What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?

_{July 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Perhaps someone can explain to me what the science of design detection has to do with Nazis, the Holocaust, or Hitler.

I sure can’t think of anything. Help me out here.

It’s things like this that ~~undermine~~ ruin the effort to get ID accepted as good science. It gives our critics the ammunition they need to convince people that ID is nothing more than a tool being used to promote social reform.

Science has left the building once the Nazi card gets played. As far as science is concerned it doesn’t matter if Hitler and Darwin were the same person. The only thing that matters is whether his theories can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

It’s a crying shame that people just can’t seem to drop this obsession with Darwin and Nazis. If we can stick to the science we can win this thing. Evolution solely by unintelligent causes doesn’t have a leg to stand on when put under the microscope of math & physics. The only legs it has are the ones we intelligent design proponents give it when we wander off the reservation of science and reason and start waving our hands in the air shouting that Darwinism is evil, Darwin led to the holocaust, and Darwin is killing God. Those are not scientific arguments, they never will be scientific arguments, and if we keep doing it we’re never going to get ID accepted as scientific argument. Period. End of story. Keep it up at your own peril and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Comments

PS: Looking a bit closer at the sun figure at the foot of the image, it looks a lot like a swastika, with four curly gas surges to me . . . cf the swastika upper left corner. (Note too how most of the rest of the sun is with linerar rays, but there are these four large prominences, all flaring out the same way as in the swastika, all noticeably kinked. No star on the top of the tree too!kairosfocus_{July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Ah Trib The Bryan article is well worth the reading; in many respects, it seems almost more relevant today than 86 years ago. And, the Nazi Women's mag is revealing! The 1943 December cover is almost comically revealing: "Winter Solstice" issue indeed!!! (I also don't like the play on the Creche, with the idealised, growing Master Race family. The conjoined Soldier's sacrifice on the plains of Russia panel suggests a very different version of "blood atonement" to me too . . .) This is all so blatantly post-Christian. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

KF, my pleasure as always. I like your link:
"While the theistic evolutionist does not affirmatively deny God, he is more dangerous to the Christian faith than the atheist, because, while claiming to believe in a Creator, he puts God so far away that consciousness of God's presence loses its power to comfort."
Here's another link to covers of a German women's magazine during the Nazi era. Note the one for December 1943.tribune7_{July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Trib: Thanks, as always. Quite significant; and indeed, I did not know of the direct, in-office involvement of church delegates in Admiral Canaris' Abwehr opposition movement, specifically Muller [who by "luck" survived], and Bonhoffer [also one of the key figures of Barmen], who of course did not survive. Your linked articles are a test for the sincerity and seriousness of any who still retain the idea that Hitler's nightmare was a product of his attachment to the Christian Faith. Vladimir also gave a link which on following up, I ran across an old work by William Jennings Bryan. (Thanks, Vladimir.) On reading it, I see that in his view the trends in the Nazi era were prefigured by the influence of Nietzsche et al in the WW 1 era, as reflected in Imperial Germany's propaganda. This much despised, caricatured and dismissed man -- BTW, I have gained significant respect for him on now being able to directly read his writings -- raised some very, very serious points that 86 years later sound all too prophetically relevant. I found this bit of a gem in the preface: [[The special reason for bringing to the attention of Christians at this time the evil that Darwinism is do-ing is to show that| atheists and agnostics are not only claiming but enjoying higher rights and greater privi-leges in this land than Christians; that is, they are able to propagate their views at public expense while Chris-tianity must be taught at the expense of Christians . . . . Is there any reason why atheists and agnostics should not be compelled to do likewise? . . . The question in dispute is whether atheists and agnostics have a right to teach irreligion in public schools—whether teachers drawing salaries from the public treasury shall be permitted to undermine belief in God, the Bible, and Christ by teaching not scientific truth but unproven and UNSUPPORTED GUESSES [NB: Bryan points out just how many hundreds of times Darwin acknowledged that he was more or less supposing or guessing ("hypothesis" is a 50c word for "guess") in his key works, noting that for instance he used "we may well suppose" over 800 times in his two main works] which cannot be true unless the Bible is false.]] Nearly ninety years later, the point still stings. Similarly, in the main text, p 20 [pdf 27] Bryan notes: [[Darwin does not use facts; he uses conclusions drawn from similarities. He builds upon presumptions, probabilities and inferences, and asks the acceptance of his hypothesis not-withstanding the fact that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered" (page 162). He advances an hypothesis which, if true, would find support on every foot of the earth's surface, but which, as a mat-ter of fact, finds support nowhere.]] Again, nearly ninety years later, the point still stings. And, on reflecting on how a principal means of rejecting the inference to design is the imposition of a question-begging "redefiniton" that in effect science on origins must only infer to chance +/or necessity, we see the same issue still operates. Last, on looking back in my vaults, I also ran across this summary. It is of course by a "Creationist," Bergman, but raises such serious issues and documents such serious points that it is sobering reading indeed, reading that demands to be answered, not dismissed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

