Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

Your quotes are meant to prove that Hitler was acting solely on Martin Luther

Mostly, not solely. For example, virulent anti-Semitism was present in Germany before Luther. Groups leaving for the Crusades in Northern Europe often kicked things off by a rampage against the Jews.

I have argued that antisemetic Christian writings like Martin Luthers were part of the propaganda used by the Nazis

As you learned, they based their “Final Solution” on Luther’s recommendations.

Lets look at quotes which reaveal this treue nature of the nazis:

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held… From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.
-“Geist und Kampf” (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf

and:

**Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance… I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp **
-Bernhard Rust, Nazi Minister of Education

Barbarian regarding the notion that Darwin was anti-Christian:
Odd then, that he would write this…

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence in The Origin of Species

Expressing Christian faith.

How do you know that Darwin means the Christian God" when he uses the term 'Creator"?

He was trained to be an Anglican priest, and he mentions in The Voyage of the Beagle that the ship’s officers made sport of him for his Anglican orthodoxy.

Historical facts show Darwing remained agnostic, including one site I viewed where his daughter was asked whether Darwin was Christian and she categorically denied it.

Late in life, Darwin’s only comment was that he was “leaning toward agnosticism”, but when he wrote the book, he was a devout Anglican Christian.

Here is a quote from Hitler echoing Darwing, but again, what does Hilter mean when he uses the word 'Creator"…in a pagan, pantheisitic sense it could just refer to nature and its laws.

“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk

Darwin did set man above the animals, but let’s look at someone else, who sounds a little more like Darwin.

No law made by man can overturn that of the Creator without dramatically affecting society in its very foundation…Awareness of natural law is inscribed in our very being," he said. "The law inscribed in our nature is the true guarantee offered to everyone to be able to live freely and in dignity
Pope Benedict XVI

Sounds like Darwin doesn’t it?

Yes, it does. Very much so.

But when Hitler talks of the ‘creator’ he is referring to natural selection and the survival of the fit.

Let’s take a look…

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
Adolf Hitler, speech 1922

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed “A New Beginning,” 26 Feb. 1925

Hitler’s idea of Christianity was a twisted nightmare. But he did believe. So did Luther, who, as you know, first proposed the things that Hitler actually did.

Things Darwin and his followers assailed as evil and insupportable. This is why even Stein’s own people have denounced his denial of the causes of the Holocaust, and his blood libel against science.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian regarding Darwin’s opinion of Nazi ideas:
In fact, unlike Luther, he called them “evil.” You know this. You know Luther’s advice was taken up by the Nazis, while Darwin and Darwinists denounced it. And yet you defend the very people who committed the Holocaust, and denounce the people who opposed it.Why?

You are defending Luther, whose ideas formed the basis for the “Final Solution.” And you are assailing Darwin who called such ideas evil. As you learned, Luther proposed the very things the Nazis did. You know that Darwin opposed them. There’s no way to avoid the truth here, Mary.

---

Do you ever read my posts? I do not condone martin Luther’s antisemetic writings but I am arguing that Hitler’s motives were not religous as Luther’s were. Hitler was interested in purifying germany of impure blooded peoples and used Luther’s writings to gain support from secularized Christians who had a false understanding of what Christian belief regarding Jewish people was. Once he gained their support and was in power he turned on the truly religious people as he saw Christianity as part of the jewish tradition and both were evil in his perverted mind because both were based on a belief in traditional morality, something he held to be tne enemy of the nationalistic state. Go back to my post and re-read the quotes.

---

As you know, Darwin was concerned that was happening in his time; he thought that many groups of humans were going to be exterminated by “civilized” societies.
How then did he determine that all humans were entitled to life and freedom and that even allowing the least of them to die by inaction was an “overwhelming evil?” Be honest with yourself here, Mary.

He didn’t. He never said there was a universal moral code, only that morality was up to the individual conscnience which he saw as having evolved based on social interactions…so if social interactions tell you that killing some people is OK, then I guess there is not code against it. He never made any claim in a law higher than nature.ou misread his quote and twist the meanings of his words just as you twist mine.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I do not condone martin Luther’s antisemetic writings but I am arguing that Hitler’s motives were not religous as Luther’s were.

Explain then, why Hitler put into practice the very things Luther advocated to be done to the Jews.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, Darwin was concerned that was happening in his time; he thought that many groups of humans were going to be exterminated by “civilized” societies.
How then did he determine that all humans were entitled to life and freedom and that even allowing the least of them to die by inaction was an “overwhelming evil?” Be honest with yourself here, Mary.

He didn’t.

Yes he did. You saw his statements condemning slavery, and his observation that allowing the weak to die was an overwhelming evil.

So did everyone else reading this. What do you hope to gain by denying it?

He never said there was a universal moral code, only that morality was up to the individual conscnience which he saw as having evolved based on social interactions…

No. For example, he flatly said slavery was evil, and that allowing the weak to die was evil.

so if social interactions tell you that killing some people is OK,

Now you’re talking about Luther and Hitler, not Darwin. Darwin objected to that kind of thinking.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

[Barbarian claims the Nazi movement was based on Luther and crusades and other antisemetic movements…mainly from Christian groups…

---

I am responding again that Hitler hated Christian as much as he hated Jewish people. even sites by Atheists on the web have articles showing Hitler was not a Christian…he only used Christian langiage as a propaganda technique…
see this Atheists page…
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-hitler.html

How is it you can so easily disregard the quotes from Hitler and his cronies that show they were antuChristian as much as they were antiJewish? Don’t you read those quotes? Don’t you think their clear meaning is relevant.
Barbarian, you are lying by your total disregard for every quote I provide.It is as if you have blinders taped over your eyes and your mind is so closed that I think if Hitler testified to you himself you would just find a way to disregard what he said!

What did Hitler say when he wasn’t performing for the audience?

"Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup’s Hitler FAQ.
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

**“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. **Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death… When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…
"**Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity… And that’s why someday its structure will collapse… "

---

Clearly Hitler hated Christianity**

---

barbarian:
As you learned, they based their “Final Solution” on Luther’s recommendations.

---

Mary:
YEAH< IT WAS A GREAT SOURCE FOR PROPAGANDA…
but the fact is Hitler killed 6 million Jewish people and nearly 5 million others…no jewish. So where do they fit into Lether’s rants?

Only a theory of racial superiority can.

Who esle did the Nazis attack besides the Jewish people…those other nearly 5 million victims?
Black and mulato children and adults:
" In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that he would eliminate all the children born of African-German descent because he considered them an “insult” to the German nation. “The mulatto children came about through rape or the white mother was a whore,” Hitler wrote. “In both cases, there is not the slightest moral duty regarding these offspring of a foreign race.” The Nazis set up a secret group, Commission Number 3, to organize the sterilization of these offspring to keep intact the purity of the Aryan race. In 1937, all local authorities in Germany were to submit a list of all the children of African descent. Then, these children were taken from their homes or schools without parental permission and put before the commission. Once a child was decided to be of black descent, the child was taken immediately to a hospital and sterilized. About 400 children were medically sterilized – many times without their parents’ knowledge.
Gypsies
“Like the Jews, the Rom Gypsies were chosen for total annihilation just because of their race. Even though Jews are defined by religion, Hitler saw the Jewish people as a race that he believed needed to be completely annihilated. The Rom Gypsies also were a nomadic people that were persecuted throughout history. Both groups were denied certain privileges in many European countries. The Nazis believed that both the Jews and Gypsies were racially inferior and degenerate and therefore worthless…”
Catholics
“Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but he also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were targeted by the Nazis…”

holocaustforgotten.com/Newsletter.htm

and other…political enemies, homosexuals…

---

Stop spouting false propaganda that Hitler was a Christian and this was a religious cause. IT WASN"T…not traditional religion anyway. perhaps some pantheistic pagan religion…

The quotes you provide are either Nazi propaganda quotes or revisionist history. The record of who died and was persecuted clearly indicates an antiJudeo-Christian, racially based policy of genocide… The record is clear. Stop trying to revise history and making this into a Christian backed campaign. There are too many antiChristian quotes to show and see for anyone to really accept your claim as factual.

---

continued in next post

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Now to continue…

Barbarian compares Darwin and Pope Benedict and says Darwin’s writings and beliefs are compatible with Christian/Catholic beliefs…

Late in life, Darwin’s only comment was that he was “leaning toward agnosticism”, but when he wrote the book, he was a devout Anglican Christian.

Hitler quote:
“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk

( mary: Just who is the 'Creator" referred to? For Hitler, considering all the anti-Jewish/Christian quotes previously provided we know it is not the God of the Bible. Other sources feel Hitler thought of ‘Nature’ as the force he was referring to…and the Laws of Nature as being a deity…)

Darwin did set man above the animals, but let’s look at someone else, who sounds a little more like Darwin.
Pope Benedict quote:
No law made by man can overturn that of the Creator without dramatically affecting society in its very foundation…Awareness of natural law is inscribed in our very being," he said. "The law inscribed in our nature is the true guarantee offered to everyone to be able to live freely and in dignity
Pope Benedict XVI
Barbarian:
Yes, it does. Very much so.(saying Darwin and Pope agree)

---

Lets see:
Darwin+ agnosticism= natural law as creator, materialistic sources rule
Hitler+antiJewish/Christian prejudice+ unclear deity, perhaps nature combined with force of the state=materialistic view
Pope Benedict+ Love and adoration of God as Creator and establisher of natural laws=compliance with natural law under God
through the order of grace (nonmaterialistic, spiritual view)

But Pope Benedict places natural law under God, Darwin’s agnosticism saw natural law as the sole law. Hitler combined darwin with some kind of sense that nature’s laws could be helped along with brutal force… Big differences.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
Adolf Hitler, speech 1922COLOR]

Do you see that date Barbarian? this is a propaganda speech before Hitler was in power.

