ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Comment

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 3:05pm

Denise: Calm down. Yours is only one way of looking at the facts. There are other interpretations to be made that are just as valid.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 2:54pm

Tim: Perhaps he started a Catholic, but later it's well-documented that he was into pagan Nordic occultism. He was already a friend of Dietrich Eckhart's when he wrote Mein Kampf (to whom he dedicated the book), and it's clear from Eckhart's letters to friends that Hitler already held beliefs counter to the teaching of the Church. But it was expedient for him to use the Church to bolster his authority. Again, I think the facts as a whole suggest that he was a sociopath.

Comment by Tim L on April 8, 2012 at 2:43pm

Actually Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He talked about his Christian faith in Mien Kampf and later expanded in speeches saying things like, "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 2:34pm

Hmmm. From what I've read/understand, Hitler was no more a Christian than he was an evolutionist. (I believe he later acknowledged being an atheist, and I'm not 100% sure about what he knew about evolution.) Rather, I think he was a textbook sociopath who knew an opportunity when he saw it. It was politically expedient to combine Nietzschean philosophy with "cutting edge" eugenics and use economic conditions to incite blood lust against the Jews.

Comment by Marc Draco on April 8, 2012 at 2:22pm

Darwinist? Although Dicky Dawkins has used the phrase, it's more often a sleight against science-based thinking. Same for evolutionist.

Hitler was more into eugenics which, while inheritance based, is a design paradigm. Evolution allows the best adapted to survive - it lives in the right now; what works best now survives.

Big Bang theory has progressed a lot in recent years, Chris, you might try to familiarise yourself with Brane (membrane) theory a little more. 

Comment by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 2:21pm

"Hitler was a Christian but also a Darwinist"

Darwinist? So says The Discovery Institute (creationists), Glenn Beck and Ray Comfort but, …not exactly true. The Christian thing is a bit of a stretch as well, born a Catholic …but later a Nordic Pagan-ish kind of thing with himself as a being to be worshipped.

Comment by Joseph P on April 8, 2012 at 1:07pm

So if we vote for Darwinism we support the logic for a hierarchy of life forms, which is used to support the cast system, euthanasia of lesser beings, and differences in the treatment of different races. Pretty well what we have at the moment.

Creationists on the other hand recognize the equality of all humans.

I believe in both and that we are not alone in the universe. When you believe that, I think that you leave the door open for free thought.

 

There's so much wrong with that crap.  First off, Evolution (calling it Darwinism is kind of stupid; we've come a long way since Darwin's initial theory) does not form a hierarchy or a caste system.  We're no more nor less evolved than an earthworm.  Both species are equally evolved to fit within their niche in the environment.

Second, it doesn't matter what kind of philosophical statements someone may wish to draw from a hypothesis or theory (Evolution is a theory and Creationism is a failed hypothesis).  It has nothing to do with the validity of the initial premise.

Creationism is not scientific.  It's religious dogma.  When you suggest leaving your mind open to unscientific dogma, you sound like a god-bot.  The last thing I would call it is free-thought.

Comment by Sarah Walton on April 8, 2012 at 11:23am

@Chris Tidman: Vote? Evolution is a matter of observable fact, not opinion or democracy. Even if we all voted to not support Darwin's theory it wouldn't make it any less true. Things like eugenics stem from a misunderstanding and misapplication of evolution; indeed biology has been and still is used as the excuse to carry on treating people like crap (even when the biology demonstrated that there was very little difference between "desirable" and "undesirable" people). It's nice that you believe stuff, but belief without proof is faith; the opposite of free thought.

If creationists "recognize the equality of all humans" maybe they should stop saying things like teaching evolution in schools is a tool of gay rights activists to make children homosexual. See Focus on the Family's "Secure Daughters, Confident Sons", or this from the Creation Studies Institute.

Free thought includes the ability to say "I don't know" with absolute pride and wonder. Free thought includes the basic assumption that you will be wrong sometimes, and be willing to admit it. 

Comment by Marc Draco on April 8, 2012 at 10:42am

John - one the BBC programme, they also discussed how signals stimulate different parts of the brain; and the brain can re-wire as it were. You're quite correct of course - but what these articles seem to forget is that these blind people have fully functional eyes! 

It would be more interesting to blindfold them and see how well they do then - some might even use a basic form of echolocation or even temperature variations - something I proved to my peers some years ago while in hospital.

Comment by Marc Draco on April 8, 2012 at 10:39am

I saw it (if you'll forgive the pun) on BBC's Horizon program a few weeks ago. We're able to recognise basic shapes and things in 3D space subconsciously.

There are many ways to be blind (or become blind) but most of these articles seem to point to the "woo hoo" and ignore the amazing real effects that are being discovered.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• …
• 145
• Next ›
• Page