Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

Article or Essay?

This is a great essay. However, it's not an encyclopedia article. Stryker 11:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

What on Earth are you talking about? This is a great conservative encyclopedia article. Secular humanist suppression of the truth doesn't hold water here on CP. PerMoberg 19:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

This is a great article

Keep up the good work. DaiseyCutter 17:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

No, it is certainly NOT a great article...

Saying that the "theory" of evolution is why people like Hitler and Stalin exist or have existed is absolute trash and intellectually faulty.Jros83 20:53, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed - it's a very poor article indeed. If you believe the theory of evolution is wrong because it influenced Hitler, then you MUST believe that Christianity is wrong because it influenced Pope Innocent III (and various other, extremely unpleasant, so-called religious leaders).

By the way, Stalin didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. That was precisely the problem with Trofim Lysenko, who persuaded Stalin that Soviet plant breeding should be based on the pre-Darwinian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics - with disastrous results.KennyMac 18:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

KennyMac, thank you for your strawman. The article never states that macroevolution never happened because it influenced Hitler and Stalin. The article merely states that it influenced Hitler and Stalin in a negative way. Secondly, Christianity may have influenced Pope Innocent III, but the question is how did it influence him? Is there anything in Christ's teaching that influenced that Pope in a negative way? If so, and I don't believe it is so, you have certainly failed to mention it. Of course, perhaps if the Pope in question was not influenced by Christianity he would have been a far worse individual in terms of his actions. I say that as a Protestant who is not exactly enamored with many of the acts of the Pope in question. Certainly Stalin and Hitler were individuals who were at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their deeds.conservative 20:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Flawed Logic

Following the arguments made within this article, all articles focusing on Christianity should be lined with pictures and references to those who have appropriated the tenets of Christianity for evil and despicable ends. There shouldn't be a shortage. Reeperbahn 20:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

re: alleged no shortage: I see you did not name one. The irony is delicious. conservative 20:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Happy to start the list: Pope Innocent III (see above). Vile by present standards and despised by many people in his own day (early 13th century). He extended the control of the Catholic church over previously non-Catholic or pagan parts of Europe but the people who became Catholicised (or Christianised) didn't exactly have much choice in the matter. Not to mention his leadership role in the destruction of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, the centre of the Christian world at the time, a fact which was very inconvenient for a pope who aspired to rule the Christian world from Rome.

Others please continue. The list could be very long indeed. Many people involved in the First Crusade (who merrily destroyed several Greek towns before massacring the Muslim, Jewish AND Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem), almost anyone involved in the Fourth Crusade (see above), the Teutonic Knights (forced conversion of Prussia), the Spanish Inquisition (you should know this one), several Byzantine emperors (for whom narrow-minded religious bigotry was a perfectly good reason for massacring thousands of their subjects)... KennyMac 19:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)