Danielle

I watched part of some show last week about evolution vs. creationism. I think it was produced by a religious organization, so it wasn't very neutral. But it did bring up something interesting about how leaders of the past have used Darwin's science to teach hatred. Hitler and Marx were two examples. First time I ever really thought of science as being a tool for hatred.

SithLord

Most any "belief" has been used as a tool at one time or other so this is no surprise.

Rulers used their religious leaders to control the masses on a daily basis in ancient times.

LilOne1989

I took a class in college about Darwin and I can see how his teachings can be used for hate. It is very easy to look at others and see how they are different than you are and then subject them to your own version of who is more evolved than who.

}SoC{Sumguy

if there is anything that the crusades has taught us, its that ANYTHING can be used for hatred, even a religion based on loving your neighbor, foriving your enemies, and being willing to sacrifice yourself to save others.

__________________
"And now you've seen his face,
and you know that there's a place
in the sun, for all that you've done.
For you and your children.
You always wanted to beleive.
Just ask and you'll receive,
beyond your wildest dreams.
And you already know how this will end...."

Grant

Darwinism... brace yourelf! :P

Don't be offended by this if theres any way. Darwinism is practically impossible. I'm not going to re-write whats been written so I'll just link you and sum it up a bit.

Probabilies don't work with Darwinism. I'm not just gonna say "its improbable" and be done with it. The literal odds of evolution are so out of the ballpark of considering it as possible its really ridiculous

Things with the probabilities of 1/10 to the 30th are considered impossible.
The odds of a single-celled organism falling together by sheer chance are 1/10 to the 18,000
The odds of a horse emerging by pure chance are 1/10 to the 3,000,000
You're probably thinking "Why should I believe this crazy (and funny-lookin although you dont know that... hehe) dude?"
Check his calculations. As it turns out, this guy is my Chemistry teacher. He spent 10 years researching the theory and wrote a paper on it with his wife (weird, i know).
Yes, Darwisism is possible, the same way its possible that I can take a truck full of coins, dump them all out, and they all come up heads
Well here it is in all its long, tedious glory!
Quodlibet Online Journal: The Theory of Evolution Revisited - by Dr. William L. Johnson & Dr. Annabel M. Johnson

SithLord

Looks like some darn good reading.

I'll have it debunked by tomorrow

Grant

i know its long and drawn out... i wish it wasnt. the important part is "probabilites and statistics" so you might just skip to that

__________________
Hey.

AUB

"The odds of a single-celled organism falling together by sheer chance"

Name one scientist who has ever suggested such a thing. Have you ever actually studied evolution? Or do you just repeat creationist spin?

As for Hitler and Stalin, Darwin was neither a Nazi or a Communist, (just a rather conventional moderate conservative Englishman, typical of his time) he rejected all attempts to use his discoveries (which are descriptive, not prescriptive) for ideological purposes, even that of atheists, (being a friendly to christians agnostic). He hated the violence of nature, and knew many fools would think it would justify their barbarity, that why he kept his findings secret for 20 years, but nature is cruel, and you can only hide reality for so long, the truth will-out, regardless of what happens.
What the creationists do is miss-represent his work the same way the Nazis did, through straw-men and miss-quotes, and for the same reasons, no prop-up pseudo-scientific garbage, that serves the ideology of sick and twisted minds. The Nazis may have killed millions of Jews, but the christians have them burning for all eternity. Darwin wanted nothing to do with racism or hell, and neither should we.

Ronin

Goodness gracious me - I feel like a kid in a candy store. Where to begin? Well, for one thing, evolution doesn't claim that the first cell just "fell together." As a matter of fact, I think its important that we first separate Darwin's theory of natural selection from modern hypotheses regarding the origins of life. They're not the same thing. Specialization by means of natural selection is one of the best documented processes in nature. Hell, we humans do it all the time; we call it breeding.

The origins of life are considerabley more murky. But I'm pretty sure no one has ever suggested that a bunch of atoms just happened to collide into the first modern cell. And the ways in which atoms and molecules interact aren't random, they're governed by orderly physical laws. For example, phospholipids are molocules with a hyprophilic (attracted to water) "head" and a hyprophobic (repelled by water) "tail." A group of phospholipids in water will automaticaly form into a spherical phospholipid bilayer, with the heads pointing outwards, towards the water, and the tails pointing inwards, away from the water. So already you've got your basic cell wall. Of course, you have to have the phospholipids to begin with, but they're pretty simple molecules and the chances of them forming are pretty good, given the right materials and some time. Once you've got your phospholipid encased "bubble," small atoms and molecules can get in and react into bigger ones, which then can't get out. In most cases, of course, you'd just end up with a bubble full of garbage, but with millions upon millions of these things forming, chances are pretty good that eventualy you'll begin getting some organic compounds.

And don't forget that its not a matter of a full-fledged modern cell or nothing. Creationists who calculate these " impossible odds" always seem to do so based on modern proteins and organic compounds, which weren't necesarily the ones the first "cells" used. And they forget that these compounds wouldn't be free-floating in the primordial ooze, they'd be contained in these phospholipid "bubbles," where they's have much less space and much higher reaction rates. And no one "bubble" whould have to spontaneously form all of the necesary compounds - bubbles containing different compounds could collide and merge, creating whole new posibilities for reaction. Mitochondria, for example, are thought to have originaly been free-living organisms which later became symbiotic with larger cells, because they have their own DNA which is deifferent from the DNA of the cell they're in.

Mind you, most of the above is stuff I remember from high school biology, it might not be exact. But it gives you a pretty good general idea of why the "impossible odds" creationists often come up with are based on false premises.

DizzyDee

Bravo Ronin - I'm glad you joined us. I admire your recollection of your biology class and your answer is excellent. Grant posted this article in the school thread and I showed him this article.Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations which outlines the errors of the popular probability theories put forward by creationists to debunk evolution.

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell