Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by humy

and that it just happened by accident.

how many times must I and others point this out to you moron:

[b]EVOLUTION IS NOT AN ACCIDENT

Darwin never believed that evolution is an accident nor claimed any such thing.
Implicitly the inevitability of the evolution process is part of the theory of evolution.

[quote] we do not have t ...[text shortened]... y question:

how does social Darwinism logically/rationally follow from biological Darwinism?[/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin was ignorant about DNA/RNA you moron. If he did not believe
that God was the creator, he had no other choice but to believe it just
happened by accident. Now after it got started he knew that there
was some forces at work that caused the adaptation by natural selection,
but he had no idea what they were, because he had never dreamed of
DNA/RNA. ...[text shortened]... mmon
ancestor, like a single cell amoeba. He was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin was ignorant about DNA/RNA you moron. If he did not believe
that God was the creator, he had no other choice but to believe it just
happened by accident. Now after it got started he knew that there
was some forces at work that caused the adaptation by natural selection,
but he had no idea what they were, because he had never dreamed of
DNA/RNA. ...[text shortened]... mmon
ancestor, like a single cell amoeba. He was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba

Darwin was ignorant about DNA/RNA you moron.

If he did not believe that God was the creator, he had no other choice but to believe it just
happened by accident.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin was ignorant about DNA/RNA you moron. If he did not believe
that God was the creator, he had no other choice but to believe it just
happened by accident. Now after it got started he knew that there
was some forces at work that caused the adaptation by natural selection,
but he had no idea what they were, because he had never dreamed of
DNA/RNA. ...[text shortened]... mmon
ancestor, like a single cell amoeba. He was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin was ignorant about DNA/RNA you moron. If he did not believe
that God was the creator, he had no other choice but to believe it just
happened by accident. Now after it got started he knew that there
was some forces at work that caused the adaptation by natural selection,
but he had no idea what they were, because he had never dreamed of
DNA/RNA. ...[text shortened]... mmon
ancestor, like a single cell amoeba. He was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba

Originally posted by finnegan
To a large extent, the reason people searched for the gene was because Darwin's work pointed them in that direction. Given what Darwin demonstrated, there had to be something of that kind.

how to defeat atheistic arguments, in 6 easy steps.

YouTube&feature=g-vrec

Originally posted by finnegan
It is amusing though to hear that chatty old Irishman waffling away to no purpose and relishing the attention received. Oxford University has a long tradition of leaving its tenured professors to talk about whatever they feel like without intererence, even if - as in this case - it entails such a huge diversion from the expertise for which they were appoint ve a conversation. (A bit of proof reading would also be courteous but that's incidental).

John Lennox: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......blah"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its amazing that after that excellent post by finnegan you can simply repeat your claim instead of giving a sincere apology for making such ridiculous claims then referring us to a despicable video.
Even if you have a point, or think your claim is valid, you have to admit that the video you referred us to in defence of your claims contains despicable pro ...[text shortened]... to distance yourself from it and appologize.
Your lack of integrity is not helping your cause.

As a reasonable man I am willing to acknowledge that the historical roots of Nazism are more nuanced and complex than a simple opportunistic analysis could make.

Originally posted by jaywill
Amazing huh?

This is all I thought to respond:

As a reasonable man I am willing to acknowledge that the historical roots of Nazism are more nuanced and complex than a simple opportunistic analysis could make.

There is still a connection between Darwin's "Favored Races" explanation via Natural Selection and Hitler's enthusiasm ...[text shortened]... life problems, they also distance themselves from Darwin's enfluence on Nazi philosophy.

Hint.

When Atheists and Evolutionists poo poo a video it may be a very good one.

And you don't have to pay attention to remarks about the Irish or other racist or self deprivating comments concerning ethnicity.

Beware of Atheists trying to re-write history.

Copied without permission from the Gospel Hour wbesite: ( http://www.gospelhour.net/2232.html )

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "eugenics" as follows: "A science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities in a series of generations of race or breed, especially by social control of human mating or reproduction" (p. 783). Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term, "eugenics." He insisted that we can and should improve the human race by a careful selection of parents. He believed it so strongly that he left money to establish the Chair of Eugenics at London University. If Galton accepted the evolutionary views of his cousin, Chares Darwin, I can understand his support for eugenics. After all, if human beings are only animals—as evolutionists teach—what could be wrong with trying to improve people as we try to improve hogs, cattle, chickens, horses and other animals?



If you grew up on the farm, as I did, or if you know anything about cattle or hogs or horses or chickens, you know that every farmer wants the best cattle and hogs and horses and chickens he can raise. So farmers for generations have sought to develop the very best animals possible. They do this through mating the best females with the strongest males. If they want more bacon from hogs, they strive to develop hogs that will produce more bacon. Does anyone have a moral objection to using scientific methods to improve farm animals? I certainly do not; nor do I know anyone who does. But is it moral if we use the same approach to improving human beings?



Everyone who lived through the abominable Nazi era knows that Hitler and his reprobate colleagues treated human beings like our farmers treat farm animals, that is, they experimented on them in order to "improve" German citizens. Hitler wanted the handsomest and strongest men to mate with the most beautiful German girls. Apparently he was not concerned about their marrying; he just wanted them to produce beautiful and bright Aryan babies. The goal of Hitler's plan was the development of the "master race." That meant, among other things, no Jews, nor blacks, and nor any one else Hitler considered subhuman. Incidentally, Hitler borrowed many of his ideas from Friedrich Nietzsche, one of Christianity's and humanity's greatest enemies.



Some of the information I shall be providing for you today about eugenics comes from the book, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, Publishers, Inc., 1986), by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a distinguished American psychiatrist. Dr. Lifton's book is one of the most disturbing and enlightening books you can find on eugenics as practiced by Hitler and his henchmen. I often tell people that Dr. Lifton's book is not the kind of book you want to read just before retiring at night, unless you belong to the Neo-Nazi party or to the skinheads. Dr. Lifton quotes Hitler as saying: "The volkisch state must see to it that only the healthy beget children...Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future. ...It must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and can therefore pass it on" (p. 22).



Dr. Lifton provides a list of conditions Hitler wanted eliminated: congenital feeblemindedness, manic depressive sanity, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, inherited blindness, hereditary deafness and grave bodily malformation. He also wanted the people who had these conditions surgically sterilized. He demanded that hundreds of thousands of Germans be sterilized (p. 25). One internationally prominent Swiss born psychiatrist, Dr. Ernst Rudin "extolled Hitler and the Nazi movement for its 'decisive...path-breaking step toward making racial hygiene a fact among the German people...and inhibiting the propagation of the congenitally ill and inferior." He praised the Nuremburg Laws for "preventing the further penetration of the German gene pool by Jewish blood" (p. 28).

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler

Hitler was, seemingly, not an atheist. Hitler said in his famous book, Mein Kampf, that he was doing the work of God:

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

And in 1938, Hitler declared, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Also, the Nazi belt buckle had "God with us" etched on it. Hitler also drew much of his inspiration and anti-Semitic hate from the works of the protestant reformer Martin Luther. For example, in nearly every speech or text that Hitler besmirched the Jewish people, he would make direct reference to "their lies". However, in Hitlers entire career, he never enumerated what the Jewish lies were. This is because the "lies" in question were a part of contemporary Germanic idiomatic language.

That is, when Hitler was speaking to Christian Germans, he could rest assured that they would be very familiar with the "Jewish Lies" as they were made popular by the most renown German author of all time, Martin Luther. In his pinnacle work, On Jews and their Lies, Martin Luther, spelled out very clearly that the lies where the Jewish denial of Jesus as the Messiah. As punishment for the lies, Martin Luther spelled out a program of treatment for the "Jews" that Hitler followed specifically. This finally included Martin Luther's command that good Christians should kill Jews.

Religious views
Main article: Adolf Hitler's religious views

Hitler's parents were Roman Catholics, but after leaving home he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[306] He favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views, and adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organisation, liturgy, and phraseology in his politics.[307][308] After his move to Germany, Hitler did not leave his church. Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic",[309] but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."[310]

In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an "Aryan" Jesus Christ—a Jesus who fought against the Jews.[311] He spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism (hatred of the Jews), stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."[312][313] In private, Hitler was more critical of traditional Christianity, considering it a religion fit only for slaves; he admired the power of Rome but maintained a severe hostility towards its teaching.[314] Historian John S. Conway states that Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches.[315]
Hitler meeting Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. December 1941

In political relations with the church, Hitler adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes".[315] According to a US Office of Strategic Services report, Hitler had a general plan, even before his rise to power, to destroy the influence of Christian churches within the Reich.[316][317] The report titled "The Nazi Master Plan" stated that the destruction of the church was a goal of the movement right from the start, but that it was inexpedient to express this extreme position publicly.[318] His intention, according to Bullock, was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.[314]

Hitler admired the Muslim military tradition, but considered Arabs as "racially inferior".[319] He believed that the racially-superior Germans, in conjunction with Islam, could have conquered much of the world during the Middle Ages.[320] During a meeting with a Japanese professor in 1931, Hitler praised the Shinto religion and Japanese culture.[321] Although Himmler was interested in the occult, the interpretation of runes, and tracing the prehistoric roots of the Germanic people, Hitler was more pragmatic, and his ideology centred on more practical concerns.

...Because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust) the term is generally seen as pejorative, and few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists after the war.[7] Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Darwin's ideas.[8] While most scholars recognize the historical link between Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution,[9] and that using biological evolution as a justification for policies of inequality amounts to committing the naturalistic fallacy. ...

...Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, but it was built against Darwinian theories of natural selection. His point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological adaptation, forged by Spencer's "fitness". He criticized Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner. Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.[21] Thus, he wrote:

Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.

Originally posted by jaywill
It may be amazing to you that I don't buy that there is no connection simply because other factors were involved in the causes of German aggression.

Originally posted by jaywill
Hint.

When Atheists and Evolutionists poo poo a video it may be a very good one.