought.
And then there does seem to be a camp, in that philosophy that says that things do, indeed, naturally “progress” to a better state and that we do represent a higher state of affairs in the “progress” in how evolution has naturally given us (in a way) the higher status among living things. But, then again, that was something that happened by chance, too, so it may not actually be better than some other way, either.
That’s not the worldview taught from the Christian Church which stems from the authority of the Word of God, in that there is a specific purpose for mankind and it was created for specific reasons and there is a definite plan for mankind that God has put into place.
The philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolutionary thought would deny this, without a doubt.
You said — And among those actions were eugenics and genocide - both of which preceded Darwin and Jesus. It is junk reasoning to pin the blame on either.
As I said in another post, the evils of eugenics and genocide were certainly something that a fallen mankind has carried out since the fall in the Garden of Eden. Mankind has engaged in sinful and evil and despicable actions since then, without a doubt.
But, these evil actions of the past were always judged and fought against, by those who did follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (God has always been there from the beginning and identified Himself in these terms at that future time, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
However, with the advent of the philosophy that stems from and is an outgrowth of Darwin and evolutionary thought — these ideas have been given a “grounding” and a “reasoning” and a “legitimacy” to those who were always looking for some “rationale” other than their “evil natures”. And thus, this worldview does give them that rationale, at the present time.
The evil nature of these things was always there — but the “rationale” has arrived, being something supposedly “reasoned” and “natural” now. Now, those who are enamored with these evil things (as these types have always been) are now able to point out that it’s “the natural way of things” and this is how things actually work and should work. Evil has it’s grounding and reasoning now.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And lastly you said — Nevertheless, the regime was presented to the public as pro-Christian, and they apparently accepted it.
It wouldn’t be the first time the public was fooled (as many are fooled today by this very same philosophy) and it won’t be the last time the public is fooled by evil.
And, in addition, many in the public are also enticed by advantages gained by evil means, and if such a philosophy gives them “cover” for engaging in evil — it’s certainly not past many in the public to gladly follow along in their basic evil desires, either.
But, without a doubt, it can be clearly said that there is no teaching in Christianity that would ever condone such things as came out of the Hitler regime and its evil deeds, even if the public went along (either out of gladly following it or fear or ignorance). Our *basis* for knowing that this philosophy is evil and despicable is the authoritative Word of God. That forms our basis for morality and the righteous way of going about things, and not the evil and despicable philosophies that promote these evils deeds that were carried on.
You said — What I was talking about were evolutionists who are scientists.
There are evolutionists who are scientists who say that there has to be a lot of civilizations out there in the universe because if we “evolved” here, the way evolution says, then it has to have happened elsewhere with great frequency, over the proposed billions of years that the universe has been around (according to them).
The very first thing that came to my mind, when I read what you said, was the “Drake Equation”...
This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way (our galaxy) with which we might come into contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors that determine the number of such extraterrestrial civilizations.
So, here we see a bunch of scientists saying that they’ve got an “equation” that shows how many “extra-terrestrial civilizations” there are out there.
Along with that, you’ve got a bunch of other scientists trying to establish communications with these extra-terrestrial civilizations that are out there (at least that they are sure are out there, or else they wouldn’t be spending the time looking for them or trying to communicate with them... LOL...)
As a further example of the science community believing in extra-terrestrial life, as a result of “evolution”... see SETI...
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities to detect intelligent extraterrestrial life. The general approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer ). The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.
I would say that there probably is an large majority of the scientists convinced that there are extra-terrestrials out there, and think that trying to communicate with them is the thing to do, too. And they wouldn’t think that, unless, they believed that the theory of evolution led them to believe that such things were not only possible, but a virtual *certainty* (as I’ve heard some of them say).
And you can *also* get scientists who are *directly involved* in the field of UFOs (along with a lot of them who are not directly involved but believe that they are there) who will *also* say that these represents extra-terrestrials out there, and visiting here.
I can think of one right off the top of my head, Stanton Friedman...
Friedman graduated from the University of Chicago, earning a Bachelor of Science (1955) and Master of Science (1956) degree in nuclear physics.
Friedman was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications . Since the 1980s, he has done related consultant work in the Radon-detection industry. Friedman’s professional affiliations have included the American Nuclear Society, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and AFTRA.
In 1970 Friedman departed full-time employment as a physicist to pursue the scientific investigation of UFOs. Since then, he has lectured at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 states, nine provinces, and 16 foreign countries. Additionally, he has worked as a consultant on the topic. He has published more than 80 UFO related papers and has appeared on many radio and television programs. He has also provided written testimony to Congressional hearings and appeared twice at the United Nations.
Friedman used to refer to himself as “The Flying Saucer Physicist” due to his degrees in nuclear physics and work on nuclear projects. Friedman has consistently favoured use of the term flying saucer in his work, saying “Flying saucers are, by definition, unidentified flying objects, but very few unidentified flying objects are flying saucers. I am interested in the latter, not the former”
It would appear that the entire scientific community is sold on extra-terrestrial life in the universe, and with communicating with that extra-terrestrial life, and also with *working directly* with the phenomenon of UFOs (those who make it their specialty of work in science) and finding the ones that *do represent* actual UFOs from other extra-terrestrial civilizations.
It would appear to me, that the theory of evolution works quite well in outer space, too... LOL...