KF & all, Here are some resources that conclusively rebut any claim that Hitler was a Christian. Note that they are from Cornell's School of Law. They are PDF files. Relationship of the German Churches to Hitler (they were against him.) The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches (they wanted them gone).tribune7_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Vladimir Thanks. Your just linked is especially intersting when it discusses the contributions of key figures linked to Darwin. I note here (I will now use double square brackets for blocks, given the busy gremlins]: [[Galton: "I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets." - Galton, Memoirs "[Eugenics] has indeed strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for Eugenics co-operates with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races... The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of Eugenics... then let its principles work into the heart of the nation, which will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly forsee." - Galton, Eugenics, its Definition, Scope, and Aims. It strikes me that the Jews are specialised for a parasitical existence upon other nations" - Galton to de Candolle, 1884 (Pearson's Life and Letters of Galton, vol.2, pg 209). ]] --> Rather interesting, no? Now, I have long understood, through Lakatos' extension to Popper, that research programmes have cores and surrounding belts. Core theories and ideas have in them a considerable worldview level element, and the belt of surrounding models and subsidiary theories and approaches serves in part as a belt of protective armour. Lakatos therefore spoke in terms of progressive and degenerative paradigms/programmes. He highlighted the importance of predictive success, and of situations where in effect a research programme begins to find itself making ever more ad hoc patches to meet onward eme3rging observations. Beyond a certain point, things break down as they did with Ptolemaic astronomy. In the case of the grand scale evolutionary materialist research programme, the materialism is obviously a worldview and hte narrative of cosmological then planetary then chemical then biological then socio-cultural evolution is a chain of deeply worldivew-tinged explanatory models. And, the rot reason why inference to design once it might cut across the chain of evolutionary models just outlined, is forbidden, is because of the begged worldview level question. (Newbies, kindly cf. basic discussion here.) As my excerpt from my always linked APP 6 just above shows, I believe that evolutionary matrerialism has run into serious trouble when it sought to explain mind [and morals] on reductionistic materialistic grounds. Indeed, that is precisely what Provine implied when he asserted that there is no free will and there is no ultimate foundation for ethics. For, with no power of responsible choice there is no foundation for reasoning and knowing, much less choosing to do the right. Such "reasoning" immediately cuts its own throat. It CANNOT be correct, given the basic facts of our experience of the world as thinking, choosing, reasoning, knowing, morally bound creatures. But, if we turn evolutionary materialistic "Science" into a god, then we lose our ability to think straight: Per logic, if one accepts error as truth, then if one sees real truth, one is often inclined to reject it as contradicting what one knows. Next, given the undermining of morality, and the easy excuse for ignoring the plea of the powerless, it fosters the sort of thinking and behaviour that easily become tyrannical. In short, through its worldviews core, "science" can easily become a component of an ideology that may reveal its inner incoherence and dangers. Worse, given the etymology: "Science = knowledge," those who do not know enough to understand just how provisional scientific knowledge claims historically and philosophically are, can then become absolutists who in zeal for "science" become blind to the errors and abuses they carry out. I guess over in Russia -- as I recall -- you know all about that already. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Hello Kairo. Some people think that Darwinism is purely a scientific question, and, because of this, the activities of prominent Darwinians should not be examined too closely. Neither should evolutionary scientists be examined in the light of history. Such examination, they argue, does not help to determine the truth or falsity of Darwinism. However, it is a little odd to press the notion that a certain group of scientists -- Darwinians -- are so far above reproach that they cannot be examined this way. Furthermore, many of us have already rejected Darwinism as a science long ago. We view it more as a social ill than a scientific hypothesis. So it is only natural to subject Darwinism and Darwinians to historical scrutiny. And to us, the argument that historical scrutiny does not prove evolution right or wrong and therefore no one should examine too closely the activities of Darwinians in the past, is just silly. On this page you will find sufficient reason to open up and pursue the historical examination of Darwinism, Darwinians, and their role in the social ills of the last 150 years.Vladimir Krondan_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

PS: The gremlins, sadly, are still with us.kairosfocus_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

