Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?
All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.
Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”
Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.
“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”
In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.
Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”
Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.
Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.
One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers. It's just a profession.You may speak for yourself. In my opinion, all too often scientists do, in fact, treat science as dogmatic belief. Try and get a medical doctor - a scientist by training, to consider alternative medical care, even as basic as aspirin instead of acetaminophen or St. Johns Wort instead of prozac. Another example, the current "Global Warming" hysteria has been fed by scientists who have converted belief into falsification of evidence.
As I said already, a religion is a system of beliefs. Regardless of what anyone claims, the belief system which governs a persons life IS their religion.
As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity.
Darwinist eugenicists have murdered well over a billion people in the last century, if that's not a threat I don't know what is.
I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism.
Eugenicists kill over a million people each week, that's hardly a "perceived threat."
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.
Yet again, the core beliefs of people like Galileo and Newton didn't involve a twisted philosophy that resulted in their followers committing mass murder, the same cannot be said for the Darwinists.
Science concerns itself purely with what can be observed and measured in a systematic fashion. It does not, and cannot, concern itself with the metaphysical.
Your point?
We do not, and never will, have the ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone who tries to claim that science proves that God doesn't exist (whether they're using the ToE or some other theory as their justification) is a liar.
Yes, but mankind DOES have the ability to play god and that's what Darwinists do.
Perhaps you should go back and read some of my other posts on this thread. The theory of evolution is a red herring, it has NEVER been at the core of Darwinism, it is a device they use and nothing more. The people who want to focus on evolution almost invariably do so in order to avoid talking about eugenics.
Furthermore, the use of science as a rationale for committing atrocities is not a condemnation of science. Someone who is set on committing atrocities and who has the power is going to do so, no matter what. It isn't because of some pseudoreligion called "Darwinism" that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, etc., committed their atrocities. They did that because they were fundamentally evil people, drunk with their own power.
You really need to look at the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, much of this evil occurred BECAUSE many people advocated eugenics. Prominent people were avowed eugenicists and their rhetoric is even found in one of America's more infamous Supreme Court rulings.
If studying or using the theory of evolution has some strange power to turn people into monsters, then I must ask: why aren't thousands of scientists like myself busy committing atrocities right this minute?
Again, why are you confining Darwinism to evolution. Darwinism IS NOT evolution, evolution is merely a small component of Darwinism.
One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers.
As I said earlier, EVERYONE worships SOMETHING. That thing may be God or science or Satan or the intellect or whatever. Though YOU may not worship science, there are plenty who do.
Agreed, and their influence is insidious.
Well, Galileo was a devout Roman Catholic right up to the day he died; Newton declared a Creator God, Whom he described as: "The Lord of Life with His creatures." I strongly doubt Darwin had any such spiritual understanding.
Note, Newton was a monotheist, but not a Deist. He believed that the mechanistic tendency of his theories would eventually produce disorder in the world, and that God had to step in from time to time to set matters aright. Newton was perhaps more theologically Jewish than Christian; the point is he, like Galileo, believed in God.
Darwin, on the other hand, lived in a world of agnosticism bordering on atheism, a world that believed above all in the infallibility of human reason, a world that eclipsed God by putting the figure of Man and his seemingly limitless "potential" in the forefront, as the only true object worthy of devotion.
Worldviews have consequences — and you, wagglebee, have given several powerful examples of the actual historical consequences of the Darwinist worldview. Thank you so very much!
creationist threads are just a way to discredit FR.
evolution and political eugenics are not related. This is just a background noise for the left to slap conservatives on the whole insurance abortion/contraception debate.
or worse...
To this day man seems to shake his fist at God and declare that he knows better which child should live and which should die - thinking himself brilliant to conclude that a person with Down's Syndrome for instance wouldn't have a life worth living. In making such a decision and acting on it, he declares himself "god" and denies God Who IS.
(s) stop the theory of helio centric planetary motions, smash the microscopes. (/s)
...stop the theory of marxism, smash the leviathan...
Hitler was a creationist who believed in fixed kinds.
“This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed”
The liberal worldview wants to manage our lives from womb to tomb just like cattle or pigs or chickens. The Nanny state is not far from Eugenics.
Girls are being convinced by them that they must look like Barbie dolls and therefore many girls now suffer from eating disorders.
And Michelle Obama and friends are enforcing diets on our children. How much longer before they make parents legally liable for the body shapes of their offspring?
In effect, the liberals are saying St. Bernards are not acceptable but Greyhounds are.
Once more, the question of creation vs. evolution has NEVER been at the core of Darwinism.
Hitler and Nazism epitomized eugenics which IS at the core of Darwinism.
betty boop and I have run into that worldview repeatedly over many years of crevo debates.
The fallacy of their worldview becomes clear when we examine their claim that the mind (soul or spirit) is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen!
