Quote:
Originally Posted by colourislast
Darwinism did lead to eugenics.
|
This is not true and this argument has been torn to pieces a million times. "Darwinism" (or more properly known as the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin) deals with NATURAL selection over time. Eugenics is UNNATURAL selection; i.e. controlled by man and not nature.
Quote:
|
Nazism was an extreme eugenics program.
|
No one doubts that. Nazism has nothing to do with evolution. It was a program put in place by a racist and pretty insane, but well-spoken man.
Quote:
|
Planned Parenthood was founded by a devout eugenicist.
|
Name? The only name I found associated with the founding of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger.
Quote:
|
It then went to another eugenicist, Margaret Sanger whose original plan was to ensure retarded people and other "undesirables" never bred. (Along with allowing condoms to be sold in the U.S.) Forced sterilization and isolation of the "feebleminded." The definition of who was feebleminded and undesirable included Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, indigent, insane, poor, lazy, and anyone that Darwinism could be used to show how poor breeding was the root cause.
|
The American Birth Control League was founded in the 1920s. Forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people and minorities was rampant during that time and has since become HIGHLY illegal. Things have changed. And the original goal of Planned Parenthood (not formally established until 1942) was not only to sterilize "undesirables". There were many other important things that they have continued to do (birth control, cancer screening, sti tests, nutrition, etc.).
And again, forcing people to undergo sterilization is UNNATURAL selection and not at all linked to the NATURAL selection that Darwin was talking about.
Quote:
|
Science and religion have always clashed. Eating from the tree of knowledge is the original sin -vs.- believing in God is a sign of ignorance. Intelligent design is the religious side giving to some of the science in nature by allowing there to be science in the discovery of how God did it. Where is science's trying to come together and using science to show their bowing to the possibility God may have a hand in how things started?
|
Science is about testing and studying REAL evidence. You can not test or study anything that you can not even be sure is there! "God" is not a physical thing that can be studied. There is no evidence at all that any gods do or have ever existed. Saying "I don't know so Zeus must have done it" means that no further tests are done. Understand?
Quote:
|
"There was nothing, a singularity, then a second later there was everything." Not even budging on the possibility there was a power behind it.
|
Again. How, exactly, is science supposed to study invisible, possibly non-existent beings? And which ones should they start with? Amaterasu? Zeus? Allah? the Christian God? And then... where do they start?
God is "the answer". Scientists look for "the question" and try to find the answer to it. If you already have "the answer" then all you end up doing is manipulating your questions until you find one that fits the answer you like. That is not how science works.