B: NSDAP platform vs Corpus Juris Civilis and Barmen Declaration I had hoped that someone else would have taken this up from Sparc at 116. No-one has, so I note on select points: 1] “We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order” This first runs into Justinian's opening of the Corpus Juris Civilis:
PREAMBLE. OF THE INSTITUTES OR ELEMENTS OF OUR LORD THE MOST HOLY EMPEROR JUSTINIAN. IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST . . . . It is expedient that the Imperial Majesty not only be distinguished by arms, but also be protected by laws, so that government may be justly administered in time of both war and peace, and the Roman Sovereign not only may emerge victorious from battle with the enemy, but also by legitimate measures may defeat the evil designs of wicked men and appear as strict in the administration of justice as triumphant over conquered foes. [cf Rom 13:1 – 10.]
[That is, CJC was a specifically Christianised (of course, rather imperfectly so . . .) precis of some 1,000 years of Roman case law, digested into a more or less coherent whole. Also, we should understand that “spiritual” in Hitler's conception has very little to do with the same term in a Christian context.] 2] “The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination . . . The good of the state before the good of the individual.” This is of course highly manipulative language, and embeds within the ellipsis a denunciation of Jews that is profoundly un-Christian. But, the underlying deceptive and manipulative agenda is aptly brought out by excerpting the 1934 Barmen Declaration of the Confessing Christians:
In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day . . . . In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed . . . . We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the "German Christians" and of the Church administration carried on by them [i.e. Under Nazi leadership]. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the "German Christians" as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and th German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible . . . . In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths . . . In short, as soon as he attained power in 1933, Hitler was actively subverting the Church through injecting Nazi ideas and requiring a racialist and ideological loyalty that is alien to the historic Christian Faith. In this deception, sadly, he had the support of apostate church leaders forming a false church hierarchy. So, the cited words from the declared Nazi party platform, in proper historical context, do not at all carry the weight that Sparc would put upon them, but instead reflect a counterfeiting of the historic Christan faith by the Nazis and their henchmen. 3] Implications and issues of evolutionary materialism . . . I have, of course, several times, cited Provine's chilling words in his 1994 debate with Phil Johnson:
There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which DARWIN came quite clearly. (Stanford University Debate with Phil Johnson, April 30, 1994)
The underlying issue, I have long summarised: ________ . . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity . . . . Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion . . . . In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies. "Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please . . . _______ Perhaps, then, it is time to rethink? GEM of TKI
kairosfocus_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

Readers (incl. Sparc et al): I have taken a timeout here over a few days to see if some balance would emerge. It seems it has not, and so, I now make a general remark and comment on a few specific points, especially in Sparc at 116 above. A: In General I observe that it is now a commonplace among the so-called new atheists and their fellow travellers to attempt to reassign the roots of Nazism to “creationism” [as if Hitler et al looked to the Bible for their worldview's ideological and ethical foundation!] and more particularly to”Christianity,” often by making reference to obscure texts or facts out of context. In commenting on this tendentious practice, historian Richard Wiekart, an expert on the Nazi era and its roots, has aptly remarked:
The reason why people care about Hitler being a Darwinist was because his version of Darwinism influenced his murderous ideology. [NB: Cf above all the way back to 43, including t6he chain Darwin, Nietzsche, Hitler, one of many networks of ideational influence that connect Hiter to Darwin's thought] It wasn't incidental to his mass murder . . . Darwinists have to distance themselves from his social Darwinist views, so they campaign against it as against heresy. Also, it's remarkable how many websites run by atheists and anti-religious people prominently feature articles about Hitler being a Christian, and they blame Christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust. It's also remarkable that many Darwinists idolize Darwin so much that they cannot come to admit that he was a social Darwinist (though many scholars, to their credit, have conceded this).
Observe, again: “. . . IT'S REMARKABLE HOW MANY WEBSITES RUN BY ATHEISTS AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE PROMINENTLY FEATURE ARTICLES ABOUT HITLER BEING A CHRISTIAN, AND THEY BLAME CHRISTIANITY FOR HITLER AND THE HOLOCAUST.” Now, across the 2,000 year history of Christianity, there have been many sins and abuses condoned or carried out by people who have named Christ's name, or who have claimed to be acting in his name. None of these can find any grounds for their misbehaviour in the teachings of Christ and his duly sent out apostles. Indeed, just the opposite. For instance, in Rom 13:8 – 10, Paul explicitly teaches, in a civil society application of the Golden Rule: “he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law . . . LOVE DOES NO HARM TO ITS NEIGHBOR. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” No-one setting out on oppressing or harming his neighbour -- a concept that Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan shows extends across racial, religious and political lines of enmity – can properly claim to be following Christ's teaching. And, even more specifically, John teaches: “12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. . . . 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 ANYONE WHO HATES HIS BROTHER IS A MURDERER, AND YOU KNOW THAT NO MURDERER HAS ETERNAL LIFE IN HIM.” [1 Jn 3:12 – 15] It is plain, then, that Hitler, whose life was in large part shaped by hate and manifested itself in mass murder, was precisely not a disciple of Christ. Indeed, his very concept that Jesus -- whose claim to be a Messiah, biblically, necessarily rested on descent from David [cf Rom 1:1 – 4 etc] – was an “Aryan” not a Jew, is itself highly revealing on where Hitler got his ideas from. Indeed, let us now cite Ch XI of his notorious Mein Kampf, which I of course refuse to link: ___________ Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for IF THIS LAW DID NOT PREVAIL, ANY CONCEIVABLE HIGHER DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIC LIVING BEINGS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. AND STRUGGLE IS ALWAYS A MEANS FOR IMPROVING A SPECIES' HEALTH AND POWER OF RESISTANCE AND, THEREFORE, A CAUSE OF ITS HIGHER DEVELOPMENT. IF THE PROCESS WERE DIFFERENT, ALL FURTHER AND HIGHER DEVELOPMENT WOULD CEASE AND THE OPPOSITE WOULD OCCUR. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health ________________ To see the telling roots of this discussion, we need only read Descent of Man, chs 4 – 7; especially Darwin's discussion of the contrast between the Irish, the Scots and the English [“Saxons”], with a glance back at the impact of the Irish potato famine. But of course, from time to time, it suited Hitler to try to manipulate Christian terms and texts to try to gull the German people. This brings us to . . . [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859." - Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, ch.25.Vladimir Krondan_{July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

[DaveScot] "It’s a crying shame that people just can’t seem to drop this obsession with Darwin and Nazis." Why was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton having Alfred Ploetz over for tea-time? This is a legitimate historical question.Vladimir Krondan_{July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

While I disagree with DaveScot when it comes to biology I guess he's absolutely right that equating evolution theory with materialism and Nazism, especially put forward at UD by Denyse O'Leary, is stupid and won't help the case of ID. E.g., CJYman at 30:
Expelled *did* show how a leader took a scientific idea and applied it to society. Now, would that leader have made the same application from within a non-materialist/pro-ID framework or would he have had the tendency to have a higher regard for life?
I won't call the 25 point program of the NSDAP a pro-ID framework but at least it claimed to be chrisitan / non-materialistic:
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order. 24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
sparc_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB said - "You simply have no intellectual warrant or moral right to impose your arbitrary definition of science on anyone. " Luckily there are many places in the world where the influence of such people has yet to be felt. Have hope! The stakes are high but it's only just begun.M.Baldwin_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

-----karisofocus writes: “What I did say on education is that we need to soberly recognise that “schooling” has now by and large become indoctrination in highly dubious —and destructively incoherent — evolutionary materialist secularism -----Jack Krebs responds: “I’ve taught for 30 years in the public education system, including working as a curriculum director and in other semi-adminstrative positions, and I can’t even begin to find an example of how my school has done any of those things. Kf’s statement is extremely overblown political rhetoric, not something that accurately nor objectively describes what goes on in the vast majority of public schools every hour of the day.” Jack, If you want evidence of your own tyrannical exploits, simply hearken back to your own defense and explanation of “methodological naturalism,” which is your main tool for oppression. Methodological naturalism is simply an arbitrary rule that limits a scientific investigation to natural causes and forbids the scientist to go where the evidence leads. That is not science; it is tyranny. In spite of your claims to the contrary, there is no precedent for this. You have tried to justify this intrusion by alluding to scientists in the middle ages who, in many cases, “preferred” to search for natural causes. Obviously, you always fail to point out that “to prefer” is not “to rule out” or “to demand,” which, of course, makes all the difference. Those men made a provisional judgment based on the best information available, but they would never have dared to presume that they knew enough to close off all other options. Indeed, it was their love of truth and the disinterested search for it that made them great. They were always ready to challenge rigid conventions and seek new answers. They were wise enough to know that any new fact could change the entire scientific landscape. One thing is for sure, they would have been open to such facts as the presence of information in living organisms or the patterns found in a DNA molecule. Can you conceive of someone like Galileo, Sir Issac Newton, or even Francis Bacon ignoring those kinds of facts or refusing to consider their implications? Maybe you can, but I can’t. There is a mile-wide gap between explaining that science is “primarily” about natural causes and demanding that science be “exclusively” about natural causes. In fact, science is never exclusively about anything except a systematic search for the truth. Like your Darwinist colleagues, you have arrogated unto yourself the right to define, codify, and institutionalize your own arbitrary definition of science and impose it on everyone else. The decision about which methods to use belongs to the scientist, not to social activists or even to other scientists. As long as you refuse to face that fact, you will be part of a problem that needs to be solved. You simply have no intellectual warrant or moral right to impose your arbitrary definition of science on anyone. (For those [Dave Scot] who want to know why the problem of tyranny [Nazism] is related to the science of ID, I hope this will serve as a partial response.)StephenB_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It's a good thing that I decided to pass by one last time, just in case . . . It should be clear that I have identified some significant problems with how the original poster has been reading what I and several others have written, which has been sustained for several days now. I, and others, have offered corrections in vain. So, I have now re-stated my corrections for the record and for reflection. Beyond this, onlookers have been alerted on what is going on. Mr Krebs knows, or should know, that. Goodbye, again. [That should be plain enough.] GEM of TKI PS: Kindly look here on and here on for Mr Krebs' track record. (FtK is of course an eyewitness to events on the ground.) --> I repeat: it is high time to remove our children from the hands of indoctrination centres operating under the colours of being "schools" or "colleges" -- and from the manipulations of those who operate or manage them. [Cf Rom 1:18 - 32, esp 28 ff.]kairosfocus_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Hmm. some end tags don't appear to be working. The preview looks correct, but the final post doesn't My statement is: I've reflected on this a bit, and find it non-objective baloney. I've taught for 30 years in the public education system, including working as a curriculum director and in other semi-adminstrative positions, and I can't even begin to find an example of how my school has done any of those things. Kf's statement is extremely overblown political rhetoric, not something that accurately nor objectively describes what goes on in the vast majority of public schools every hour of the day.Jack Krebs_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Oops: the last paragraph above is mine, not kf's. It should read For example, kf writes,
What I did say on education is that we need to soberly recognise that “schooling” has now by and large become indoctrination in highly dubious — and destructively incoherent — evolutionary materialist secularism ... e reflected on this a bit, and find it non-objective baloney. I've taught for 30 years in the public education system, including working as a curriculum director and in other semi-adminstrative positions, and I can't even begin to find an example of how my school has done any of those things. Kf's statement is extremely overblown political rhetoric, not something that accurately nor objectively describes what goes on in the vast majority of public schools every hour of the day.Jack Krebs_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}