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed “A New Beginning,” Feb. 1925

NOTICE THE DATES!
Mary:
Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf until 1927 and wasn’t elected to power until 1930…All the ‘christian’ quotes you provide are during his years prior to being in power and are propaganda quotes. The record shows he was anti Judeo/Christian secular leader when in power. I have provided lots of quotes and shown that is true.

From the atheists themselves an article that shows his early Christian talk was just talk and had no real belief in it:
infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-hitler.html

"Once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany. After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party. However, he retained his belief in reincarnation, and his conviction that there was some supreme creative force whose will he was enacting.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity … The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."
Adolf Hitler

---

Mary:
The evidence clearly shows that Hitler was influnced by some other belief than Christian, a belief in a force or power that was part of nature, or some pagan belief system. NOT CHRISTIAN.

---

Mary ( on Darwin as agnostic)
As far as Darwin is concerned. he was surrounded by atheists, all his friends were atheists, his father was a pantheist, he let go of any belief he had in God as he did his research and writings in his journals indicate that he felt his work would deal a blow to belief in God, something that he, himself, did not have to articulate, but he was well aware of… Darwin’s own words
concerning his faith journey:

“…Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine…”
Charles Darwin

age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/Charles_Darwin_quotes.html

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

How is it you can so easily disregard the quotes from Hitler and his cronies that show they were antuChristian as much as they were antiJewish?

What matters is not only what they said in praising Luther, but in the fact that they implemented the things Luther wanted to do to the Jews. That is far more eloquent than what they said.

And, as you learned, Darwin objected to such things, calling them “overwhelming evil.”

Barbarian, you are lying by your total disregard for every quote I provide.

Mary, you should be ashamed of yourself. Please try to conduct yourself honestly and decently.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, they based their “Final Solution” on Luther’s recommendations.

YEAH< IT WAS A GREAT SOURCE FOR PROPAGANDA…

The sincerest form of flattery is imitation. And as you learned, Hitler took Luther’s advice about what to do to the Jews.

Stop spouting false propaganda that Hitler was a Christian

Hitler considered himself a Christian, although his version of Christianity was a twisted mockery of the real thing. But most of all, what he actually did is far more telling. And what he did was follow Luther’s advice.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian compares Darwin and Pope Benedict and says Darwin’s writings and beliefs are compatible with Christian/Catholic beliefs…

Late in life, Darwin’s only comment was that he was “leaning toward agnosticism”, but when he wrote the book, he was a devout Anglican Christian.

Hitler quote:
“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk

Barbarian observes:
Darwin did set man above the animals, but let’s look at someone else, who sounds a little more like Darwin.

No law made by man can overturn that of the Creator without dramatically affecting society in its very foundation…Awareness of natural law is inscribed in our very being," he said. "The law inscribed in our nature is the true guarantee offered to everyone to be able to live freely and in dignity
Pope Benedict XVI

Mary asks if this sounds like Darwin)

Barbarian observes::
Yes, it does. Very much so.

But Pope Benedict places natural law under God

And Darwin attributed the creation of life to God. Very much the same.

(mention that late in life Darwin became an agnostic, or was at least leaning that way)

Yep. But that doesn’t change what he wrote in his book when he was young.

As you can see, you are defending the very people who made the Holocaust possible, and attacking Darwin, who condemned such things.

Why?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

What matters is not only what they said in praising Luther, but in the fact that they implemented the things Luther wanted to do to the Jews. That is far more eloquent than what they said.
And, as you learned, Darwin objected to such things, calling them “overwhelming evil.”

Did Lther ever say to take all jewish terms out of the bible or rewrite the 10 commandments or replace the cross with a swatztika? Did Luther ever say tha governemnts should control religions? That the state was the religion? That Jesus was a white ayrian and not of Jewish descent? Did Luther ever say that only pure blooded people should be allowed to have children? Those are ideas related to racial policies not Christian.

The sincerest form of flattery is imitation. And as you learned, Hitler took Luther’s advice about what to do to the Jews.

Martin Luther never commmitted mas genocide. Yis is blood libel by your own definition.

Hitler considered himself a Christian, although his version of Christianity was a twisted mockery of the real thing. But most of all, what he actually did is far more telling. And what he did was follow Luther’s advice.

His version was so twisted that it is not recognizable as Christian…not even to Hitler! Go back and reread the quotes about how he saw Christianity as the enemy of the state.

You are ridiculous.

In Christ, MaryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

And Darwin attributed the creation of life to God. Very much the same.

(mention that late in life Darwin became an agnostic, or was at least leaning that way)

Yep. But that doesn’t change what he wrote in his book when he was young.