If they really believed this then they would insist that the physical brain is legally culpable as the cause of a civil or criminal offense. There could be no personal responsibility since the "person" is just an epiphenomenon that was incapable of causing anything to happen, good or bad.
They would refuse awards or bank deposits made out to their person since it does not exist. But who could cash a check made out to "central nervous system, cranium, 123 Easy St., Anywhere, US?"
By their actions they acknowledge that the person "is" - and that he is more than the sum of his parts.
So I am supposed to take creationists at their word about what a movement they don’t understand and despise is really all about?
When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?
At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.
We will NEVER achieve perfection, but we can accept that we are perfect in that He created each of us EXACTLY THE WAY He wanted to.
*********************************
Exactly right. Imho, it may be that only those who despise mankind desire its physical perfection.
I fail to see what a person's views on creation vs. evolution has to do with the understanding of eugenics.
When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?
What LIE have I told? The manifestation of Hitler's Darwinism has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution.
At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.
No, these are at the core of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is but a component of Darwinism. People often fail to realize that he Darwin family's work went far beyond the first half of the 19th century, by the late 1800s many of them had totally abandoned any pretense of science in favor of pure eugenics.
You fail. You fail to see.
What lie? I never said YOU lied - I said the article you posted lied - the very first paragraph.
Hitler was not a Darwinist - he was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.
The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.
That nutcases on both sides try to make of this simple theory an overarching philosophy of everything doesn’t change Darwin’s central contribution to science or discredit the use of that theory for further discovery fun and profit.
Trust me, if I wanted your opinion about my comprehension abilities I would have asked.
Hitler was not a Darwinist - he was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.
Again, it is totally wrong to define Darwinism within the confines of belief in the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.
Perhaps, but the Darwin family's legacy extends much further.
That nutcases on both sides try to make of this simple theory an overarching philosophy of everything doesn’t change Darwin’s central contribution to science or discredit the use of that theory for further discovery fun and profit.
Really? Who are the "nutcases" who tried to stop eugenics?
Do you even know what eugenics is? Do you know who Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin were? What about the Huxleys?
Oh, I see. You are using “Darwinsim” as a catch all for everything Creationists disagree with. Therefore geology is “Darwinism”, archeology is “Darwinism”, physics is “Darwinsim”, and astrology is “Darwinism”.
Taking the lying pronouncements of Creationists for what evolution and science is ‘really all about’ is sort of like taking a Communists’ word for what Capitalism/Free Markets are and what they stand for, believe in, and accomplish.
Darwin's “family legacy” was negligible - the contributions of a scientist to a scientific theory is not abrogated by what his descendants chose to do. Leonard Darwin was a nobody with a famous name - used by some more influential eugenicists because of his famous name and the associations to actual science it would bring.
Anyone who advocates eugenics needs to take a long hard look at a race horse. Sure they are faster - at the expense of just about everything else - long fast legs are prone to breaking - thin heat exuding skin is prone to cracking, etc, etc.
Eugenics is based upon a rather idiotic idea that selective breeding of humans will unequivocally produce a “superior” human being. That is completely contrary to any understanding of actual evolution.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Antagonistic pleotropy, etc.
Eugenics might well produce a taller human, or a smarter human, or a longer lived more healthy human - but at a COST.
Both see a system of an unregulated “market” that is highly responsive and productive.
Both tend to think a ‘central planner’ will predict what the ‘market’ will want far better than millions of independent actors acting upon their own best interest.
There is a good reason why the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory - it smacked too much of Capitalism - with independent actors acting in their own self interest - a ‘reward’ for ‘individual excellence’ - and no easy way out of the reality of “no such thing as a free lunch”.
The Darwin family was not "used" by the eugenics movement for their name, they FOUNDED the eugenics movement.
As for your assertion that the communists rejected Darwinism, that is completely unfounded. The ONLY people who try to say this are Darwinists.
Pfffttt...
amd ~ ‘The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.’
So where are your thousands upon thousands of missing links?
The biological creation phenomena has God’s fingerprints all over it NOT evolution (aka devolution).
Um, no you didn't. You didn't specify who it was you thought was lying.
What you said here was this.....When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?
You're hatred of creationism is blinding you to objective, rational thought on the matter. wagglebee is absolutely correct about the distinction between the ToE and Darwinism. the problem is that most evos are really at heart, Darwinists.
I peeked at Mr. Owens website. While most of it doesn’t work, I don’t get the impression that he’s a very good Catholic and he claims he is in his article to boost his credentials.
The Communists rejected Darwinism and genetics in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism championed by Lysenko.
In the Soviet Union you could (and would) get sent to Siberia if you taught about genetics or Darwinian evolution.
My Molecular Genetics teacher was banned from teaching in Russia and was only allowed to immigrate into the USA via the intercession of Ronald Reagan.