kf writes,
I think I must first of all observe that you have now several times seriously misread what I (and others) have said, in ways that suggest that a timeout to calm down is in order, to restore objectivity. I think that needs to be pointed out first of all. Now on specific corrective points, for the record (and for reflection during the timeout):
and then proceeds to write a couple thousand words. Who exactly is supposed to take this timeout? Does this mean kf gets to talk but no one else should respond? And why exactly are kf's "thoughts for reflection" objective and others are not? For example, kf writes,
What I did say on education is that we need to soberly recognise that “schooling” has now by and large become indoctrination in highly dubious — and destructively incoherent — evolutionary materialist secularism ... e reflected on this a bit, and find it non-objective baloney. I've taught for 30 years in the public education system, including working as a curriculum director and in other semi-adminstrative positions, and I can't even begin to find an example of how my school has done any of those things. Kf's statement is extremely overblown political rhetoric, not something that accurately nor objectively describes what goes on in the vast majority of public schools every hour of the day.Jack Krebs_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}
PS: I see the formatting and text cut out gremlins are still busily at work. Goodbye for now.kairosfocus_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}
Dave: I think I must first of all observe that you have now several times seriously misread what I (and others) have said, in ways that suggest that a timeout to calm down is in order, to restore objectivity. I think that needs to be pointed out first of all. Now on specific corrective points, for the record (and for reflection during the timeout): 1] DS, 92: So when Hitler (and I guess you would apply the same logic to Christian eugenicists) uses Christian philosophy to justify their actions they’re twisting it but if they use Darwin writings they’re not twisting it. Where on earth does that idea come from? Above, I noted on -- and can detail -- how Hitler set out to deceive a German public spiritually adrift after over a century of accelerating apostasising from the biblically based Christian faith. Just to name one instance of that, in the 1840's in reviewing Fuerbach, Marx starts from the premise that "The criticism of Religion is the premise of all criticism, and in Germany that criticism is finished." That's 100 years before Hitler's Holocaust, and 90 years before Stalin's. Hitler and many who associated with him objectively distorted the Christian faith, in service to the ethics of power and the creation of an anti-Christian idolatry of political messianism. It should not surprise us that such a system would have in it some objectively demonstrable counterfeits of things that are genuinely Christian. By sharpest contrast, I have shown (at least in sampling outline) where Hitler FOLLOWED the trends of social darwinism and racism that can be traced to Darwin himself in his second major work. He attempted to carry out precisely a form of the program of targetted extinction of inferiors that Darwein envisioned, through applying and extending the principles of "self-directed human EVOLUTION." AKA, eugenics, multiplied by the breakdown of ethics that were a natural outcome of Darwinism's "scientific" support for materialism and undermining of the sanctity of life, morality and responsibility. The difference between Hitler and Davenport et al in the US, and a lot of others in other places around the world was that Hitler was characteristically more consistent and less restrained. (And it is not without significance that a part of the reason for that is that in Germany, the process of rnist apostasy of Christendom that now so dominates the lands of the North was then the farthest advanced. Indeed, by and large, that is where it began and first gained strength.) I AM NOT USING AN INTELLECTUAL DOUBLE STANDARD. And, when it comes to so-called Christian eugenicists -- note this term, sadly,they were conforming to the apostasising spirit of their time. They tried -- in the name of "Science" and "modernity" -- to mix the unmixable: materialism and a Creation and resurrection anchored faith, and ended up in immoral chaos and, frankly, intellectual suicide. [Cf the just above link on modernism as a movement in the churches, post enlightenment era, for initial details.] 2] when following the law of the land which may order killing in defense of the realm (or even offense for the benefit of the realm) those orders are okay to follow yet when much less egregious laws like keeping creationism out of public schools that’s a law of the land that can be ignored . . . Again, a scroll up will substantiate that, sadly, you have again utterly misunderstood what I have said. First, I have pointed out that the civil authority, biblically is God's servant to do us good, and that in that context he is charged to protect justice, being given the power of the sword in defence of same. This is of course not a mandate for wars of aggression or the like, nor is it a mandate for abuse of the power of the sword to oppress the citizenry. And, to kill the innocent (or even the genuinely surrendered enemy) is murder [cf David and Uriah, as already noted], even if one wears a uniform. That is why there are such things as war crimes tribunals. I also pointed out that there is a whole theology of interposition of lower magistrates acting with and for the people, in correction -- or if necessary removal -- of civil authorities gone bad. A biblically anchored theology that ppens to be foundational to the rise of modern liberty and democracy, and which just happens to be deeply reflected in the foundational documents of your own country. On Scientific Creationism, you will note that, first of all, I have identified that this movement has a serious challenge to address relevant scientific and hermeneutical issues before it can properly present Biblical texts as raw record of the actual past, in an educational context or otherwise. Neither have I said one thing about subversively insinuating Creationism, whether general scientific or biblical -- and these are in fact different -- into public schools under their current rules and court rulings. ***Walking away from a for- now irretrievably corrupt and failed system and creating a new one is, plainly, a very different order from what you accuse me of above!