the Dark Face of Darwinism

Well Look at what other concepts have spawned.

Democracy - Lets blame the ancient Greeks for that one shall we. We should invade Greece right now, err no it seems under fiscal collapse anyway.

Christianity - lets blame god for that and the Jews and Mary and the 3 Magi.

The point I am making is that everything can be usurped or corrupted by wicked and self justifying indivduals and organisations.

Originally posted by tiger5
Well Look at what other concepts have spawned.

Democracy - Lets blame the ancient Greeks for that one shall we. We should invade Greece right now, err no it seems under fiscal collapse anyway.

Christianity - lets blame god for that and the Jews and Mary and the 3 Magi.

The point I am making is that everything can be usurped or corrupted by wicked and self justifying indivduals and organisations.

good point, I believe the Theory of Evolution (yes the Theory) has been used in the same way and is also being used in this very manner in real-time by those who wish to impose their own doctrine onto others.

the problem with the theory is that it may be being taught properly in schools but the guidance outside of the school and in the home could be where the twisting begins.

I believe and in my personal opinion that this is the root of the misdeed that the Theory has been used for. Love begins at home, and as I have heard from a previous teacher myself... "there are just too many" the teacher was referring to 'students' and this reflected on why the teacher could not reach many of them if any.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

There you go doing it again Mr Innocent - instead of going back and finding the post 'iterationzero'

the answers the poster were looking for are right here, and posted even before the question was posed, maybe we should read the entire thread and questions that have already been answered would not be asked again...

most of this evidence is in about the first 9 pages of this response...

Atheists attacking Christianity (not theism in general) for a video made by a Muslim

Evolution is extremely enlightening in the hand of those with the intent to do harm by it.


in other words, are our young sociopathic Hitlers any different than those who have used religion to crusade in the name of a God ? Albeit Hitler and Stalin are not ancient history on the timeline.

ok glad we have that settled...

now if everyone is finished with the character defamation, Christian bashing, and Theism denial maybe we could get back to discussing the topic of Evolution and Sociobiology.

when a poster clicks on "Reply To" a post of mine or the OP it appears in my inbox and I assume it is a reply to either a post I have made or to the OP.

I am not avoiding anyone here and I assume they are having a conversation amongst eachother and I usually do not butt in like some of my fans do,

Thanks... the topic is... (the Dark Face of Darwinism)

OK can we cut to the chase. You believe in the theory of evolution. So what is the real point of your OP. Are you merely pointing out that concepts get twisted? or is there more to it?

Originally posted by tiger5
OK can we cut to the chase. You believe in the theory of evolution. So what is the real point of your OP. Are you merely pointing out that concepts get twisted?

yes, this is my main point... but as the topic header and also posted through the thread I am currently trying to discuss how Darwin and his Theory is being misused in real-time and in todays society. I have noticed this trend on the internet also and was attempting to bring this point to discussion...

the discussion being the Misuse of Darwin, his name, his image, and his Theory

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


You seem to be under this false impression that posts which attack the general premises of your argument are off topic. You also seem to be under the false impression that making a sentence in response to another sentence is a bad debate practice.

Well, newsflash, I actually address the topic in several posts, cite evidence, and address every single point you make.


reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


A sentence in response to a sentence isn't a series of one liners, it's a debunking of individual sentences. And I tend to post more than a single sentence in response to to the posts you make. Even the parts of your posts that I address in single sentences tend to be multiple-clause sentences.

Of course, instead of addressing the actual arguments I make, you're addressing me on style, like you did when you first dragged your troll-butt to this part of the internet.

What's odd is that you haven't addressed any of the posts I've made in this thread, none of which consist of 'one liners', they consist of poking holes in your hole-y arguments. Oh, and why did you start another thread on this exact same ignorant subject when you can't handle the discussion over here in this thread?

You totally seem to confuse evolution with an ideology...which it isn't. You don't chose to "evolve"...it's a natural process.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


...yes, misuse like calling him a racist dictator

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't want to talk about misuse, you have some sort of agenda against Darwin. You think people who accept Darwin's theory are potential little Hitlers. You're not interested in any sort of reasonable discussion.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Like all creationists, Cosmic Artifact is only taking Darwin's name in vain because the Big D is the most obvious strawman to attack. Nobody knows who Spencer is (I certainly don't, even though I am familiar with the basics of evolution [I actually paid attention in school]) and so they target the big name. Darwin's specific political and social views are completely unimportant to them. That's why there's such a huge discrepancy between what Darwin said and what they say that he said.

The humanist argument against evolution (Darwin was a racist!!) is an obvious false cover. Creationists don't care about humanism, humanism defies the Biblical literalism that their arguments are grounded on. And, of course, there are zero creationists that are not also Biblical literalists to some degree. It's not as though you can rationally come to the creationist conclusion without basing your inquiry on the Bible.

Creationism is a Trojan horse ideology meant to forcibly insert the Bible into Science classes in America. It is not a genuine theory, it is a false theory that was hastily slapped together so that Christians could sneak their book into Science classes as if it was a science textbook. Their goal is, obviously, the destruction of scientific-materialist culture.

And yet, their goal is obviously not the end of materialist culture, as so many of these Creationists are wealthy and materialistic and eminently concerned with worldly affairs. The attack on 'materialism' is not their real goal; rather, the destruction of Science is their goal.

