| Author |
Message |
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:59 am Post subject: schools should teach evolutionary biology |
 |
|
| Quote: | | schools should teach evolutionary biology |
It should teach sience, not Darvinist ideology. A lot of the Darvin's theory was refuted - e.g. that the species are developing gradually (now it is assumed that it is a result of strange jumps dealing with accidental mutations). And neodarvinists can not say how mutation can result in progressive modification of the species. So why exclude the Creation?
I think that school should teach balanced views, taking into account contemporary data and giving space to personal faith. Not the old stamps and slogans like 'men come from apes' etc.
I know what Im talking about. I have experience of darvinist brainwashing course in the soviet school. Folks start to believe that the man is a smart vegetable 
BTW Darvinism - is a main basis of fashism and communism. As we say 'Apple doesnt fall far from apple tree'.
ßáëî÷êî îò ÿáëîíüêè íå äàëåêî ïàäàåò. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Filimon
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: schools should teach evolutionary biology |
|
|
| HdPaul wrote: | | Quote: | | schools should teach evolutionary biology |
It should teach sience, not Darvinist ideology. A lot of the Darvin's theory was refuted - e.g. that the species are developing gradually (now it is assumed that it is a result of strange jumps dealing with accidental mutations). And neodarvinists can not say how mutation can result in progressive modification of the species. So why exclude the Creation?
I think that school should teach balanced views, taking into account contemporary data and giving space to personal faith. Not the old stamps and slogans like 'men come from apes' etc.
I know what Im talking about. I have experience of darvinist brainwashing course in the soviet school. Folks start to believe that the man is a smart vegetable
BTW Darvinism - is a main basis of fashism and communism. As we say 'Apple doesnt fall far from apple tree'.
ßáëî÷êî îò ÿáëîíüêè íå äàëåêî ïàäàåò. |
HUH? Where did this notion come from? This is the most unbased claim I have seen in a long time! And I am a lawyer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 115
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: a lawyer uh? |
|
|
| What does being a lawyer have to do with HdPaul's post? If I were a lawyer I don't think I would tell anybody, the position doesn't command much respect, and has nothing to do with post in this forum. Nobody is solicting your legal advice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link Jutrzenkapolska!
You were right. The text is rather complex.
Interesting thing is that Darwin was unitarian - i.e. didnt believe in Holy Trinity and deity of Jesus Christ. He was not orthodox Anglican and I must say wasnt a Christian in fact.
Another point
Darwin's views are irrelevant to the evolutionists/creationists controversy:
'Darwin contributed little, if any, to metaphysics and there have been advances in that subject since then (see philosophy of science, rationalism), so Darwin's authority is questionable. Darwin's religious views are also irrelevant to the accuracy of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection which stands or falls on its evidence, and not who first published it'. (c) Wikipedia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: schools should teach evolutionary biology |
|
|
| Quote: | | BTW Darvinism - is a main basis of fashism and communism. |
| Quote: | | HUH? Where did this notion come from? This is the most unbased claim I have seen in a long time! |
Evidently you havent read Mein Kampf or Lenin's works. I have a bit.
Lets find out.
The main claim of Darvinism is evolution by natural selection.
Evolution of man species is not excluded from this 'law of nature'.
This means that only the fittest survive (Hitler used this point in 'Mein Kampf' as a ground of his racial theory, Nazi defined that only Germans have 'right' parameters of the superior species. Others are bound to extinction).
The same idea was used by communists - e.g. Lenin, to elaborate a theory of class struggle. Labour is viewed as a main tool of evolution of the human society. Naturally those who produce valuables are superior to the others. So 'dictatorship of the proletarians' is based upon Darwin's theory.
We do know what are the consequences of both fashist and comunist ideology.
Plus - survival of the fittest means that morality, religion do not have any sence. So Darwinism is OK for anyone who doesnt want to control brutal instincts. One has right to kill his neighbour for a pack of cigarettes, steal bread from children, invade another country to get resources (e.g. Iraq)
| Quote: | | And I am a lawyer! |
My condolences |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisF
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 97
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: I still believe! |
|
|
 I have always found some humour in the vitriol passed about by extremists on both sides of this question. I believe in Jesus. I believe that I am like I am because God wanted it that way. When I fail to live up to God's desire for my life, that is HUMAN, not Godly. Whether creation occurred in an "instant" of 7 days or over a period of 7 eons (God's days?) is immaterial and to argue it is nonproductive. We should instead concentrate on improving TODAY for the millions of impoverished, malnourished, mistreated, and misled people in the world. I am a Christian. That is my belief system. Other people do not always agree with me. That is their right (and their problem). I can only be the best person I can, try to help my fellow man, and be true to my beliefs. Just my 2 cents worth, DennisF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Evolving evolutionism thread.