*** What I did say on education is that we need to soberly recognise that "schooling" has now by and large become indoctrination in highly dubious -- and destructively incoherent -- evolutionary materialist secularism, and that this extends to the media, policy, courtrooms etc. I therefore put up that those who are concerned should by now have removed their children from the schools and colleges that are propagandising them [and this extends to for instance Global Warming etc too] and set up an alternative system. Similarly, we should all remove our support from the propagandistic so-called mainstream media, and boycott those who put advertising money into supporting such systems. By now there should be a comprehensive K - College alternative education system in place,and in effect a large scale, well-supported alternative economy and media. [Cf Eta Linnemann's prescription for Germany, for how this could be practically done, including reconceptualising subject areas. With web technologies such as Moodle that can bring the leading experts right into each and every classroom, this is even more doable today!] On politics, I first of all spoke to the responsibility of all Christian citizens of the US to register and vote their biblically instructed consciences. That could in principle be enough to fix the rot, and peacefully. For the general election is in fact an institutionalised potential -- thankfully, peaceful -- revolution and point of accountability of officialdom before the people they serve under God. But if, and when, such reforming actions are confronted with oppressive force and attempts to subvert or destroy the alternatives -- totalitarians, historically, seldom yield power without fighting -- then I pointed to the precedent set by the principles of interposition by lower magistrates, using the USD DOI of 1776 to make my point. ****I think it is fair comment to say that your reading of the above, is very, very wide of the mark.**** You have been setting up and knocking over strawmen. That's not cricket! 3] I don’t suppose there’s any chance of getting you to acknowledge the relative morals employed in choosing which laws of the land to obey and which to ignore. I have said nothing whatsoever about ignoring laws! [I have spoken to the exercising of the ultimate reserve right of reformation (and beyond that, of revolution, cf US DOI 1776), in the face of resistance to petitions and reforming actions to redress grievances and abuses.] Specifically, I have spoken to the limits of human government and authority [and thence the said ultimate reserve rights of petition, withdrawal, reformation and revolution (hopefully by peaceful ballot box), not at all to relativistic morality. How to deal with Government gone horribly and irretrievably bad -- a state that, thank God, does not yet obtain in the USA -- is under the principles of objective, self-evident Creational truth anchored public morality, not those of relativism. 4] And, on "None of that is incorporated into the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism). . ." The first problem is that the modern synthesis continues to provide "scientific" cover to the evolutionary materialist worldview and agenda, as Provine amply indicates: There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. (Stanford University Debate with Phil Johnson, April 30, 1994)
And, there are many, many other equally sobering statements. Second, the modern macrovevolutionary synthesis is still prone to give "scientific" cover to the same will to power ethics, as say bioethicist Peter Singer currently exemplifies. Observe again Provine's inference from evolutionism that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, or for responsible choice. If that does not chill you, it should. That, BTW, is why eugenics keeps on rearing its ugly head -- wood stake through the heart circa 1945 notwithstanding. 5] animal husbandry . . . This indeed has been known and used for millennia, for breeding of animals and plants. Its principles were also indeed abused by Christians who should have known better [cf Ac 17, and even how God intervened decisively against Miriam when she accused her brother Moshe of such cross-racial miscegenation!] to support so-called anti- miscegenation laws, which were evidently intended to prevent mixing of the races, but that is not at all the same as the intentional wiping out of races in the name of their supercession by a master-race, all duly instituted through the political-legal system and premised on the morality of will to power ands nature red in tooth and claw. At least, not until until through the evolutionary materialist tide unleashed and/or lent far greater reach by Darwin et al acting in the name of "science," Western civilisation began to decisively move away from the Judaeo-Christian ethical framework. Having said that, let me note: NOW OF COURSE, SADLY, PEOPLE HAVE MASSACRED AND CONQUERED AND ENSLAVED OTHERS ACROSS HISTORY,BUT THAT HAS BEEN IN DEFIANCE OF UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLE, NEVER ON ACCOUNT OF A NEW "MORALITY OF POWER" THAT REPLACES SUCH TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES AND UNDERMINES THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING. In short, I am here pointing out that Nietzsche's point on the implications of the death of biblically anchored morality in the West is telling:
The biblical prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” is a piece of naivete compared with the seriousness of Life’s own “Thou shalt not” issued to decadence: “Thou shalt not procreate!” —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no “equal right,” between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality! [Will to Power]
And, D
oresaw and predicted the consequences of his system, laying it out as a "scientific" prediction. An examination of its context will reveal that nowhere do we find any sense of a need to find a counterbalance to prevent the genocide of entire continents:
. . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised 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. [C Darwin, Descent of Man, ch 6.]
And by the way, DARWIN USED THE SUCCESS OF ANIMAL BREEDING AS AN EVIDENTIARY UNDERPINNING FOR HIS CLAIMS ON THE TRANSFORMING POWERS OF NATURAL SELECTION. In short,the implication was there that we could use intelligence to augment what would naturally occur: the extinction of lesser breeds by superior ones. Next step: "the self-direction of human EVOLUTION," aka eugenics. A few steps beyond that? Euthanasia, voluntary and forced. And thence the death camps and starving millions of Ukrainians and Chinese and the slaughtered people of Cambodia. 6] . . .everyone who thinks Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor in the holocaust KINDLY NOTE, in the above, I and others have spoken specifically to demonstrable historical factors, trends and influences, not claimed necessary or sufficient causal factors. People -- self-evidently -- can choose, decide and act, and so "necessary" and/or "sufficient" mechanical causes of history are not even credible or coherent as explanatory concepts. We may be influenced [and even manipulated], but we face the fact of individual responsibility for how we respond to such influences, and the alternatives that we could have taken. Starting with our intuitive sense of moral duty as Locke cited from theologian Richard Hooker in grounding the principles of liberty in Ch 2, section 5 of his 2nd essay on civil government: . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

