Paladin77

Join Date 11/2006

+11

Why is evolution so important to some people

The reason is simple; Darwin’s theory on evolution is the linchpin for all the things that people wish to use in order to make a better world.

Margaret Sanger figured it out years ago. Survival of the fittest meant getting rid of the not so fit. Planned Parenthood was the subtle logical step in that direction. When that did not work as well as planned we came up with ZPG or zero population growth. That is having a disastrous effect in Europe because they bought into it and being sophisticated idiots in America tried to bring it in vogue here. It also fell flat then we had abortion on demand. Well that is not working out as well as planned either.

Survival of the fittest was supposed to mean that people of good stock would survive as the lower forms of human life faded. If this sounds like something you may have heard before you have. It is called eugenics. Ms. Sanger was a strong believer in eugenics, now can you think of others that believed in eugenics? How about Adolph Hitler and crew? How about the democrat party back in the 1920’s? A little forced sterilization never hurt anyone right? Well we are looking at it again only with religious implications. If you are not a Muslim then you are not the fittest in their mind. Jews, Christians and other non believers need to be converted or exterminated to make room for the good people of the world.

Before you get your panties in a wad allow me to say that not all Germans were blood thirsty Nazi’s not all planned parenthood people believed in eugenics either, just like not all democrats of the 1920’s believed in it. The 2.5 million democrats that did believe in eugenics are mostly gone now. Only two Kennedy’s openly believed in eugenics and only one of them is still alive. The lies used to keep the desire going are still around. Allow me to point to them.

ZPG was needed because when the world reached 5 billion people there would not be enough food to feed everyone. The only way to save mankind was to reduce having children that would use up our natural resources. People went out and had themselves sterilized in order to set the example for others in order to save mankind.

Let’s ignore that we are now at 6 billion and we still have stuff to waste.

Abortion on demand was supposed to help poor people make ends meet because they would not have to feed as many people. All the religious people were against this, and many still are. So they attack religion in order to make killing your own child okay. It is the moral thing to do.

The Nazi’s pushed selective breeding in order to make more good people while killing and outlawing the marriage and birth of bad people. The world was not happy with this idea yet eugenics is still the goal of fools.

It all hinges on the belief of evolution to make the argument a scientific one rather than a moral one. A woman is not killing her child she is removing unwanted tissue. Life has not begun until the child is born according to the believers of this silliness. Yet if I kill a pregnant woman I am charged with two murders. Don’t believe me what was Scott Peterson charged and convicted with? Two counts of murder. The pro abortion people were not happy but could do nothing without openly supporting the murder and once again abandoning the women they claim to represent.

This is why evolution is such a hot topic. If you support evolution you are supporting eugenics even if you don’t know it or agree with it because the ones that are pushing eugenics are happy to have what the Soviets called “useful idiots” to make their numbers bigger. Evolution, and global climate change and a host of other things are being used to push radical ideas that will destroy the human race in ways they have not even come close to calculating.

Anyway that is my take on the topic what is your belief?

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I know there will be some that think the argument for evolution is strictly scientific but I see strange things once you start to connect the dots.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I know there will be some that think the argument for evolution is strictly scientific but I see strange things once you start to connect the dots.

There will always be some who think that science is strictly scientific.

Evolution has no effect on my religious beliefs, and neither has gravity.

I personally believe that evolution and general relativity are of equal importance as scientific theories. But arguments about evolution seem to attract more loonies, probably because relativity is even harder to understand and because there exist for evolution many made-up "simplifcations" (read: lies) that are easy targets for the anti-science crowd.

Evolution is actually quite easy to understand once one gets over this one-species-into-another thing. Animal species do not evolve into other species. (In the same way languages do not evolve into other languages.) Instead species (like languages) fork into two or ultimately more species (or languages). However, the anti-science crowd are not interested in understanding evolution, preferring to explain what they don't understand as faith. This is why every article about Creationism talks about an "evolution" which apparently denies the existence of a G-d, contains the Big Bang, explains the start of life, and turns animals from one species into another.

If anybody were to come up with a new theory that could supersece evolution, one might assume that he would at least be able to explain how evolution works without misrepresenting it completely. And I am sure that will be the case once a better theory comes along.

None of this has anything to do with the Nazis. Evolution denies the concept of a "master race" because such a concept contradicts the survival of the fittest. A dogmatic definition of species X being the "best" contradicts the claims of Darwinism which states that those species will survive that are adapted best to a situation. There is no room for dogmatic definitions in Darwinism. Pershaps ironically evolution proved the Nazis wrong when it turned out that the German "master race" was not the fittest species and Germany lost the war. The Nazis lost and evolution won. Evolution always wins.

