Skip to comments.The Nature of Darwin and the Darwin of Nature (Muzzies adopt Darwinism to combat Christianity!)
Posted on 11/03/2009 8:28:54 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Oct 29, 2009 Even the most ardent fan of Charles Darwin might be feeling weary as his anniversary year draws to a close, remarked Clive Wynn in another issue of Nature celebrating his bicentennial.
The Editors are not done celebrating, though. They just began a 4-part essay series on how Darwins ideas were received around the world...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
YOU CAN READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE.
Come to think of it, I think this issue deserves its own post...PING!
The world loves its own.
Young Earthers and muzzies have a lot in common
And what would that be, barking dog?
Let's consider a few things:
Who has killed millions of dissenters to their creeds over the years? Darwinists and Muslims.
Who has committed genocide on almost unimaginable scales? Darwinists and Muslims.
Who constitute the vilest, most fanatical, and most dangerous countries on the planet today? Darwinists and Muslims.
See, if you want to play the moral equivalency game, we can play it too.
From the “article;”
— so the ultimate victor in the struggle for ethics was the martyr dying for the sake of something bigger. Thats a twist.—
Hmmm,,, “That’s a twist.” ??? Sounds sort of familiar!
Who burned hundreds of thousands of people at the stake for being witches or heretics? Who gave plagued infected blankets to Indians who refused to convert? The list goes on but it’s not a very fun game. We are all sinners, right?
I think it would be a great idea to establish a working lexicon for the terms we all use, misuse and use loosely. Temple of Darwin, Intelligent Design, Darwinism, Creation, Creationism, YEC, Baramin, etc. Is that something you would want to host?
What TQC said!
The Catholics, mostly. Who, if we will recall, are perfectly cool with "theistic evolution."
Who gave plagued infected blankets to Indians who refused to convert?
Nobody. The British gave plague infected blankets to the Indians because these tribes were supporting the French against the British. A nasty rotten thing to do, but was a political act.
The list goes on but its not a very fun game. We are all sinners, right?
Yes, but some more destructively than others.
Are we going to dig out the whole “Catholics aren’t real Christian theme again?”
Not unless you really want to, but all the same, facts are facts. And the fact is, most of the ones doing the witch burning and heretic burning were Catholics. That much is not really disputable.
“Who has killed millions of dissenters to their creeds over the years? Darwinists and Muslims.
Who has committed genocide on almost unimaginable scales? Darwinists and Muslims.”
—I’m curious who you’re referring to there. It can’t be the Nazis or USSR as they had banned Darwinism, and it was the Darwinists themselves who were the dissenters and often paid with their lives for such. (I suppose perhaps that’s a reference to China, but if one believes the quote from Jonathan Wells, dissent from Darwin is acceptable there.)
“Who constitute the vilest, most fanatical, and most dangerous countries on the planet today? Darwinists and Muslims.”
—What countries aren’t Darwinists or Muslims today?
That doesn’t answer the question, though. Are Catholics not Christians?
Consider the following comments by Dinesh D’Souza concerning a debate he had with Allen Colmes regarding the Inquisition:
“When you cannot defeat a man’s argument, you should never fear: you can always call him names. The point Colmes was doing his best to obscure was my very damaging claim that atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. My book has chapter and verse on this. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance, killed some 2,000 people over a period of 350 years. That’s 2,000 too many, but it’s also about how many an atheist regime like Stalin’s killed on a good weekend. I show that during the twentieth century the atheist regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao murdered more than 100 million people. Doing the math and even adjusting for population differences over the centuries, I write that “the deaths caused by Christian rulers over a thousand year period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler and Mao in a space of a few decades.” We’re not even counting the additional millions of casualties produced by second-tier atheist killers like Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Castro, Hoxha, and Kim Jong-il.”
Therefore, if you take the body-bag approach to evaluating the worthiness of a political idea, you have to follow through. Or, as my criminal law prof used to always say, you buy the bit, you buy the bridle. Darwinism has consequences. It may not be a positive inspirational force that provides a focal point that drives people to kill in the name of some deity. Rather, it is the negation of a profound and beneficial human inhibition against the killing of one’s fellow humans for small, inconsequential, uninspiring reasons. For that, it is a hundred times worse than its philosophical counterpart, and the death statistics cited above reflect that ratio.
Food for thought for sure. Thanks. I agree atheist have a much higher body count. Where I depart is where belief in evolution is akin to atheism.