I think that the said theory of 'survival of the fittest' found its way to contemporary world politics in the form of New Democracy ideology. Its main feature in comparison with the Old one is that it implyes superiority of the 'Democratic' countries over all the rest.
The key word is 'human rights' (HR). Democratic states supposed to promote HR and non-democratic - to suppress, accordingly.
The use of the term seems to be similar to former 'class equality' of the commies or 'racial superiority' of the nazis. They all are used to make an excuse for the strong taking advantage over the weak. Country of the 'superior type' has right to meddle in the affairs of 'inferior' type. The conception is as old as the world itself but a new contribution to it (invention of New Democracy) helps to reconcile it with the corrupted humanism of the post-Christian Europe and US.
'Human rights' are supposed to be much more important than cultural tradition (e.g. women rights in arab countries) political independence etc. The question is: who has the right to make sure the HR are maintained? And another question: is there such a thing as HR?
I think we have to speak about basic values of humanity as of a gift, therefore term 'right', 'human rights' etc. makes no sence. Democrats do not give out life, freedom or justice (as it is seen in Iraq) just because it is not in human power. Our life can be improved, with God's help, but one part of humanity being able to 'create' freedom for the other is a greatest delusion ever seen. It has to do with the outstanding arrogance of the West. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Re: I still believe! |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have always found some humour in the vitriol passed about by extremists on both sides of this question. |
Me too Hey, have you placed me already among hardcore creationists?
| Quote: | When I fail to live up to God's desire for my life, that is HUMAN, not Godly.
|
Yes, I also prefer to call it HUMAN not apish
| Quote: | | Whether creation occurred in an "instant" of 7 days or over a period of 7 eons (God's days?) is immaterial and to argue it is nonproductive. |
I agree that this question is of little importance for a Christian. The controvercy was started by atheists who found Bible to be 'nonreliable source'.
| Quote: | | We should instead concentrate on improving TODAY for the millions of impoverished, malnourished,...mistreated, and misled people in the world. I am a Christian. |
Therefore you supposed to believe in God who cares of every living thing. So forget the millions.
But we sure can pray for people of the world.
| Quote: | | I can only be the best person I can, try to help my fellow man, and be true to my beliefs. Just my 2 cents worth, DennisF |
A good point. One can also ask God to live in one's heart. That means one has to die to the worldly things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaked
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 180
Location: Moscow
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HdPaul wrote: | Evolving evolutionism thread.
I think that the said theory of 'survival of the fittest' found its way to contemporary world politics in the form of New Democracy ideology. Its main feature in comparison with the Old one is that it implyes superiority of the 'Democratic' countries over all the rest.
The key word is 'human rights' (HR). Democratic states supposed to promote HR and non-democratic - to suppress, accordingly.
The use of the term seems to be similar to former 'class equality' of the commies or 'racial superiority' of the nazis. They all are used to make an excuse for the strong taking advantage over the weak. Country of the 'superior type' has right to meddle in the affairs of 'inferior' type. The conception is as old as the world itself but a new contribution to it (invention of New Democracy) helps to reconcile it with the corrupted humanism of the post-Christian Europe and US. |
Um, initially Darwinism inspired Social Darwinism, which was a secular glorification of the diversification of labor. Herbert Spencer, credited as being the first sociologist, created this school of thought and was an extremely laissez-faire capitalist - almost a capitalist anarchist. He wrote things about 'the right to ignore the state' and ridiculed the power of legislatures to limit individual liberties. Darwin himself supported Herbert Spencer's work. He eventually fell out of favor in Britain around 1900. His contemporary in the US was a guy named Sumner and some of his stuff was reflected in the work of Benjamin Tucker, an individualist anarchist. Much of his stuff you can see reflected in the writings of modern libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and in the writings of prominant evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins.
The ideas of the progressives were more or less a Christian/socialist reaction to social Darwinism - writers like Francis Bellamy were strongly for an organized, religiously pious state. Of course, continental statists associated the church with the old nobility, and were as quick to distance themselves from the church and its traditions as were the capitalist classical liberals. This is why communists, fascists and socialists were more athiestic in Europe. In France, they had completely tossed out the church during the revolution for similar reasons. In the US and to some extent the UK, Christianity has always been a driving force behind humanitarian social reform. If you want to read about this, check out the history of the Women's Christian Temperance Organization and you can find a lot about what went on in the US while socialism was sweeping Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 115
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:57 pm Post subject: Religious Faith |
|
|
Concerning Darwin, and evolution, George Carlin once said," If we evolved fro monkey's or ape's, why are there still monkey's and ape's here?" Makes me wonder.
I think people make life as simple, or as comlicated as they want when searching for the reason's of why. Karl Mark once wrote that religion was an opiate for the masses. I think he was pretty close with his assumtion.