Survival of the fittest was supposed to mean that people of good stock would survive as the lower forms of human life faded. If this sounds like something you may have heard before you have.

Yes, it sounds like something I have heard. But it's not "survival of the fittest" as defined by Darwin. Darwinism doesn't believe in "good stock" and acccording to Darwinism humanity is not a higher form of life than cockroaches. (Both humanity and coackroaches can be the "fittest" depending on circumstances.) Racism contradicts Darwinism because it makes the claim that some species (or races) are inherently better than others. Darwinism claims the opposite, that no species (or race) is inherently better and it is not the "best" who survive, but the fittest (to a situation).

Using arguments against racism as arguments against evolution is just as clever as using arguments against one-species-changing-into-another against evolution. Both are effective because some people don't understand evolution and believe anything they are told, and both are wrong as they are arguments against positions that Darwinism denies.

You can argue that there no "master race", but it won't affect Darwinism which also denies the existence of inherently better races.

And you can argue that there is a "species border", but it won't affect Darwinism which describes how one species turns into two without ever crossing or knowing of a "species border".

Master race and species border are two concepts that Darwinism denies, yet some people think that arguing against those concepts constitutes arguing against Darwinism. It's weird and I don't think it can happen to people who have read Dawkins.

If you don't understand how species branch into two, you cannot understand evolution. And once you understand how species branch into two, there is no way the concept of a "species border" will ever seem relevant to you again.

But none of that has anything to do with religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The difference between eugenics, and Darwins theory of evolution is that Darwin's theory was based on NATURAL selection, natural survival of the fittest, where eugenics is based upon forced selection.

You do not necessarily support eugenics (forced selection) when you believe in evolution (natural selection).

Eugenics is a process that was based on the attempt to create an superior Aryan race, here in America. It was full of prejudice, bias, and dislike of anyone that was different, or seemingly incapable of being "normal." (And as most know, "normal" is relative.) There was nothing about this that was natural. It was a bunch of people playing God, and attempting to conform society to fit their ideals.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WOW! You get it! The thing they need is for Darwinism to be believed and then marry it to un-natural selection. Once done they use a theory to advance their racist beliefs as science.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, and there were prolific supporters of eugenics during the 1920's, and 1930's that were Christian (for example, Woodrow Wilson, who was Presbyterian), or that aligned themselves with the Republican party (for example, Theodore Roosevelt.)

Eugenics at the time had more to do with believing that an Aryan race was the proper thing to strive for, and not so much to do with believing in evolution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The thing they need is for Darwinism to be believed and then marry it to un-natural selection.

Meh, more attempts at conforming society to a certain ideal. It is what humans do. Right now, it's the Democratic party that is associated with this, but in the 20's and 30's, it was the rich white people, which most associate with the Republican parties, that were promoting this form of eugenics.

This still doesn't mean that when one believes in evolution, s/he is supporting eugenics (which, unless I read wrong, is the point of your article.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

This still doesn't mean that when one believes in evolution, s/he is supporting eugenics (which, unless I read wrong, is the point of your article.)

Evolution: Let's observe who survives.

Eugenics: Let's decide who survives.

Eugenics is "Intelligent Design".

Successfully updated karma reason!

Eugenics is "Intelligent Design".

Ooooh... where have I heard Intelligent Design before?

Does God participate in eugenics? Who woulda thunk it.

(The above post is to be taken only when the ability to be facetious is present. Otherwise, serious side effects may occur, which may include, but are not limited to: mis-interpretation, hatred, or suicide because the world around you does not always agree with your beliefs. Speak to your psychologist if you have any questions.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

why is CREATIONISM so important to people?

evolution as a concept is a fact.

Evolution of a specific species, say, humans from their protohuman ancestors is a theory based on a wealth of evidence.

The big bang and "how life can come from a barren rock" are both issues for scientific fields COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO EVOLUTION.

Successfully updated karma reason!

why is CREATIONISM so important to people?

The Bible mentions faith, and for some people, faith means to continuing believing, no matter what they are told.

I can have an unwavering faith that the color blue is actually green, and as long as I refuse to have an open mind about it, there will be no amount of evidence, or logic, or proof, that will be able to persuade me to believe differently.