So the ONLY people who say the Soviet Communists rejected Darwinian evolution are those with KNOWLEDGE.
Something you are evidently lacking...... in spades.
The Communists rejected Darwinism and genetics in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism championed by Lysenko.
In the Soviet Union you could (and would) get sent to Siberia if you taught about genetics or Darwinian evolution.
Once again, when I use the term Darwinism, it IS NOT synonymous with evolution.
And for the record, in the Soviet Union a person could get sent to Siberia for ANYTHING.
Read up on Stalin, he pushed Darwin on those closest to him.
So the ONLY people who say the Soviet Communists rejected Darwinian evolution are those with KNOWLEDGE.
Again, Darwinism and evolution ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.
Something you are evidently lacking...... in spades.
First you accuse me of LYING and now you suggest I'm lacking knowledge (though you have yet to even acknowledge that eugenics is a prime component of Darwinism). I did not originally post this in Religion, I would prefer that it not be in Religion, but since it is I will abide by the rules of the Religion Forum. Are you aware that such rules exist?
Are you a “they”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I said “they” lied - the authors of this article - assuming there was more than one - I even said what the lie was. That you cannot follow this and insist I am calling YOU a liar means you have major problems with reading comprehension.
I didn't say Darwin-ism - a term that apparently you and you alone are free to define.
Stalin did not ‘push’ Darwin on anyone - he rejected Darwinism as a ‘capitalistic theory’ in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
Your ignorance is appalling! Rather than actually learning something you just double down on your incorrect historic ignorance!
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory of biological evolution in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
Lies on the subject do not further your cause - it just makes Creationists out to be historically ignorant liars.
I guess rules don't apply for evolutionists.
Are you a “they”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I said “they” lied - the authors of this article - assuming there was more than one - I even said what the lie was. That you cannot follow this and insist I am calling YOU a liar means you have major problems with reading comprehension.
Many people, especially the paranoid, refer to any who oppose them as "they." As this article only has ONE author (as noted in the byline), I had no way of knowing who you were referring to. For all I knew, "they" comprised all of us who recognize that Hitler was a Darwinian eugenicist.
I didn't say Darwin-ism - a term that apparently you and you alone are free to define.
Restricting Darwinism to evolution is a tried-and-true method of avoiding the less pleasant aspects of the Darwin legacy.
Stalin did not ‘push’ Darwin on anyone - he rejected Darwinism as a ‘capitalistic theory’ in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
Yet he still urged people to read Darwin.
Your ignorance is appalling! Rather than actually learning something you just double down on your incorrect historic ignorance!
What I have learned is that Darwinists have murdered over a billion people. That is the FACT.
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.
Hitler was a devoted eugenicist and "Mein Kampf" is filled with "survival of the fittest" references.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory of biological evolution in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
And enthusiastically embraced the Darwins' theory of eugenics.
Lies on the subject do not further your cause - it just makes Creationists out to be historically ignorant liars.
So, are you accusing me of telling lies or just repeating them? Though I suppose that since you haven't actually refuted any of my facts, you aren't calling me a liar.
*********************
The only person here who appears to be "losing it" is you.
Lies on the subject do not further your cause - it just makes Creationists out to be historically ignorant liars.
********************************
Well, well.
I actually cited real history, contained in a real book, something you have no knowledge of and did not even attempt to refute.
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God. Mein Kamph made many references to his belief in fixed kinds and his race being created “in the image of God”.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism. Far from recommending Darwin - Stalin would have anyone teaching Darwin arrested. Do you have any source for your assertion that Stalin “pushed” Darwin's theory or writing on anyone - recommended it as reading material?
Is there any difference in your mind between Lamarkian-ism and Darwin-ism?
Hitler was a Creationist.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory.
Eugenics is based upon a misunderstanding of evolution much as Socialism is based upon a misunderstanding of free markets - based upon the same delusion - that a “central planner” knows what “the market” will want better than millions of independent actors acting in their own self interest.
I know that Creationists have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for arguments - this article is a claptrap of appeal to consequences and guilt by association. Moreover the assoication is constructed via complete historic ignorance.
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of the God that created it.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
You can argue against the above two FACTS as much as you want - but all it does is make you look ignorant and deranged.
SOP.....
Why? Is there some sort of 'good' Darwinian evolution and 'bad' Darwinian evolution?
Cordially,
It appears that amd is equating ignorant creationists and Hitler.
wagglebee, you are witnessing the default knee jerk reaction of any evolutionist when confronted by facts he can't dispute. Anyone who disagrees with the opinion of an evo is an *ignorant creationist*.
End of story.
That's all they have in their arsenal.
You can discount the importance of eugenics all you want, but the FACT still remains that it is at the core of Darwinism. The Darwin family DEVELOPED IT.