Believing there is an afterlife can give people more meaning, and purpose, and it gives you a good feeling that you aren't alone in this world. A person who has a religious faith has a very positive way of coping with adversity, and it also gives a base of support with social interaction. One of the most important aspects of having a religious faith is that it gives people a positive outlook on life, and gives them hope. Life is just a matter of choice. I have read a lot of books, taken part in study groups etc, etc. Whih, in over the years, has led me to make the choice of making life more simple. I choose to ignore most all of the irrelevant theoretical conclusions of man. I no longer have the need to ask why of God. Believing this way works for me, but not everybody I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HdPaul
Frequent Guest
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: RF, Moscow
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaked wrote: |
Um, initially Darwinism inspired Social Darwinism,
|
I skipped this part to make my text shorter. I also appreciate your review - I think I'll have to read a bit on the subject.
| Quote: | | In the US and to some extent the UK, Christianity has always been a driving force behind humanitarian social reform. If you want to read about this, check out the history of the Women's Christian Temperance Organization and you can find a lot about what went on in the US while socialism was sweeping Europe. |
In that case I assume that the said features of New Democracy ideology is a consequence of the peculiarities of the Christianity in US.
And indeed American Evangelism is a rather peculiar thing as far as I know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HdPaul wrote: | Thanks for the link Jutrzenkapolska!
Another point
Darwin's views are irrelevant to the evolutionists/creationists controversy:
'Darwin contributed little, if any, to metaphysics and there have been advances in that subject since then (see philosophy of science, rationalism), so Darwin's authority is questionable. Darwin's religious views are also irrelevant to the accuracy of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection which stands or falls on its evidence, and not who first published it'. (c) Wikipedia |
Yeah, that is a very good point.Both evolutionists and creationists would love to be able to lay claim to Charles Darwin but his own personal views are irrevelant in a theological debate. "Well, Charles Darwin believed in a God/didn't believe in a God" is about as equally intelligent an argument as "Well, Brooke Shields and Tom Cruise believe in a God!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaked
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 180
Location: Moscow
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HdPaul wrote: | | blaked wrote: |
Um, initially Darwinism inspired Social Darwinism,
|
I skipped this part to make my text shorter. I also appreciate your review - I think I'll have to read a bit on the subject.
| Quote: | | In the US and to some extent the UK, Christianity has always been a driving force behind humanitarian social reform. If you want to read about this, check out the history of the Women's Christian Temperance Organization and you can find a lot about what went on in the US while socialism was sweeping Europe. |
In that case I assume that the said features of New Democracy ideology is a consequence of the peculiarities of the Christianity in US.
And indeed American Evangelism is a rather peculiar thing as far as I know. |
I think the point that I was trying to make was that the communists/socialists were athiests before Darwin. During the French Revolution, the revolutionary government even created its own post-Christian calendar and backed its money with the value of the land it had stolen from the Catholic church. The 'survival of the fittest' notion was interpreted differently by different people of different faiths. There is a great television show about this subject matter - it featured James Burke, who was the host of a BBC show called 'connections' in the 1970's. He basically talked about how Darwin inspired both Sumner/Spencer and communist dialectic materialism.
Much of the history of the Nazi ideology has to do with how Europeans looked at the linguistic history of India and Europe - the whole notion of an 'Aryan' or 'Caucasian' race sprouted from the study of sanskrit. A lot of those Nazis (weirdly enough) were into hindu mysticism. This is why Hitler used a hindu symbol (the swastika,) the word 'aryan' (which means 'purity' in hindii) and was a vegetarian. Still, I wouldn't pin Naziism on the hindus in the same way that I would connect darwinism with libertarians and 'transhumanists.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is something kind of neat.
What did Timothy McVeigh, Tara Lipinski, J.R.R. Tolkien, Michelangelo, Christina Aguilera, Alfred Hitchcock, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Madonna, John Kerry and Adolf Hitler all have in common?All Roman Catholics.
Here's the Catholic Prayer Page's list of other famous Catholics, somewhat sloppily done and with a few inaccuracies but the only one there is-
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:LNEpZHRnRfEJ:www.geocities.com/catholic_prayer/fc_list.html+Famous+Roman+Catholics&hl=en
We also got Pedro Almodovar, Brooke Shields, the President's brother, Al Gore's mother-in-law, O.J.Simpson's wife,O.J.Simpson himself, Nicole Kidman, one President of the U.S.A, Jennifer Lopez (Whooo!) three of the Beatles, as mentioned before, J.R.R.Tolkien (awwright!) Michael Moore, Pablo Neruda, used to have Tom Cruise, used to have John Travolta, Anna Nicole Smith ,The Terminator, Lindsay Lohan, Jules Verne,Victor Hugo, the Pope (NOOO...!!!!  ) and the man who wrote "Paradise Lost". And me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
