Attempt is a good word. Of couse, I am still innocent until proven guilty.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwinism or Theism (is there a political slant too)?
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Attempt is a good word. Of couse, I am still innocent until proven guilty.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
The arbitrary concept of "sin" isn't a measurement of "perfection", which itself is subjective. Everyone has flaws, makes mistakes, etc. but it's based on real world cause and effect.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
My point is, if you need to lie in order to prop up what you believe to be the truth, is it really the truth?
Of course it isn't truth if you need to lie... but since I didn't....
So that is called a sin. Whether to the one it was inflicted on, society, onself or to God.
And despite being an agnostic, he served on the board of his church... I believe until he died.
Darwin and Lincoln did not have opposite views of racism by any stretch.Darwin & Lincoln were born SAME day but had OPPOSITE views of Man made in Image of Creator!
Excerps:
Karl Marx wrote to Lassalle, January 16, 1861:
" Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history."
Karl Marx dedicated a personal copy his book, Das Kapital, to Charles Darwin, inscribing that he was a "sincere admirer" of Darwin.
Darwin continued:
"Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world ...
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Sanger founded a 501(c)3 called Planned Parenthood.
Sanger began a "Negro Project" in 1939 to reduce the African-American population. Her racist views are seen in statements, such as:
"The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development."
Joseph Stalin stated of the Soviet state-controlled "common core" type indoctrination:
"There are three things that we do to disabuse the minds of our seminary students. We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic origin, and Darwin's teachings."
Darwin influenced Mao Zedong who stated:
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwinand the theory of evolution."
Franklin D. Roosevelt stated January 6, 1942:
"Our enemies are guided by ... unholy contempt for the human race.
We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His own image."
Both had worldviews formed by the extremely racist EuroChristian culture of the day. A cultural norm that had been around for centuries.
Eventually scientists and secular humanism came to the realization that the differences between human beings are tiny and inconsequential. That racism is illogical and unsupported by the evidence. Most religious people came to adopt the secular view. But if you want to find racism in the West, looking for conservative Christians is a good place to start.
Tom
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
The use of Lincoln here is interesting as he was not by any means untouched by the racist discourse of the day. He was anti-slavery because he thought it an immoral and unbiblical act, not because he thought the races were truly equal - in policy, he was repulsed by the thought of inter-racial marriage and wanted to see the African population deported en masse back to Africa. He said at one point: “There is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” [source] He similarly desired the expulsion of Native peoples from white territories, and presided over the largest mass execution of native peoples in the national history. I mean, it's always hard with politicians, who by the nature of their job will sometimes say contradictory things or take contradictory actions. But it would be hard to make the case that Lincoln was a Progressive out of time, plopped magically into the 19th century without picking up any of the prejudices of the day.
Not saying he was a "bad guy", but he was complicated, like most people are once you look at their life and perspectives more deeply than a quippy quote in a buzzfeed list can get you. I note that BOTH Lincoln and Darwin were committed abolitionists, for their whole lives, and in general fell on the same side politically throughout, which we know because Darwin had a close American friend, the botanist Asa Gray, with whom he exchanged constant letters during the same decades. Shortly after the American Civil War began, Darwin wrote of it that "Slavery seems to me to grow a more hopeless curse. … This war of yours, however it may end, is a fearful evil to the whole world; & its evil effect will, I must think, be felt for years.— I can see already it has produced wide spread feeling in favour of aristocracy & Monarchism: no one in England will speak for years in favour of the people governing themselves." [source]
Not saying he was a "bad guy", but he was complicated, like most people are once you look at their life and perspectives more deeply than a quippy quote in a buzzfeed list can get you. I note that BOTH Lincoln and Darwin were committed abolitionists, for their whole lives, and in general fell on the same side politically throughout, which we know because Darwin had a close American friend, the botanist Asa Gray, with whom he exchanged constant letters during the same decades. Shortly after the American Civil War began, Darwin wrote of it that "Slavery seems to me to grow a more hopeless curse. … This war of yours, however it may end, is a fearful evil to the whole world; & its evil effect will, I must think, be felt for years.— I can see already it has produced wide spread feeling in favour of aristocracy & Monarchism: no one in England will speak for years in favour of the people governing themselves." [source]
Last edited:
If you make claims and statements it is up to you to provide the proper citations as others have noted.
Please cite where Abraham Lincoln cited Charles Darwin and believed differently.
This would be early in the nature of the science of evolution, and like other layman commentary would not be meaningful anyway.
I did, and I do not find it coherent, nor relate to the nature and validity of the science of evolution. Again anecdotal views and subjective side notes of personal opinions over time has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
The problem of layman commentary and opinion concerning any scientific theory nor hypothesis remains anecdotal trivia in history and not meaningful to the science itself.
What is your bottom line or real argument in this post concerning the science of evolution?
If you went to the site I posted, all of your questions would have been answered IMV
Actually I went to the reference and no help. Nothing in the reference provided any substantial support for the following statement, which is the problem. Anecdotal sound bites are not meaningful, especially when I believe them to be false.
American Minute with Bill Federer
Darwin & Lincoln were born on the SAME day but they had OPPOSITE views of man made in the Image of the Creator!
This citation did not reflect Lincoln's view.
@Subduction Zone pegged your problem: "You should vet your sources before using them."
There is no coherent line of reasoning that there is a political slant to the science of evolution.
Last edited:
I've been listening to a podcast about Frederick Douglass. It was interesting to hear about how long Douglass refused to support Lincoln while Lincoln didn't support integration or extending the vote to emancipated slaves.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What both Lincoln and Darwin may have believed back two centuries ago is irrelevant to where we are today since we have myriads more information about the ToE. Nor does theism guarantee morality, although it may help. Darwin did not create the NAZI's nor the Soviets nor sunspots.
Much like having a car, information can be used for good or for evil. The alternative is to not have objective information, then we'd just slip back into the Dark Ages.
Much like having a car, information can be used for good or for evil. The alternative is to not have objective information, then we'd just slip back into the Dark Ages.
But it did and the source is good.
Could it be you just don't want to see it?
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Abraham
In contrast, Darwin published hisOrigin of Species, 1859, andDescent of Man, 1871, in which he wrote:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated ...
Seems pretty clear to me
It seems pretty clear to you, because you are an expert in selective citations to justify an agenda. It is also clear that Abraham Lincoln would not support giving blacks the vote. If he sincerely considered them Created equal, why not? Created equal before God does not translate to the belief in equality in society and on earth in the cultural views of the time.
Again regardless, sound bites from the past and layman do not represent the science of evolution. Even though Charles Darwin was the first to coherently propose evolution based on objective verifiable evidence his commentary was based on the culturally views of the time do not represent the science of evolution. The science of evolution is not political, and has evolved far beyond the cultural views of Charles Darwin at his time.
Now like any discipline of science can be manipulated and misused for political and religious purposes, especially the science of evolution.
Last edited:
Sounds like you want to change the subject and want to massage what was said in the link to help your position.
Sounds like you want to change the subject and want to massage what was said in the link to help your position.
No, my response stands, the use of these anecdotal sound bites, opinions, and false statements concerning the science of evolution do not address the science of evolution, and whether it and of itself is remotely political. As a matter of factual science it is not.
My position stands. This post had nothing to do with the validity of science or evolution even if that is what you are trying to make it about.
It was about the political slant.