Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I have no idea what points Syamsu might be trying to make beyond this absurd "Darwinist ideology" crap, but I am interested in the origins of the creo vs. evo debate and I think he may have inadvertantly hit on something useful here, something I forget from time to time but remember having learned long ago. In checking The Fundamentals, that series of books released back in 1909 from which 'fundamentalists' take their name, I find that indeed a conflict between science and specifically evolution was downplayed. One certainly wouldn't guess that the original fundamentalists were entirely opposed to teaching evolution in the schools from this bit found in the first book of the series:

quote:

---

In recent years the point in which "conflict" between Scripture and science is most frequently urged is the apparent contrariety of the theory of evolution to the Bible story of the direct creation of the animals and man. This might be met, and often is, as happened in the previous cases, by denying the reality of any evolutionary process in nature. Here also, however, while it must be conceded that evolution is not yet proved, there seems a growing appreciation of the strength of the evidence for the fact of some form of evolutionary origin of species--that is, of some genetic connection of higher with lower forms. Together with this, at the same time, there is manifest an increasing disposition to limit the scope of evolution, and to modify the theory in very essential points-those very points in which an apparent conflict with Scripture arose.

---

As those of us on the evo side read further we find much to disagree with, but I was interested to see that perhaps the original fundies were not so opposed to fact-based education in science. The writer clearly wishes to qualify the ToE, but he certainly isn't equating it with a godless society or saying that a belief in the theory will lead to immorality. I wonder what this author would think of the science "textbooks" today being used by most home-schoolers, the most popular of which are written by the faculty of Bob Jones University.In any case, a review of these books will show that, in the eyes of the original fundies, it was most important to fight the higher criticism, not science.What often gets lost in this debate is the fact that a good man's name has been sullied to the point that many seem to see him as a sort of anti-Christ. This is a man whose studies have led to remarkable progress in virtually every field of science and most dramatically in medicine. Countless lives have been saved thanks to drugs and other treatments which have been discovered by researchers who have taken his theories, expanded them, refined them and drawn new theories. As I mentioned in another forum, Charles Darwin's birthday is tomorrow and I think this is an excellent time to recognize mankind's overwhelming debt to him.If any creationist wants to quible over what I've said I would simply ask them to name a creation "scientist" who has produced anything at all useful to mankind.

I gladly stand corrected, TL, I didn't know about Terra. I'll read up on it a bit. Thanks.Sorry to lead the discussion off-topic.

Funny, I seem to have overestimated you. I thought your point might be a bit deeper than this. If the only thing you're seeking to establish is that Darwin was a racist and that some of his ideas were used by the Nazis then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Anyone reasonably familiar with Darwin and Hitler would know this.You don't seem to know very much about the history of Jewish pogroms. If you did, you'd realize that Christianity has just as much to apologize for as do the Nazis. Darwin's racism is indeed a point against him, but I think it pales in comparison to the sins of the church throughout history.Perhaps you should think about opening a book one day.[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-11-2004]

I'm trying to tell you that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone reasonably conversant with Darwin's teachings and the Nazis who doesn't know about social darwinism. So what? Why do you insist that it be studied? We already know it happened. We also know there's a connection between Jesus and the Inquisition, should we study that too?

I can see how frustrating it is to argue with this guy. The fact that he apparently sees himself as the one making sense is downright frightening when you consider how many more like him are out there doing all sorts of dangerous things like voting.But if you can get past that, some of his posts are hilarious. Reading through this is like watching a scientific debate being moderated by characters from the old Green Acres TV show.[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-21-2004]