---

You are ridiculous all over again. He did not use the word 'God" Darwin used the word 'Creator". Most of us think of God, as in God Our Father, when we see that word but it can have different meanings. Darwin was quite clever in hiding what he actually thought that word meant. If all of creation came from God and he believed it did, why could he never believe in Divine Intervention ,
nor could he believe in the miracle stories of the bible, all of that was myth to him. he stated the bible was no more true than the myths of other religions such as Hindu, or Buddhist, or African mysths…a regular Joseph Campbell in that area.

When Pope Benedict says natural law or even aspects of evolution are compatible with the Cathoic fath he is not saying Divine Intervention is not part of the equation. Nor has benedict or any Pope said that the Divinely inspired book of the bible is just a collection of myths like stories in other religions, nor does he say that miracles, Such as Christ rising from the dead, are untrue.
There are vast differences between what Pope Benedict says about our Divine Creator and what Darwin would say. Darwin is an agnostic and a materialist, Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church sees nature as sacred and holy because it comes from God but they also believe in the creation of the ‘unseen’. he believes that materialistic, agnostic science dos not have complete answers and even poses philosophical difficulties.

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

“The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” the pope said.

“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians.

From an article regarding a seminar Benedict had with students discussing Darwin in which Benedict expresses concerns about how Darwin’s view can become a blood ethic:

"In his book “Truth and Tolerance” (Ignatius Press, 2004), written when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote of what he called an effort to turn evolution into a “universal philosophy” that explained all of life.
iht.com/articles/2006/09/01/news/vatican.php?page=2
“This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer,” he wrote. "Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic."After John Paul died in April 2005, Benedict signaled a similar concern in his homily at the Mass in which he was formally installed as pope.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution,” he said. “Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

But some students of the pope say his doubts go deeper into the science of evolutionary theory. In his writings he has echoed the questions of anti-Darwinians about how evolution can transform one species into another.

The pope “does not accept at face value the scientific theory,” said Dominique Tassot, director of the French group, the Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science. “He wants to make people reconsider the question.”

---

As you can see Barbarian, Darwin’s theory taken as a complete answer for human beings is not compatible with Church teaching.
Yes, we can say God uses natural processes as part of His creative process but the Church has always infallibly taught that
man was created by Divine intervention when a Human Soul was infused instantaneously into Adam…that is not just a matter of belief to a Catholic, it is equal to fact. Just as much as it is a fact that a person at the moment of conception is infused with their immortal soul, and within each human soul there is a place for God’s Holy Spirit. Through original sin the soul and Spirit were separated but through Baptism the soul and spirit are reunited. When we sin the Spirit has to retreat away from the soul, or in the case of martal sin the Spirit is completely separated from the soul, but the Human Soul was created to be the seat of God’s Holy Spirit…How amazing! The worth of each human soul is infinite. That is something Darwin could not believe in nor does his scientific view convey.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
What matters is not only what they said in praising Luther, but in the fact that they implemented the things Luther wanted to do to the Jews. That is far more eloquent than what they said.
And, as you learned, Darwin objected to such things, calling them “overwhelming evil.”

Did Lther ever say to take all jewish terms out of the bible or rewrite the 10 commandments or replace the cross with a swatztika?

He merely recommended the actions Hitler later accepted and implemented.

Did Luther ever say tha governemnts should control religions?

Yes, he did. You’ve just pointed out another way that Hitler followed Luther’s ideas.

Barbarian observes:
The sincerest form of flattery is imitation. And as you learned, Hitler took Luther’s advice about what to do to the Jews.

Martin Luther never commmitted mas genocide.

True. He could never find a ruler evil enough to do what he wanted to be done to the Jews. That had to wait for Hitler.

Yis is blood libel by your own definition.

As you have seen, Luther tried to do it. He just couldn’t get any ruler to actually implement it, until Hitler.

Barbarian observes:
Hitler considered himself a Christian, although his version of Christianity was a twisted mockery of the real thing. But most of all, what he actually did is far more telling. And what he did was follow Luther’s advice.

His version was so twisted that it is not recognizable as Christian…

Neither was Luther’s, when it came to the Jews. I know you’re trying to find a way out, but there isn’t one. This is why Stein is regarded as a fool or a liar. He defended the people responsible for the Holocaust, and assailed the people who denounced such ideas.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Hitler quote:
“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk

Barbarian observes:
Darwin did set man above the animals, but let’s look at someone else, who sounds a little more like Darwin.

No law made by man can overturn that of the Creator without dramatically affecting society in its very foundation…Awareness of natural law is inscribed in our very being," he said. "The law inscribed in our nature is the true guarantee offered to everyone to be able to live freely and in dignity
Pope Benedict XVI

Mary asks if this sounds like Darwin)

Barbarian observes::
Yes, it does. Very much so.