I know that Creationists have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for arguments - this article is a claptrap of appeal to consequences and guilt by association. Moreover the assoication is constructed via complete historic ignorance.
Why are evolutionists so adverse to discussing eugenics?
Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of the God that created it.
Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of Lysenko and a Lamarkian mechanism.
They MAY have rejected evolution, but they embraced eugenics and eugenics IS Darwinism just as much as evolution is. We are talking about Darwinism here, NOT botany. Stalin may have overlooked Lysenko's crop failure, but he compensated for it by KILLING those he considered lesser peoples.
You can argue against the above two FACTS as much as you want - but all it does is make you look ignorant and deranged.
What FACTS? Akton T-4 and mandatory sterilization are things that eugenicists dream about.
Great definition of Nominalism, from Richard M. Weaver. And it seems to fit Darwin's "(unexamined) collective presuppositions" about the nature of Reality very well indeed.
What an amazingly "flat" worldview! It demands that all of Nature "reduce" to what can be directly "captured" by human sense perception. It holds that anything that cannot come to the mind other than through this sensory channel simply doesn't exist.
I really do regard this as a species of insanity. FWIW.
Even the magisterial Newton (who is usually blamed for giving us the "mechanical [machine] model" of the Universe) — kept God in the picture, Whose sensorium Dei — a/k/a Absolute Space — is a kind of universal field (in the scientific sense) that constitutes the "interface" between the Creator and His Creation. Newton's God is both Creator of the Universe, and eternally omipresent intermediator in it.
Newton's principle of Absolute ("empty") Space is, for Newton, the very medium in which God creates His creatures. (See his "Scolium Generale" which first appeared in the second edition of Principia.)
Of course, the concept of Absolute Space has been criticized by many modern scientific and philosophical commentators. But I'm only writing about what Newton thought about it, here.
Certainly Newton was not a nominalist....
But I think, narses, you are very correct in identifying Charles Darwin as one.
Darwin just dumps God down the old rathole of memory altogether. Thus: Darwin's evolutionary theory cannot even begin to address issues like the origin of Life or consciousness.
What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"
Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....
Of course, I do believe in evolution. But to me, Darwin's theory, qua scientific theory, is woefully incomplete, at best.
Thank you ever so much for the link, dear narses!
Is Darwin-ism any different to you than Lamarkian-ism?
Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated. Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.
I am not at all adverse to discussing eugenics. I believe I stated clearly the problem with eugenics, that being their basic misunderstanding that a ‘central planner’ is not more responsive and productive than millions of independent actors in pursuit of their own interests.
Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Eugenics is not evolutionary biology. Eugenics is not accepted by the vast majority of those who accept Darwin's theory. Advocacy of eugenics is not dependent upon acceptance of Darwin's theory - many advocated eugenics using different rationalizations.
So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.
The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.
When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.
Do you believe in God?
All the time.....
I most certainly do. But this isn’t about me.
Although I DO find it amusing that Creationists are almost entirely incapable of arguing against a scientific theory without making it an argument against atheism.
Actually, I need to amend that on two fronts.
First off, it's just a matter of equating creationism and therefore creationists in general with Hitler, not necessarily ignorant creationists because, point #2, according to evolutionists/Darwinists, ALL creationists are by default ignorant. It just comes with the territory in some people's minds.
If we weren't ignorant, we wouldn't be creationists; we'd think like they do. The reason we're ignorant is because we disagree with them, the self-proclaimed intellectual elite.
They work on the mentality that the evidence in favor of evolution is so overwhelming and so compelling that OF COURSE anyone who looks at it *objectively* would arrive at the same conclusion about the fossil record that they do. Since it's so blatantly *obvious* to them that they're right, then anyone who disagrees with them must, of necessity, be doing out of willful ignorance, in totally defiance of *reason* (also as defined by them).
There is no room for thinking for yourself in their paradigm. The only way to lose the label of *ignorant* or *creationist* (which are synonymous in their book) is to agree with them, since they're sooooo smart.
For my part, I'll believe God over them and wear their labels as a badge of honor.
But I did not refer to the poster as ignorant BECAUSE they were a Creationist - but because they were ignorant of the facts that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God, and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Moreover I found their approach to be ignorance personified - in that rather than actually learning something - they doubled down on ignorance and said even more ridiculous and unsubstantiated IGNORANT things.
This isn't about belief in God - it is about a scientific theory. The dichotomy you wish to set up of atheists who accept Darwin's theory on one side and people of faith who are Creationists on the other is absurd.
*******************************
Didn't you mean to say "I DO find it amusing that ignorant Creationists are almost entirely incapable of arguing against a scientific theory without making it an argument against atheism."?
Where did I make any argument regarding atheism? I merely asked you if you believed in God. Do you consider that too personal?
Excellent post.
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.