_________ Let us think again, very, very carefully. Goodbye for now. GEM of TKI PS: CJY, thanks on the response to Mr Krebs. PPS: JJC, similarly, thanks for as very thoughtful post.kairosfocus_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Dave, I will give you this, the Nazi card has been overplayed, but I don’t understand why it is such a public relations liability. The general public is already on our side and the academy will hate us no matter what we do. For any honest seeker of truth, separating the social commentary from the science doesn’t present that much of a challenge. Anthony flew had no trouble navigating through the maze. I just can’t picture the most feared scenario: A Darwinist or a TE, who is on the verge of accepting “specified complexity,” suddenly changes his mind after discovering to his everlasting shock, that most ID enthusiasts are attracted to Jesus Christ and suspicious of Charles Darwin.StephenB_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Jack -- is uniquely to blame among all the other twisted beliefs throughout history, is dishonest. Jack, not uniquely but specifically, and not for throughout history just for of the 20th century. You are not suggesting that all cultures are equal and worldviews and philosophies are irrelevant, are you?tribune7_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs (quoting Dave): "So when Hitler (and I guess you would apply the same logic to Christian eugenicists) uses Christian philosophy to justify their actions they’re twisting it but if they use Darwin writings they’re not twisting it." The questions here would be: 1. What is the philosophy that Jesus taught? What happens when one applies that philosophy? 2. What applications are a logical extension when evolution is *combined with* a materialist/anti-ID framework. Let me expand upon this with some relevant question I asked earlier in this post ... It seems to me that “Darwinism” as it is defined and used in Expelled is explicitly materialistic. Since materialism is a philosophy, Expelled is showing what evolution combined with the materialistic philosophy[/anti-ID framework] has accomplished as evidenced in Hitler’s application of Darwin’s materialistic hypothesis to society. Expelled *did* show how a leader took a scientific idea and applied it to society. Now, would that leader have made the same application from within a non-materialist/pro-ID framework or would he have had the tendency to have a higher regard for life? What does history show? Sure, people who claimed to represent Jesus made up some pathetic and horribly selfish excuses to “Crusade.” However, they went completely against the foundational teaching of the One with who’s name they identified themselves. They represented Jesus’ teaching in no way, shape, or form! From which framework was Hitler approaching the science and application of evolution? Was it from a pro-ID/anti-materialist or an anti-ID/materialist framework? Does Expelled discuss this at all? Which framework is more likely to hold itself accountable for its applications of science? What does the past and present unfolding of scientific applications show? It seems obvious that Hitler viewed natural law of survival of the fittest to be on higher ground than the inherent value of life (as the result of pre-existing purpose). Materialistic philosophies require this to be the case whereas a pro-ID framework leaves room for a possible pre-law purpose in life. My 2 cents [and the most important point] is that if natural law rules above [and is pre-existent to] purpose and accountability (which can only be even implied within an ID framework) then nature will take its course in society. If society is part of nature, why would not Darwin’s theorizing of survival of the fittest and natural selection apply to society? If humans are a part of nature than human selection is ultimately natural selection. Enter “natural” eugenics … Jack Krebs: "To not acknowledge the wholesale twisting of various beliefs in the service of evil, and to somehow believe that social darwinism (which is not the science of evolution itself) is uniquely to blame among all the other twisted beliefs throughout history, is dishonest." Who said that darwinism (as the materialist/anti-ID version of evolution) is uniquely to blame for twisted beliefs throughout history? It is only one out of many horrible and twisted ideas with very real and horrible consequences that need to be faced up to lest these inhumane blunders in the application of science are repeated.CJYman_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Back at 92, Dave wrote
So when Hitler (and I guess you would apply the same logic to Christian eugenicists) uses Christian philosophy to justify their actions they’re twisting it but if they use Darwin writings they’re not twisting it. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of you acknowledging the double standard you’re employing. Similarly when following the law of the land which may order killing in defense of the realm (or even offense for the benefit of the realm) those orders are okay to follow yet when much less egregious laws like keeping creationism out of public schools that’s a law of the land that can be ignored. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of getting you to acknowledge the relative morals employed in choosing which laws of the land to obey and which to ignore.