---

So you think Pope Benedict is a 100% Darwinian? Lets us look at how Benedict talks about the Darwin ethic in a seminar with graduate students in Germany:
iht.com/articles/2006/09/01/news/vatican.php?page=2
In his book “Truth and Tolerance” (Ignatius Press, 2004), written when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote of what he called an effort to turn evolution into a “universal philosophy” that explained all of life.

“This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer,” he wrote. "Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic."After John Paul died in April 2005, Benedict signaled a similar concern in his homily at the Mass in which he was formally installed as pope.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution,” he said. “Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

But some students of the pope say his doubts go deeper into the science of evolutionary theory. In his writings he has echoed the questions of anti-Darwinians about how evolution can transform one species into another.

The pope “does not accept at face value the scientific theory,” said Dominique Tassot, director of the French group, the Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science. “He wants to make people reconsider the question.”

---

barbarian:
And Darwin attributed the creation of life to God. Very much the same.

---

Darwin believed in God? In fact he never used the word 'God" and since 'Creator" as we have seen can be given a secular meaning referring to materialistic processes, this quote does not prove he was referring to the Divine Creator that christian refer to.

All of Darwin’s personal journals show he lost his faith progrssively and began to see the bible as merely a book of myths equal to stories in other world religions , Hindu, Buddhist, African…more like Joseph Campbell that Pope Benedict…
“At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God…
…This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists…” Charles Darwin

age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/Charles_Darwin_quotes.html

Charles Darwin:

“But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian…
…Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine…”

hardly a statement Pope Benedict would agree with, nor is that statement compatible with the Catholic belief that the bible is the inspired Word of God and does posses truth beyond just the sense of a narrative with morals, but in some sense actual historical truth…

when I see a Rainbow, I see a sign of God;s Covenant with man,
do you? would Darwin? I don’t think Darwin worl…he would see a scientific phenonmena and that is all.

Materialistic darwinian ethics allows scientists the license to treat
tiny embryos as experiemental substancesor globs of matter with no regard for the spiritual reality that they posses souls. Materialistic Darwin ethic allows the propaganda that an unborn baby is not fully human yet and can be killed. Materialistic Darwinian ethic allowed the grmans to see some races as inferior to others.That is why science and scientists have gone too far and by not submitting their work to the higher laws of God and faith.

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Charles Darwin:

“But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian…
…Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine…” Charles Darwin.

Hardly a statement Pope Benedict would agree with, nor is that statement compatible with the Catholic belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and does posses truth beyond just the sense of a narrative with morals, but in some sense actual historical truth…

When I see a Rainbow, I see a sign of God;s Covenant with man,
do you? Would Darwin? I don’t think Darwin worl…he would see a scientific phenonmena and that is all.

Materialistic Darwinian ethics allows scientists the license to treat
tiny embryos as experiemental substances or globs of matter with no regard for the spiritual reality that they posses souls. Materialistic Darwinian ethic allows the propaganda that an unborn baby is not fully human yet, and can be killed. Materialistic Darwinian ethic allowed the Germans to see some races as inferior to others, and thus gave them the right to murder inorder to purify the German gene pool…That is why science and scientists, at times, have gone too far and by not submitting their work to the higher laws of God and faith.

Again Pope Benedict said:

"This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer," he wrote. "Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic."After John Paul died in April 2005, Benedict signaled a similar concern in his homily at the Mass in which he was formally installed as pope.
iht.com/articles/2006/09/…can.php?page=2

Sounds like Pope Benedict is sympathetic to Ben Stein’s view to me.
In Christ, MaryJohnZ

I re-posted this piece because I rushed this morning and the typing was so bad. I always miss keys and don’t have time to go back and edit always. I do apologize for that to all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you think Pope Benedict is a 100% Darwinian?

No, although he does acknowledge the Darwinian discovery of common descent, he has expressed a few misconceptions about Darwinian theory. But he’s certainly better informed than most religious leaders.

Lets us look at how Benedict talks about the Darwin ethic

"This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer," he wrote. "Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic."After John Paul died in April 2005, Benedict signaled a similar concern in his homily at the Mass in which he was formally installed as pope.

He is expressing precisely what Darwin wrote:

** 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.**

Again, they agree on the fact that nature is not a place to get one’s ethical standards.

But some students of the pope say his doubts go deeper into the science of evolutionary theory.

Let’s see what he has to say about that…

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Report of the International Theological Commission

Nope. He’s pretty emphatic about it. Your guy didn’t offer a statement to support his claim, and it’s clear why. How do you undermine a statement as firm as that one?

Materialistic Darwinian ethic allowed the grmans to see some races as inferior to others.

Nope. That was Martin Luther. Remember, the Nazis put into practice all those things Luther recommended.

As you know, Darwin denounced those ideas, as “overwhelming evil.”

