Replies

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

What I would say is that Marxism is atheism. It had its rise in the 1800s just as evolution's popularity did and both share common ancestry of the skeptics dating back to Rene Descartes (who threw out everything he know and sought to restructure his thought processes based upon only that which was incontrovertable "I think, therefore I am" being his main starting point).

Marxism and Darwinism are two different animals. Of course, the Communist Manifesto and many of Marx and Engel's writings occurred well prior to Darwinism. Marxism isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwinism (as much of it would be with Christianity) but it doesn't borrow its main thoughts from Darwin.

That was one of the points I was trying to make on the other thread. I wasn't calling anyone on the thread a Nazi, nor was I inferring that Darwinism would naturally lead to Nazism. What I was trying to say is that Darwinism provided fertile soil in which Nazi-like beliefs flourished. Kip Kinkle, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold all claimed Darwinian beliefs as the basis for some of their actions. NOTE: THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVOLUTIONISTS' ONLY LEGITIMATE PATH IS TOWARDS TOTALITARIANISM OR TERROR. I am simply saying, that these groups found grounding for their beliefs in the teaching of Darwin and especially his followers such as Huxley (major racist). Darwin was relatively speaking not as racist as many of his contemporaries. But social Darwinism had it roots within the idea that caucasians were more highly evolved than negros. (Strongly taught by Huxley and others, more mildly inferred by Darwin). Still Darwin did not say that forcing Natural Selection was a desirable option.

Today, Evolutionists are in the same boat as those who had rejected Scripture in the 1800s. When God is not the captain of your boat, then man decides. There is no philosophical framework within Darwinism to allow for any man's preference to supercede anothers. Hitler felt that Aryan or "mostly Aryan" preference for pure blood should prevail and that he could force natural selection. The school killers were much the same, one of them shooting a black boy because he was viewed to be less evolved and inferior. Yet, evolutionists can also legitimately claim a preference to do what helps the species survive. Or, choose any political ideology he/she wishes. They can't say the others are right or wrong, because such things can't exist without a firm moral law brought about by a higher authority. They can say this is what our society prefers and we disagree with your society for X reasons.

Thinking of the implications of worldviews is a very interesting subject. Very few people actually sit down to consider their own. Many live life with blatant contradictions (such as the person who believes there are no moral absolutes- and believes that to be absolutely true).

Thanks for the ping. DJ2