Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

Tell that to the barbecued inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah amongst many others. Tell that to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Tell that to the victims of the Salem witch hunts. Since all of these horrendous acts were "justified" by using the Bible, can we say that they were the logical result of Christianity?Anything can be twisted to fit any purpose. For example, is drunk driving the logical result of the invention of the internal combustion engine? Is stabbing someone to death the logical result of inventing kitchen knives? Was the Columbine High School massacre the logical result of the invention of fire arms?It may have escaped your notice, but God actually gave us free will!!! We choose how to interpret information, each and every one of us. If we choose to use it for good, then that's down to us; if we choose to use it for evil, then that's down to us too. You can't blame the information for the subsequent actions of people.

Faith, try reading what you and I both wrote. I include it here to save you having to find the posts again Note that I continued quoting you past the section which mentions racist tendencies and included I wasn't just dealing with your comment on racist tendencies, but the rest of your take on Biblical ethic.I notice that you mentioned only Sodom and Gomorrah and had no comment to make on my other examples. Could it be because you see that the point I make is valid? If we are to judge the "ethics" of evolution on the uses misguided people have put it to, shouldn't the same judgement be made of the Bible? Or maybe you see that neither should be judged in this way.This message has been edited by Trixie, 05-31-2005 03:17 PM

I'd appreciate a reply to Message 168 please.edited by AdminJar to make link active to prior message.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-02-2005 02:48 PM

Thank you for your reply Faith, but I think you may have lost track of the topic itself. For you, here it is; The point I'm making is that if we use the way misguided individuals have used Darwinism to answer the question, then we have every right to use the way that misguided people have used the Bible to answer questions about the Bible.You may want to dwell on racism, but I prefer to dwell on the topic itself. You stated (emphasis mine)You don't say...."by leading to a concern....". I really have trouble understanding how you can say that a concern for all members of the human race is evident in the examples I gave such as the Salem witchcraft trials or the Spanish Inquisition.As for the claim that a Biblical ethic counters racism, it has been used to enforce racism by certain misguided individuals. That's why interpretation is everything when it comes to the Bible. There are so many ways it can be interpreted, some truly awful, but can you really blame the Bible for the awful and evil interpretations put on it by people? And by the same token, can we now blame the TOE for the nutters that twisted it into something it wasn't?

I'm not really wanting to get into the topic of supposed Biblical evils either. All I'm saying is that if you want to judge the TOE by the uses it's been put to by pillocks, then you have to do the same for the Bible and the Bible can't stand up to that method of judgement, given historical events. If you feel that this method deals unfairly with the Bible then you must also see that it isn't dealing fairly with the TOE.

You said and that's exactly it!!! It's totally different from religion which tells us how we should lead our lives. It doesn't have instructions in it. All it does is describe what science thinks happened, not what should happen. Yes, some people will use it to try to promote their pet ideas about what society should do, but that's true of anything.I'm really pleased that you said what you did. That's really all I was trying to get at - the neutrality of the TOE. I'm not out to rubbish the Bible or Christianity - remember I'm a Christian too!

It was worth a try, unfortunately you don't really see the point and it's one that you've brought up again.It doesn't matter what some misguided unfortunates think it means, it's just a statement on how we ended up with the life forms we have now. The use the TOE is put to has nothing to do with the TOE itself. Once again you're raising judgement rules which, when applied to the Bible, make the Bible appear worse than a "Beginner's Guide to Genocide".So Faith, shall we judge the Bible and the TOE on an equal, but erroneous footing or shall we agree that judging things on erroneous footings is just so much marsh gas?Until you can justify why the TOE should be judged by different standards than the Bible is judged, you have no credible defence for the standards you are using, other than personal bias.

I know, Hrun, but debating with Faith is like trying to push jelly uphill! You have to take it in small steps, one at a time, otherwise bits get left behind. I had seen the rest of it, but decided to concentrate on the part we could possibly agree on. Sadly even that hasn't worked.Faith, I do understand where you're coming from, but I think you're allowing your personal bias against the TOE to stop you seeing just what the TOE is.

So it seems you do want to use these standards to judge the TOE. Why don't you now apply them to the uses the Bible has been put to. I think you'll find that the Bible will come across as an instigator of wars, genocide, torture, murder and victimisation in the name of God.I'm not saying that the Bible is the instigator of thesethings, just that using your method of judgement it will appear like that. My, aren't you a wonderful witness forthe Word of God. If that doesn't turn thousands away in disgust I don't know what will.