Why are you defending the people responsible for the Holocaust? Why are you attacking the people who denounced it? Don’t you see that this is why Stein is so despised? His blood libel against science makes excuses for the Nazis. Don’t take part in that.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

He is expressing precisely what Darwin wrote:

[Your are ridiculous, really. he did not say the same thing as Darwin at all.

I agree…science is beneath God and God’s laws. but if you are agnostic, then you will take science in a different way and may infer that you can manipulate some kind of desired end which appears to be a good through dispicable means…the holocaust…abortion…euthanasia…embryonic stem cell research…I would say all those are violations of natural law because they use technology to disrupt a natural course of events (pregnancy, the last moments of a life, masses of living people considered racially inferior being killed, creating life to destroy it at an early stage) All those things are violations of the natural course of life…but without God, the advancement of technology to do those things can be seen as OK, with some form of justification towards what is described as a noble ends.
The evolving of a hight, stronger, more pure Ayrian race was Hitler’s justification and he saw it as an extension of natural law.

Let’s see what he has to say about that…

**While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.**
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Report of the International Theological Commission

As far as I know they have ascertained that all human beings go back to one set of human parents (Adam and Eve) but I do not know that all living organisms are related to each other if that is what you are saying the Pope said. I don’t belief he said that. I believe he talked about human beings separately from one celled organisms…

Nope. He’s pretty emphatic about it. Your guy didn’t offer a statement to support his claim, and it’s clear why. How do you undermine a statement as firm as that one?

Nope. That was Martin Luther. Remember, the Nazis put into practice all those things Luther recommended.

YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!
As you know, Darwin denounced those ideas, as “overwhelming evil.”
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!
Why are you defending the people responsible for the Holocaust? Why are you attacking the people who denounced it? Don’t you see that this is why Stein is so despised? His blood libel against science makes excuses for the Nazis. Don’t take part in that.
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

When you are confronted with truth you find some way to twist it into untruth…amazing!

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian, when you are confronted with truth you find some way to twist it into untruth…amazing!

Before we miscontrue the content of Pope benedict’s statement, remmebr that he is saying the process of evolution can be part of how God creates things. I have already agreed with that. Most Intellifent Design scientists agree with that. But Darwing said man’s conscnience ‘evolved’ as well…and that is not what the church teaches. To Darwin and those involved in the eugenics movment there was not a clear sense of all people being equally
chosen and wanted by God. because Darwin was an agnostic,
he saw the events of evolution as being driven by moment to moment events, and he doesn’t see a Divine causality behind any of it.

Unfortunately other scientists and politicians who were more
prone to taking that aspect of Darwin (total materialistic view without God) too far and that is what Ben Stein was talking about.

Pope John Paul II, whom I am sure benedict would agree with, gave this warning:

The following year, the Pope stated “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not preclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis” (General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986).
Pope John Paul insisted, as did Pope Pius XII, that while evolution isn’t necessarily opposed to creation, the human soul did not evolve. “It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith” – according to Pope John Paul – "there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty.

“However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature” (General Audience,
April 16, 1986).

The Catholic church recognizes Divine Intervention when it comes to the creation of man’s soul, something that is necessary for the human species to be human, not animal…Darwin just saw humans as more evolved animals. Sure, he said the conscience separated man from animals, but as we can see people like Hitler really did act as animals despite the fact that he should have had a soul…so a soul is not something evolution controls. The goodness of the evil of the person the soul belongs to controls the nature of the soul. I don’t care how advanced a person is in terms of education or skills, they can still have an evil soul…
ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp

---

“{In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope explained that materialist, reductionist and spiritualist forms of evolutionary theory couldn’t be reconciled with Christianity. These are philosophies, he noted, not science. As such, they are subject to philosophical refutation. The final judgment regarding their truth or falsity belongs to philosophy and in a certain way to theology.”

---

Not all ways of interpreting evolution then are in keeping with the Church’s teachings. Hitler practiced an evil perversion of Darwin.
So do abortionists.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, when you are confronted with truth you find some way to twist it into untruth…amazing!

Well, let’s take a look…

Before we miscontrue the content of Pope benedict’s statement, remmebr that he is saying the process of evolution can be part of how God creates things.

So did Darwin. Last sentence of The Origin of Species. Another way they agree.

To Darwin and those involved in the eugenics movment there was not a clear sense of all people being equally
chosen and wanted by God.

Um, no. In fact, as you learned earlier, Darwin said that all humans deserve life and freedom. And he attributed life to God. If you can show that Darwin asserted that some people were not equally chosen and wanted by God, now would be the time to show us, or to apologize for misrepresenting Darwin.

because Darwin was an agnostic, he saw the events of evolution as being driven by moment to moment events, and he doesn’t see a Divine causality behind any of it.

Let’s see what Darwin actually wrote…

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species

Turn out you misrepresented him once again.