Back in the beginning of this thread I supported the claim that Expelled is dishonest, as is much of the social IDism of which it is a part. One of the reasons is the point made by Dave: that people have been rationalizing atrocious behavior by referring to various philosophies, most of which have been religious, for centuries. To not acknowledge the wholesale twisting of various beliefs in the service of evil, and to somehow believe that social darwinism (which is not the science of evolution itself) is uniquely to blame among all the other twisted beliefs throughout history, is dishonest.Jack Krebs_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Anti-miscegenation laws are a weak fit. Under those laws, we don't produce any less of the "undesirable" races, necessarily. We just keep anybody from mistaking "one of them" for "one of us" by mandating that racial demarcations remain clear. Sterilization and euthanasia are efforts to stop the input and to cull from the crowd lesser breeding stock. There is an entirely different focus. Also, as well, current neo-Darwinian terminology must find "selection" as a misnomer. In fact, it was recently the subject of a very well done essay that Darwin's appeal was accomplished a bait-and-switch on the word "selection". He leveraged the commonly understood livestock method of "selecting", to explain how nature accomplished the modification of breeding with it's own "selection" (which modern Darwinists must find as antithesis of all that they imply). American euthanasia came at a time of greater American secularism than what exists today. Widespread evangelicalism to some extent is a reaction to the complacency of secular, progressive societies to the development of Eugenics and WWII. Just listen to how a number secularists bemoan that "God" wasn't on the money or in the pledge until the 1950s.jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB If I banned everyone who thinks Darwin's theory of evolution was a necessary factor in the holocaust I'd have to ban about 50% of the ID supporters here. It seems to be a group psychosis closely associated with a refusal to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old. So don't worry it. If it was MY blog I would definitely throw that crowd overboard so the ship doesn't sink under the weight of it, but it isn't my blog so I don't - I'm just following orders letting the young earth Nazi card players have a voice here. DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Dave, I was responding to your selective quote, not mine. Nevertheless, I will silence myself before I get silenced, if that hasn't happened already.StephenB_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB Flaws in your argument: 1) None of that is incorporated into the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism). 2) None of it is new for the time it was written. It is all obtained through knowledge of animal husbandry. If anyone who wants to blame the holocaust on Darwin carefully points out that: 1) it was not Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection that was utilized but rather his comparing ancient knowledge of animal husbandry to human reproductive habits, and 2) if they further are careful to point out that anti-miscegenation laws written by Christians long before Darwin came along were common in America, and 3) that modern era Christians in the United States paved the way for the Nazis by using the same reasoning to establish eugenics programs in the United States that predated Nazi eugenics by many years. If all that is included to give a balanced picture of what led to the holocaust I wouldn't have any objection left other than the whole point of my article which is 4) None of this has anything to do with the science of design detection so it doesn't belong here or anywhere where the mission is the advancement of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis. In other words, take your stupid Nazi cards and play with them somewhere else, out of sight, where they won't embarrass me or harm the advancement of the science of intelligent design. DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

-----Darwin: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.” So, which is it?” Does a good doctor harden himself for the long term benefit of the patient or not? Why is it that a good doctor should harden himself for what’s best for the individual in the long run, but a good doctor should not harden himself for what is best for society in the long run? It might make more sense to examine the entire context. Darwin was quite good at putting a smiley face on his most outrageous statements. So he [A] makes his case, [B] cushions the blow with a euphemism, and [C] then makes the point again. [A]-----“No one who has attended the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race, but expecting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone who is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” [B]----- Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature…………….. [C]-----“Hence we must bear with complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind but there appears to be a least on check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so frequently as the sound; and this check might be definitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” So, what’s the message: [A] To allow bad breeding is “wrongly directed” and “ignorant,” and “injurious to the human race.” [B] However, we have a noble nature that fosters that ignorance and discourages us from doing what is best for our race. [C] Therefore, given our nobility, we must remain ignorant and continue to injure the human race. However, we can at least discourage the less fit among us from marrying. On the other hand, it is really wishful thinking to expect that they will do that so......................StephenB_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply