Darwin: "the evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected is incalculable"

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In a 29 September 1890 letter to Joseph Hooker, Huxley called Huxley’s
1890 “The Aryan Question and Pre-Historic Man” essay “scientific”:
Huxley, Leonard, editor. 1901. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry
Huxley: by his son Leonard Huxley, in two volumes (NY: D. Appleton
and Company), 539pp. and 541pp. On 286 of volume 2:
Code: 
 "Providence has, I believe, specially devolved on
 Gladstone, Gore, and Co. the function of keeping "'ome
 'appy" for me.
 I really can't give up tormenting _ces droles_.
 However, I have been toiling at a tremendously scientific
 article about the "Aryan question" absolutely devoid of
 blasphemy."
T.H. Huxley’s 1890 essay “The Aryan Question and Pre-Historic Man”
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/Aryan.html
He talks quite a bit therein about a [Huxley on 284 of my Huxley
book copy]“blond, long-headed race,” i.e. [Huxley on 305]“an Aryan
race.”

Proctor, Robert N. 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:

“The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.”

2004 Richard Weikart: “physicians… were committed to a racist eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
 
Darwin was a man of his time and palce and bought into a lot of the anti-catholic blue snow of his day

really sort of a variation on the notion of “Protestant work ethic”

your point?
[/quote]

Short & sweet 🙂 If we’re looking for proto-Fascism, the author of “Liberalism is a Sin” (a Spaniard, BTW) is at least as plausible a source of it. Darwin’s books had no imprimatur; “Liberalism is a Sin” does; and was therefore well equipped to poison the minds of its more undiscerning readers.​

It does not follow that because Darwin says something, it is evil and abominable - nor that, because a conservative Catholic says something, it in any way reflects the mind of Christ.

What’s wrong with the PWE, BTW ? I wish that Catholics had a CWE to match. The PWE is one of the best things Protestantism has done for the world. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
…What’s wrong with the PWE, BTW ?..
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with a Protestant Work Ethic as a work ethic however; since it implicitly ties certain behaviors to certain religious (and in earlier times ethnic/religious groups) it is a slap in the face to all of those hard working stiffs who aren’t Protestants

Racism is racism no matter how you slice it.

As davidford pointed out in the 19th century, heck even in the 20th century, there were otherwise brilliant people whose work was unfortunately laced with some of the cultural baggage they brought were raised with.
 
40.png
Melchior:
The point, I think, is that ideas have consequences. All you folks who have capitulated to *Darwin’s theories should think long and hard about this. It effects how you look at everything. And it will and has destroyed the faith of many.
Click to expand...
Ideas certainly do have consequences, but often conclusions are fallaciously drawn. It is better to identify the fallacy rather than condemn an otherwise reasonable idea. I’m assuming that you are implying that exploitation and racism are automatic consquences of the idea of natural selection. This is certainly true in a godless universe.

But the fact that God IS, makes all the difference. Before the creation of man, the universe was amoral. Animals cannot do right or wrong. They can do no evil. Evil is specifically a rejection of God and His ways, and since animals have no aspect of their being that can accept or reject God, they are amoral. Any “lessons” drawn from natural selection to humanity are entirely fallacious and must be opposed on that basis. We, as humans, account to God and are obligated to adhere to His laws. This includes charity and putting others before ourselves. There is no contradiction with this fact and the evolutionary process of creation.

Moreover, a young earth view undermines Scripture. Specifically it undermines the authority of Romans 1:20. There are HUGE implications there.

Darwin was just a man. He had a lot of bad ideas and he also made some brilliant observations. Why can’t his ideas be evaluated objectively on a case by case basis? Keep that which is worthwhile and throw the rest out.
 
[Michael]“It does not follow that because Darwin says something, it is evil and abominable”

It does not follow that because Mencken or Huxley say something, it is evil and abominable.

Alan Wolfe in The New Republic: “We ought never to forget that the
twentieth century’s greatest American skeptic, H.L. Mencken, was an
ugly anti-Semite.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net

H.L. Mencken in the 1910 Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between
Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist,
29-30, cited in
[thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html](http://www.thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html)

“I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding,
supervision of environment and education, extending
over many generations, it might be possible to make an
appreciable improvement in the stock of the American
negro, for example, but I must maintain that this
enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for
there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is
inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it
might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it.
The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he
meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a
negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner
born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty
generations of him have lived in civilization. And even
then, the superior white race will be fifty generations
ahead of him.”

T.H. Huxley’s 1890 essay “The Aryan Question and Pre-Historic Man”
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/Aryan.html
He talks quite a bit therein about a [Huxley on 284 of my Huxley
book copy]“blond, long-headed race,” i.e. [Huxley on 305]“an Aryan
race.”
In a 29 September 1890 letter to Joseph Hooker, Huxley called Huxley’s essay “scientific”:
Huxley, Leonard, editor. 1901. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry
Huxley: by his son Leonard Huxley, in two volumes (NY: D. Appleton
and Company), 539pp. and 541pp. On 286 of volume 2:

“Providence has, I believe, specially devolved on
Gladstone, Gore, and Co. the function of keeping “'ome
'appy” for me.
I really can’t give up tormenting ces droles.
However, I have been toiling at a tremendously scientific
article about the “Aryan question” absolutely devoid of
blasphemy.”

[petra]“But the fact that God IS, makes all the difference. Before the creation of man, the universe was amoral. Animals cannot do right or wrong. They can do no evil. Evil is specifically a rejection of God and His ways, and since animals have no aspect of their being that can accept or reject God, they are amoral. Any “lessons” drawn from natural selection to humanity are entirely fallacious and must be opposed on that basis. We, as humans, account to God and are obligated to adhere to His laws.”

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

[petra]“a young earth view”

go away, young-earthism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

[petra]“Darwin was just a man. He had a lot of bad ideas and he also made some brilliant observations.”

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
“Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.”

surrounding material in
groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com

[petra]“Darwin… also made some brilliant observations.”

Such as?
 
Please enlighten me, Gottle of Geer.
Why is that book “Liberalism is a Sin” considered fascist?
I’ve only read snippets of it, so I don’t know…
Love,
Jaypeeto3
 
Incidentally, evolution is what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for scarce resources.
 
If you go a little further back in history Catholics burnt fellow Catholics at the stake , IF THEY READ THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH , That also was in England
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top