Unfortunately other scientists and politicians who were more
prone to taking that aspect of Darwin (total materialistic view without God) too far and that is what Ben Stein was talking about.

As you see, Darwin attributed life to God. This is another reason people are disgusted with Stein. It’s not just his excuses for the Nazis.

Pope John Paul II, whom I am sure benedict would agree with, gave this warning:

The following year, the Pope stated “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not preclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis” (General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986).

Since Darwin wrote that God created life, and since all scientists agree that science cannot preclude God, that is another way in which Darwin agrees with the Church.

Darwin just saw humans as more evolved animals.

You know better than that, Mary. As you learned, Darwin considered humans, but not other animals, to have rights to life and liberty. Everyone here saw that. Why not just admit it?

Not all ways of interpreting evolution then are in keeping with the Church’s teachings.

Nope. But Darwin’s theory is fine, precisely because it doesn’t deny divine providence.

Hitler practiced an evil perversion of Darwin.

As you learned, Hitler practiced what Luther preached. And he ignored Darwin’s argument that the weak should not be allowed to perish, and Darwin’s argument that all humans are entitled to life and liberty.

You are defending the very people who caused the Holocaust, and are denouncing the people who objected to it. This is why Stein is in such trouble; people find his odd sort of Holocaust denial to be evil.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. That was Martin Luther. Remember, the Nazis put into practice all those things Luther recommended.

YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

C’mon, Mary. It’s a fact. You saw what Luther wrote. I showed you side by side with the Wannsee Protocol. Same things.

Barbarian regarding the Nazi idea that the weak didn’t deserve to live:
As you know, Darwin denounced those ideas, as “overwhelming evil.”

YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

It’s a fact, Mary. Everyone saw what Darwin wrote about it. Why pretend otherwise?

Barbarian asks:
Why are you defending the people responsible for the Holocaust? Why are you attacking the people who denounced it? Don’t you see that this is why Stein is so despised? His blood libel against science makes excuses for the Nazis. Don’t take part in that.

YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

Mary, his own people have denounced his lies. Would you like to see it again?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian:
Um, no. In fact, as you learned earlier, Darwin said that all humans deserve life and freedom. And he attributed life to God. If you can show that Darwin asserted that some people were not equally chosen and wanted by God, now would be the time to show us, or to apologize for misrepresenting Darwin.

---

Where did Darwin ever use the word God? He used the word 'Creator: once, and quite clever it was of him to do so, for it allowed his writings to appear to be Christian to some while the totally agnostic content of his writings was more than appealing to men who were atheists. Darwin was incapable of saying all men came from the God of the Bible, all men called, cherished, wanted just as they are…rather he spoke of classes, racial differences, superior nations and inferior ones…read Chapter 5 of 'Descent of Man"

---

barbarian:

Let’s see what Darwin actually wrote…

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species

Turn out you misrepresented him once again.

---

Mary:
Ahhhh…there we go, that is the one time he used the word Creator…notice he doesn’t say God the Creator…Darwin was a very clever agnostic…
Divine Creator and the Nazi’s , eugenic movement, all interpreted it from the pagan view of 'Nature" and materialism. Just what the Popes (John Paul II and Benedict) are warning against.

---

barbarian:
Since Darwin wrote that God created life, and since all scientists agree that science cannot preclude God, …____________________________________________________
mary:
He didn’t write that. Darwin never wrote God created life. You know it and I do. Everyone here can read his words and see he used a word that could be interpreted differently from Divinity. You are putting words in Darwin’s mouth or on the pages of his writings which just are not there. He disavowed any belief in the bible as I showed in previous quotes from Darwin. Do I need to repeat them? And since when do ALL scientists say that science cannot preclude God? You, yourself say science has no place in talking about God.

---

Mary:
Human beings were just highly evolved animals to Darwin. The moral sense was something akin to an instinct formed by social experiences. There was no higher moral law than individual conscience to Darwin: His law was not a law of higher morality but higher rationality:

“Thus the social instincts, which must have been acquired by man in a very rude state, and probably even by his early ape-like progenitors, still give the impulse to some of his best actions; but his actions are in a higher degree determined by the expressed wishes and judgment of his fellow-men, and unfortunately very often by his own strong selfish desires. But as love, sympathy and self-command become strengthened by habit, and as the power of reasoning becomes clearer, so that man can value justly the judgments of his fellows, he will feel himself impelled, apart from any transitory pleasure or pain, to certain lines of conduct. He might then declare- not that any barbarian or uncultivated man could thus think- I am the supreme judge of my own conduct, and in the words of Kant, I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity” Charles Darwin on the development of the moral sense…"THE DESCENT OF MAN

“The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts,* the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man.” Charles Darwin
CHAPTER IV.human-nature.com/darwin/descent/chap4.htm

Animals can develop morality equal to men? According to Darwin they can. According to Darwin then morality is an aquired attribute, part and parcel with all natural evolutionary processes…no divine attributes accorded mankind… everything from materialism…

Darwin does not leave room for God’s intervention in giving man a soul and a Divine image. Rather man becomes his own ‘god’ as he develops… more atuned to enlightenment thought than Christian. he quote Immanual Kant a couple times.
"…Immanuel Kant exclaims, “Duty! Wondrous thought, that workest neither by fond insinuation, flattery, nor by any threat, but merely by holding up thy naked law in the soul, and so extorting for thyself always reverence, if not always obedience; before whom all appetites are dumb, however secretly they rebel; whence thy original?”*(3) Descent of Man, Charles Darwin…

---

More on Immanuel Kant in next post

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

So I looked up Immanuel Kant to find out what he wrote about …“Kant’s philosophy is generally designated as a system of transcendental criticism tending towards Agnosticism in theology, and favouring the view that Christianity is a non-dogmatic religion.” New Advent article on Kant

"Kant, as is well known, reduces religion to a system of conduct. He defines religion as “the acknowledgement that our duties are God’s commandments”. He describes the essence of religion as consisting in morality. Christianity is a religion and is true only in so far as it conforms to this definition. The ideal Church should be an “ethical republic”; it should discard all dogmatic definitions, accept “rational faith” as its guide in all intellectual matters, and establish the kingdom of God on earth by bringing about the reign of duty. Even the Christian law of charity must take second place to the supreme exigencies of duty. In fact, it has been remarked that Kant’s idea of religion, in so far as it is at all Scriptural, is inspired more by the Old than by the New Testament. He maintains that those dogmas which Christianity holds sacred, such as the mystery of the Trinity, should be given an ethical interpretation, should, so to speak, be regarded as symbols of moral concepts and values. Thus “historical faith”, he says, is the “vehicle of rational faith”.
Immanuel Kant
APA citation. Turner, W. (1910). Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/08603a.htm

---

(Sounds like an argument to replace the church with a religion of the state, as the Nazis tried to do…)

And what did Immanuel Kant, partisan of the Enlightenment say about racism:

---

"For example, Jean-Joseph Virey remarked, ‘The European, called by his high destiny to rule the world, which he knows how to illumine with his intelligence and subdue with his courage, is the highest expression of man and at the head of the human race. The others, a wretched horde of barbarians, are, so to say, no more than its embryo.’15 And Immanuel Kant wrote in 1755, ‘The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling…. So fundamental is the difference between those two races of men [whites and blacks]…it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.’16

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race. The yellow Indians have a smaller amount of talent. The Negroes are lower, and the lowest are a part of the American peoples. (Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View)

creationontheweb.com/content/view/4167

---

Why is Darwin quoting from Immanuel Kant in the fourth chapter of Descent of Man as if Kant is his hero? Kant was an obvious racist in his anthropological view. Explain that to me Barbarian!
I found this historical note on Immanuel Kant who was very interested in anthropology:

---

"In 1792, philosopher Immanuel Kant presented, in his Critique of Judgement, what he referred to as “a daring venture of reason”, in which “one organic being [is] derived from another organic being, although from one which is specifically different; e.g., certain water-animals transform themselves gradually into marsh-animals and from these, after some generations, into land-animals.”[12]

---

Kant must have been a Darwinian predecessor… In the same article was a mention of Darwin’s grandfather…

---

In 1796, Erasmus Darwin published Zoönomia, which suggested “that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament … with the power of acquiring new parts”[13] in response to stimuli, with each round of improvements being inherited by successive generations. In his 1802 poem Temple of Nature, he described the rise of life from minute organisms living in the mud to its modern diversity:

First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.[14]

---

“The Temple of Nature”…

How should I take that? It can seem like this man is worshipping Nature as the creator of life. certainly must have influenced Charles, his grandson. I believe God is everywhere and in everything, but His Presence is not only in the human person, the human soul is meant to be a temple for God, the dwelling place of His Holy Spirit in a unique and singular way. I believe that this portion was given to man and not every animal. Darwin’s view is quite the opposite, that man is another animal. No room or acknowledgment for A Divine Creator, Acitvator who is the initiator and designer of Nature…
In Conclusion:
I believe the Pope is saying some forms of evolution are compatible with the Catholic faith but I dont think he means the agnostic form Darwin expresses in his 'Descent of Man". Darwin’s inclusion of references to Immanuel Kant is troubling because of the racism and emphasis on rationalism in Kant’s writings. That could have added to the racial purity side of the eugenics movement and an argument toward ‘duty’ being rationalized toward actions that were fundamentally immoral…as well as the establishment of a state religion.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I just wanted to say if anyone else out there knows more about Kant as a philosopher please feel free to jump in here and explain his line of thinking… and perhaps his influence on Germany.

I certainly am not an expert…

In Christ, MaryJohnZ