This is why the on-going debate of evolution vs. creationism will never end. One side presents facts, and theories that "prove" (as we were not alive during this transition, nothing can be absolute. We offer theories on what we know today, which may be incorrect on what we know two hundred years from now...) their beliefs, but the other side has faith that what they believe is correct. Facts, and logic, are no match against faith.

How logical is it that a man that was crucified came back to life after 3 days of being dead? Faith overcomes all, whether correct or not.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the funny thing is though that they are not necessarily mutally exclusive, i know plenty of intelligent religious people...

You know that scientifically there is NO PROPOSED EXPLANATION TO THE BIG BANG. we observe all matter in the univse to be spreading out from a single point rich in high energy waves as if from a massive explosion, and calculate how long ago it was, but thats really it, we have no way to estimate what caused it or what existed before (maybe a univse that collapsed into one supermassive black hole? maybe nothing? maybe who knows what....

There is also a death of theological evidence in the bible itself that it was written and translated by many humans that resulted in errors and contradictions...

This is why the smart religious people i know say that "let there be light" is what caused the big bang, that 6 days is a metaphor for 6 stages (or a translation issue), and that god created man by subtly influencing the process of evolution to suit his grand plan. And that the line that says "you should stone your child to death the first time he disobeys you" (which is just one chapter before the one that says "all homosexuals should be put to death") should also not be done as they are not truely the will of god but aberrations put into the text by human authors. I can (and I have... and I am not a christian) go to a bible shop and find dozens of different versions. But this goes back into the whole "facts" and "evidence" thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the funny thing is though that they are not necessarily mutally exclusive, i know plenty of intelligent religious people...

Didn't say there weren't any religious people that weren't intelligent... just that for those that don't want to believe in evolution, their faith will overcome any and all proof that say that evolution does exist.

Level of intelligence doesn't really have anything to do with it... ability to be open-minded does.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yes, i find that the word "intelligence" is very poorly defined... I meant it in the context of capability of accepting new information or grasping alien concepts, open minded works better for that description.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I know plenty of religious people (dati) who understand and accept evolution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Spot on, very spot on. (Jeez, that makes it how many times so far?)

Successfully updated karma reason!

i do too, which is why it always baffles me when creationists make it about religion. The greatest opponents of creationism are all religious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i do too, which is why it always baffles me when creationists make it about religion. The greatest opponents of creationism are all religious.

Turns out it's not religious vs atheists (which would be a false dilemma anyway) but uneducated vs educated.

Those who understand evolution usually accept it, whether they believe in a god or not.

And those who think evolution is about the big bang, species turning into other species, and the origin of life; they believe that ignorance is religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Evolution: Let's observe who survives.

Eugenics: Let's decide who survives.

Eugenics is "Intelligent Design".

I disagree with your conclusion, From what little I know of ID it would go aginst the design if all were put here and then pick and choose who survives. That would be illogical and ignorant or sadistic not the signs of intelligence. If you design an ecosystem then mess with it, it does not show much intelligence unless we are in a lab and all of us on the planet are lab rats.

i do too, which is why it always baffles me when creationists make it about religion. The greatest opponents of creationism are all religious.

Please explain what you mean here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I disagree with your conclusion,

It's not so much a conclusion as a use of the definition.

Evolution is the development of species in an environment without the specific need for a designer or trainer.

"Intelligent Design" is the development of species in an environment as per the instructions of the designer.

Therefore eugenics, which is a mechanism used by designers to control how species develop is "Intelligent Design".

From what little I know of ID it would go aginst the design if all were put here and then pick and choose who survives.

From what little I know of ID they never really bothered to describe how it would work. But if there is someone picking and choosing you have a designer.

That would be illogical and ignorant or sadistic not the signs of intelligence. If you design an ecosystem then mess with it, it does not show much intelligence unless we are in a lab and all of us on the planet are lab rats.

It's the "lab rat" feeling I dislike so much about Creationism (and "Intelligent Design").

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please explain what you mean here.

The Vatican released many good statements about evolution and why it doesn't contradict Catholic faith and why "Creationism" is wrong.

The Pope is religious and one of the greatest opponents of Creationism.

Many religious leaders have spoken up against Creationism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

eugenics is intelligent design where the designer is a human instead of god... by definition.

Successfully updated karma reason!

eugenics is intelligent design where the designer is a human instead of god... by definition.

Well, to be fair, it is ONE form of "Intelligent Design" and certainly the more despicable. An "Intelligent Design" where perfect beings were just created without throw-away beings would be nicer.

Similarly, on the science side, there were two competing theories: Darwinist evolution and Lamarckian evolution. Of the two Lamarck's theory was certainly nicer. But it was also wrong.

On the other hand proponents of "Intelligent Design" do claim that it isn't just Creationism and that they are not claiming that the designer is G-d (or any god).

Eugenics is one of the worst examples of Intelligent Design but it is also the only one we can verify with experiments. And yes, it works.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's the "lab rat" feeling I dislike so much about Creationism (and "Intelligent Design").

Wait a minute, how are the two suddenly made one?

The Vatican released many good statements about evolution and why it doesn't contradict Catholic faith and why "Creationism" is wrong.

That is a very broad brush you are using, you take one sect and paint all Christians with the same stroke of the brush? Not all Christians are Catholic and not all Christians believe as they do. Are we talking about he same Vatican that took science and made it dogma, (the sun revolves around the earth science?)

The Pope is religious and one of the greatest opponents of Creationism.

Many religious leaders have spoken up against Creationism.

I am sorry but I don't know of any can you help me out here?

On the other hand proponents of "Intelligent Design" do claim that it isn't just Creationism and that they are not claiming that the designer is G-d (or any god).

So there is a difference, people that believe in creation believe there is a God that created everything. ID believes someone or something created everyghing but not God.

Eugenics is one of the worst examples of Intelligent Design but it is also the only one we can verify with experiments. And yes, it works.

Please tell me how it works. In what way does it work?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wait a minute, how are the two suddenly made one?

They have always been the same. Early editions of the ID text books even referred to the "science" as "Creationism" before the Great Renaming.

It's the same Vatican in more modern times. They are smarter now than they used to be.

This also doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Whether or not someone is Christian doesn't say anything about whether he understands evolution. It's stupidity that causes rejection of science, not religion.

I am sorry but I don't know of any can you help me out here?

The Pope.

So there is a difference, people that believe in creation believe there is a God that created everything. ID believes someone or something created everyghing but not God.

No. Creationists believe that there is a god who created everything using a specific method which cannot be verified by science (and is thus useless for engineering as it cannot be reproduced). ID believes that a god or someone else created everything using that same unverifiable method.

From a scientific point of view there is no difference. Whether or not a god is involved doesn't make it unscientific. It's the lack of experiments that make Creationism and ID non-theories, not the presence or lack of a god.

Please tell me how it works. In what way does it work?

You can indeed kill people and only those you want will survive and breed. It's used for breeding horses or colourful birds all the time. It works. Have you never seen a blue budgerigar? They are the result of such a breeding method.

Successfully updated karma reason!

They have always been the same. Early editions of the ID text books even referred to the "science" as "Creationism" before the Great Renaming.

I will have to take your word for it because I have never head of any of this. I still have my doubts.

It's the same Vatican in more modern times. They are smarter now than they used to be.

Are they smarter because they support your point of view or because you have no clue what religion really is?

I was not the one that brought up Christianity or ID in either of my articles on evolution. I was discussing the religion of evolution, one can believe in either or both at the same time because one has little to do with the other.

I am sorry but I don't know of any can you help me out here?

The Pope.

Sorry I was not clear allow me to be more specific, I am not a Catholic, The Pope is not my leader, You said religious leaders but only named one. I was hoping you would have come up with someone that I might respect or at least come close to agreeing with or a diverse group of leaders that agree with your point of view. My issue with the Holy Roman Catholic Church leadership is that they have been all over the map depending on what is popular at the time which goes against Christian beliefs including their own. In the Biblical world that is being a hypocrite which is an abomination in the eyes of God.

No. Creationists believe that there is a god who created everything using a specific method which cannot be verified by science (and is thus useless for engineering as it cannot be reproduced).

Where is the definitive scientific proof of evolution? If there was such proof it would not be a theory it would be scientific fact. There would not be competing theories on evolution either.

(and is thus useless for engineering as it cannot be reproduced).

Where is the reproduction of evolution? This is why I say it is more religion than science.

The same can be said with evolution, there is some evidence that leans to evolution but no experiments have been successfully done that I am aware of.

You can indeed kill people and only those you want will survive and breed.

And this has worked with humans? It was tried but the results were not good. Too much DNA that we don't know about to make it work, I understand that it works with dogs because I used to own a wolf and learned that most breeds of dogs came from breeding wolves. DNA backs that up but it has not worked with people. My wife is Filipina and my kids have both our DNA to become who they are. It all depends on the egg and the sperm because of the different variations within our own bodies. If it worked so well why have we not gotten rid of birth defects?

Successfully updated karma reason!