As for the topic at hand, instead of dwelling in the distant past, here’s my question: are we seeing the same thing repeated today, only with religion in place of race? Basically the arrogant scientist trying to scientifically justify his alleged superiority of those which he despises?

You religious folks simply haven’t evolved beyond religion the way that those ultra-sophisticated evolutionary biologists have.*

*sarcasm

And yeah, Darwin may have thorught we were one “species”, but white people were the “favored race”.

I have my copy of “Voyage of the Beagle” at the ready. Let us have the page reference.

Darwin did some interesting research into facial expression and demonstrated that human facial expresion was universal among races, showing that humankind are all one species. Damn racist!

In The Voyage of teh Beagle, he talks about killing native inhabitants of 2 or 3 different Islands with a hammer. He even wrote letters to people bragging about it!

1] Val, 86 [now banned]: Both ID and evolution can be argued both in support and opposition of racist/eugenic arguments and I find it of little value arguing over the source of Hitler’s (or other prominent figure’s) ideological principles in support of one theory or another.

First, ID — as WAC no 1 points out right away, is a scientific theory and research programme about signs of intelligence, not a worldview:

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.” Wm A Dembski]

In short, you are comparing oranges and junkyards as if they were equivalent.

It is a matter of fact that historically from 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution EXPLICITLY focused on the race as the unit of competition for survival of the fittest, and that in both 1871 and 1874 he made it plain that Negores and Australian aborigines were doomed to extinction in the competition for survival. His intellectual descendants took the race-ball forward, and as I have had to cite, this ended up int eh shock administered by the events of 1939 – 45. Up to that time, racial superiority/ inferiority was taken for granted among the scientifically informed elites as well as those in popular culture shaped by the view,never mind warnings of the ilk of H G Wells in his sci fi novels of the 1890′s.

Those are historically grounded facts, facts that we had better face frankly, if we are to avert future disasters as bad as the 1939 – 45 one.

For, evolutionary materialism remains the dominant view among key elites, and it is undeniably inherently antithetical to any rights– and equality- based morality. Indeed, the recent thinking on abortion and embryonic stem cell research so called, is chilling in its import.

By sharpest contrast, the much despised creationists root their worldview in a book that explicitly grounds the principles of equality, morality and linked rights. Indeed — though that aspect of the history is too often censored out today — that view materially contributed to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. (Re-read the 2nd paragraph of the US DOI, in the light of this exhibition by the US Library of Congress on the religious roots of the revolution, and in further light of an online discussion with significant citation of relevant documents here.]

It is indee3d possible to be a Biblically based Creationist theist and a racist; but to do that requires the massive wrenching of the import of the very direct teachings of the text. [Cf above my excerpt from Ac 17.]

in short, in the biblical Christian context, racism is sin and heresy that is blasphemous as it fails to respect the image of God in ALL peoples. Finite, fallible, fallen, all too often ill-willed men are indeed prone to such, but a major point of the biblical frame is to expose such sin and call us to repentance and reformation.

2] Eli, 87:The operant conditions of natural selection are a fact and there is no debate in biology of its power to change allele frequencies.

Yes indeed: NS requires differential FUNCTION to see which of populations is superior, and leads to the dominance of the superior in the population. (Hence its tendency to feed into elitist- oppressive worldviews and movements.)

It is not the source of variation, and apart from design we have no credible source of variation capable of generating 600 k bits to 10′s or 100′s or more of mega bits of innovative functional bio- information on the gamut of our observed cosmos.

GEM of TKI

PS; Re Sparc: plainly, we see the subtext of contempt showing up. As to Dr Lonnig, it seems his views are a little more nuanced and peer-review publishable that sparc suggests.

You don’t want us “IDiots” on your forum sparc? But you want us to allow you to be here with us?

I was not refering to ATBC but to the Cologne Spring Meeting. I surely don’t want ID-creationists around there.
To my best knowledge ID-creationists will not be banninated at ATBC but may just be re-directed to the bathroom wall.

Anyway, although I don’t want them arround I will not prevent ID-creationists from joining the Cologne Spring Meeting. Indeed, Dr. Lönnig showed up there today and exposed his extravagant world views: After a really cool and convincing presentation on the evolution of the genome of mammoths he stated that “there are web sites stating that mammoths were not adapted to cold” to which the speaker replied that there are also web sites stating that the earth is only 6000 years old.