Taking it farther, science in general is not the enemy of the creationist-Christian-fundamentalist. Science brings them useful things, like radio and television and the printing press; things that allow them to brainwash people on every-greater scales. What they hate is what science stands for; knowledge of something acquired through study and/or distinguishing between things. The only study that is permissible to a fundie is study of the Bible. The only distinctions that are permissible to a fundie are the ones made for you by the Bible.

The real target of Creationism and creationists is independent thought. They do not want you to think for yourself, to study the world for yourself, to distinguish between things for yourself. You must be a complete and utter slave to the Bible, you must derive all knowledge from what has been pre-selected for you by the Greeks millennia ago. Cosmic Artifact is little more than a dogmatist, and a worldly one at that.

Of course, we all knew that anyway and I have wasted my time.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


the question is here...

are Neo-Darwinist any different than those who have used religion to crusade in the name of a God ?

this is not a debate about evolution Vs creation, the debate is only about the Dark aspects of Darwinism and those who wish to transform his teachings in Biology into an apparent Radical Faith.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


My answer to you is that 'Neo-Darwinism' is not a 'radical faith' except in the eyes of Creationists. Are evolutionary scientists different from Crusaders? Yes, yes they are. They are radically different. Evolutionary scientists have not led any crusades, ever.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

My answer to you is that 'Neo-Darwinism' is not a 'radical faith' except in the eyes of Creationists.

good answer and I appreciate your input, Creationist happen to be 95% of Humans on the planet though, so what does this say about Neo-Darwinism ?

Are evolutionary scientists different from Crusaders? Yes, yes they are. They are radically different. Evolutionary scientists have not led any crusades, ever.

again this expansion kind of goes quite off-topic, so we can save that for another debate...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


It says to me that only 5% of the world's population is made up of evolutionary scientists and enthusiasts of their work. I don't think that they are wrong just because they are unpopular. Besides which, 95% of the world's population can be divided into many sub-groups. They may all believe that the world was created at some point by some thing or some personal being, but they have extremely different views on the matter.

The Hindu and Buddhist scriptures tell us that the world was never created, nor can it ever end. Creation and destruction are illusions; the true nature of the world is eternal and unchanging. There are some estimates that peg the number of Buddhists in the world between 350 million and 1.6 billion people (!) linx

Of the world's 6 billion people and change, approximately 3.5 billion are Abrahamic monotheists. Keep in mind that not all of them are creationists, as many posters in this thread have made clear that they find their religious beliefs compatible with evolution and other scientific theories. The number of non-creationist religious followers in the world, if we only count Buddhists and Hindus, is between 1.5 and 2.5 billion people.

again this expansion kind of goes quite off-topic, so we can save that for another debate...

I don't see how the expansion is off topic, considering your question.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

It says to me that only 5% of the world's population is made up of evolutionary scientists and enthusiasts of their work.

Evolutionary scientist are about as dead as Darwin himself... nuff said about that 5th grade level science.

I don't think that they are wrong just because they are unpopular. Besides which, 95% of the world's population can be divided into many sub-groups. They may all believe that the world was created at some point by some thing or some personal being, but they have extremely different views on the matter.

yes they can be divided into many sub-genres but the all-encompassing Theism Vs Atheism speaks volumes about this. All of the religions you can think of fall into the Theist category except Atheism.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

 

the question is here...

are Neo-Darwinist any different than those who have used religion to crusade in the name of a God ?

this is not a debate about evolution Vs creation, the debate is only about the Dark aspects of Darwinism and those who wish to transform his teachings in Biology into an apparent Radical Faith.

edit on 12/24/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

You keep on claiming people use Darwin as an excuse to act in a certain way...THAT HAS HISTORICALLY NEVER HAPPENED. No one ever tried to back up his actions by quoting Darwin.

I love how you keep spewing crap as if evolution was some sort of ideology when in fact it's nothing but a natural process. I fully expect you to continue to ignore this fact though as it doesn't fit your worldview...and we all know you always ignore things that don't fit your fantasy land worldview

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


As far as I'm concerned, Darwin PROVED the existence of God.
Let me explain. . . .

Evolution is brought about by envronmental pressures exerted on an organism(s). They, on a genetic level can either adapt or not. This to me sounds like "free will".
They have a choice. And isn't that what God is all about?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

My answer to you is that 'Neo-Darwinism' is not a 'radical faith' except in the eyes of Creationists.

good answer and I appreciate your input, Creationist happen to be 95% of Humans on the planet though, so what does this say about Neo-Darwinism ?

Absolutely nothing? The whole world can believe that 5+5=11, that doesn't make it correct or not. nore does it belittle any other ideas of what 5+5 actually equals.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Buddhism is atheistic. There are no deities, only exemplars of enlightenment. Even in Hinduism, which appears polytheistic on the surface, there aren't really any gods in the sense that Abrahamic monotheists understand the term. The deities of Hinduism are extensions of the Brahman, just the same as everybody and everything else. So right there you can see that up to or exceeding 2.5 billion people follow atheistic religions.

The 'Creation' implied by creationism is specifically the story of Genesis. As such, it is relevant only to the Abrahamic religions and, by extension, to 50% of the world population (not, as you claim, 95%).