Origin of Species - A new look, page 1

Kirk Cameron (Remember him?) is hawking the give away of free copies of Origin of Species on it's 150th anniversary. Strange? Not really, it's a "special publication", a 50 page preface has been added to it. What's in the preface?


[edit on 9/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

Goodness gracious me. They're so desperate to discredit evolution, and if not, prying 'God' or at least 'Intelligent Designer' in there somewhere.

Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer? Even the director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute concluded there is a God based on his study of DNA. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome, believes there is a rational basis for a Creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”:

When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1-billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page
after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.

PDF of the book with the 'preface'.


By accident? Accident implies will somewhere. If someone asks "Does it rain by accident?" You're going to reply something like "No, "accident" doesn't apply to the inanimate. Clouds don't choose when to rain, nor fail to rain at will."

No, it just happens. It's circumstantial happenings.

I hate this kind of sneaky, underhanded use of language to combat Theory instead of looking at the evidence.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by fox_3000au

---

The introduction would appear to consist of various attempts to discredit Darwin and his theory. I haven't seen it but from Cameron's statements it links evolution to our loss of liberties, Hilter, and racism.

I'm curious too about why they would distribute the book. I suppose it may be because people will read the introduction and form their opinions from that. They will then be able to say, "Yeah, I read the book. It's full of nazism, racism, and taking away our liberties".

To the Op, thank you for posting this. It made me think, so I did a little research.

In the 1999 version of "Inherit the Wind" which was based on this trial, there is a symbolic gesture at the end of the movie. It is a gesture that I believe contains the truth concerning both evolution and creationism.

I don't want to ruin the movie for those who have not seen it, so I'm not going to tell you what the gesture was, only that it is there

Inherit the Wind: 1999

www.imdb.com...

Do they mention that Social Darwinsim and eugenics were actually embraced and practiced by the US government first?

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) | President

26th President of US 1901-1909. One of fourteen Masons who have been US Presidents.

"Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population... The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity...

I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..."

First paragraph: Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.

Second paragraph: Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201

Do they mention that US policies were the inspiration for NAZI Germany's eugenic policies?

Do they mention that even after the horror of the Nazi's eugenic program was exposed, the UN and the first director of UNESCO openly wanted to implement eugenics on a global scale but wanted to wait until they could somehow make it more palatable to the gullible masses?

Julian Huxley (1887-1975) | First director of UNESCO

Brother of Aldous.

"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

Taken from UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. Having come just one year after that appalling instance of widespread eugenics in the 3rd Reich it is staggering that this comment has never been taught in schools. This book is still available in its entirety from the Unesco website.
unesdoc.unesco.org...



[edit on 22-12-2009 by Deny Arrogance]

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
Do they mention that Social Darwinsim and eugenics were actually embraced and practiced by the US government first?

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) | President

26th President of US 1901-1909. One of fourteen Masons who have been US Presidents.

"Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population... The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity...

I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..."

First paragraph: Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.

Second paragraph: Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201

Do they mention that US policies were the inspiration for NAZI Germany's eugenic policies?

Do they mention that even after the horror of the Nazi's eugenic program was exposed, the UN and the first director of UNESCO openly wanted to implement eugenics on a global scale but wanted to wait until they could somehow make it more palatable to the gullible masses?

Julian Huxley (1887-1975) | First director of UNESCO

Brother of Aldous.

"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

Taken from UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. Having come just one year after that appalling instance of widespread eugenics in the 3rd Reich it is staggering that this comment has never been taught in schools. This book is still available in its entirety from the Unesco website.
unesdoc.unesco.org...
[edit on 22-12-2009 by Deny Arrogance]

There is nothing wrong about eugenics, if it doesnt use violent methods to achieve its cause. Eugenics is the study on how to improve human genome. Blaming eugenics for nazi germany crimes is like blaming nuclear science for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was simply misused for political and personal agenda. PEACEFUL application of eugenic principles (motivation instead of force, supporting the good instead of discriminating the "bad"..) would be good for whole mankind.

reply to post by Maslo

---

So who/what would you like to breed out and how would you go about doing it?

It seems good in theory but I'm not willing to let the UN make these decisions, especially when they can't even feed the starving after 70+ years, which was one of their supposed main goals.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Deny Arrogance]

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

---

I'd prefer the fronkey. It's just so... so cute!

reply to post by LASTofTheV8s

---

Wait. Who's full of rage here? I'm puzzled, because... Well, if there's rage, it's not coming from the hot Romanian chick... Maybe a little closer to your own neighborhood?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fox_3000au

---

The introduction would appear to consist of various attempts to discredit Darwin and his theory. I haven't seen it but from Cameron's statements it links evolution to our loss of liberties, Hilter, and racism.

I'm curious too about why they would distribute the book. I suppose it may be because people will read the introduction and form their opinions from that. They will then be able to say, "Yeah, I read the book. It's full of nazism, racism, and taking away our liberties".

It might also be getting distributed this way because the sad truth is, although a huge majority of people claim to adhere to Darwin's theory, in reality, only the smallest fraction of us has actually read, studied or exposed themselves to the full presentation.
For instance, I actually HAVE read the book. Although I haven't dismissed the notions given, I also haven't jumped on board.
Is this BECAUSE I read the book? I doubt it, but who knows?
I also haven't fully adopted Creationism. Although, sometimes I see evidence of something at work that is greater than simply "may the best bacterium win!" If you know what I mean.

In the first place, I am not big on the idea that we have two choices. One or the other.

But, I have always been partial to the camp of,
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

And, unfortunately, as unfashionable as Creationism may be, Darwinism does not leave a lot of room for some of those mysterious "things in Heaven and Earth" that we are just starting to learn about.

So, if I were some of you people, I might rethink the situation. Read the book. Then, regardless of whether you side with Creationism or not, ask yourself if Chuck D's idea is really covering all of what we are discovering and learning about our world.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by LASTofTheV8s]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by LASTofTheV8s

---

Wait. Who's full of rage here? I'm puzzled, because... Well, if there's rage, it's not coming from the hot Romanian chick... Maybe a little closer to your own neighborhood?

Seriously?
Are you kidding? I hope so.
That girl called those people names, called them liars, called that poor dork a "boy toy".
How many times did she call people "snakes"?
She was seething with hate.
And, all the while, her arguments were mostly false. She made many statements that just weren't true. She obviously did not know a lot, outside of what she reads on ATS, about the current religious state of the USA.
Come on. If you want to defend her side, at least do it honestly and intelligently.

It's funny, a lot of the people reading this thread, and posting, are the same people that go to the other threads and chime in about how life must have come from space, or was created by aliens, or has to do with an immortal spirit picking what kind of life-form it will inhabits, or that we came from some cosmic zoo, or that we aren't even real, and are in some virtual environment.

Guess what folks... That ain't "Darwinism"!
So, if you are going to sit here and bash Creationism, and all those that stand by it, maybe you should sit back, take a deep breath, and really ask yourselves why you are doing it.
Because, as far as I can tell, the majority of you are not doing it to defend Evolution, or anything else.
Where I come from, it's called a "Dog-Pile".

[edit on 23-12-2009 by LASTofTheV8s]

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: