social darwinism ,dominionism?
96497
Darwin never applied his THEORY to Society. It was his racist dumbass cousin who took the idea. There is no scientific research to back him up. He was the father of racisim and ethno-centric ideals. I wish that someone would have killed that son of a bitch back then before he poisoned the minds of people across the world. \n\nThe Reconstruction era after the American Civil War did have it's support on racists and ignorant ideals. Jim Crow and other assholes in the Federal and State government allowed these unfounded ideas shape the country up until the Civil Right Movement of the 1960's.\n\nAmerica is still suffering from racism and discrimination. I don't care what Bush and his Republican minons say. They never suffered being poor or being non-white.\n\nThere is no pure race or a superior race. It is un-Christian and stupid to believe that.\n\nHate is a wast of time.
629435
They are neither Darwinist nor Evolutionist. Such -isms are indicative only of belief systems, not of processes of fact. You can no more have an 'evolutionist' than you can have a 'gravitationist' or a 'germist'. There simply are no terms for people who accept the available evidence, except perhaps 'cynics'.\n\nWe don't have terms for people who believe in the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease or the theory of evolution. Those things are all simply facts, as far as facts are possible.\n\nDarwinist is completely incorrect since Darwinism as a theory was falsified over 60 years ago. Nobody accepts Darwinsim any more. At an absolute stretch you might be able to apply the term 'neo-Darwinist'.\n\nBut realistically the only correct term I can think of is 'cynic'.
888247
I guess the dems have never heard of social darwinism.  Or that many conservatives believe in evolution.  Oh well.\n\nI just think they have gotten way used to negativity.  Now that they have a chance to do something, they are still in blame mode.\n\nOh, and I am a Creationist when it comes to origin, but we still understand the law of the jungle, if you know what I mean.
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
554553
It is said and I quote..."A lasting social government without a morality predicated upon spiritual realities can no more be maintained than the solar system without gravity."  \n\nA functional governement needs a moral basis for society to thrive... and thereby the government will thrive...
496120
Yes, I have noticed this in some people. \n\nBut in all fairness you do it too. I mean what is Jim Darwinism?\n\nGotta be fair now ;)
1070897
I think its kinda said that christians have so many dominions! I am a Christian and I am nothing more. A Christian. Ever since early times there has been fights between Protestants and Catholics killing thousands- in the name of God. Does that make any sense at all? Not to me. Today we (Christians) are all segregated. We all share the basic idea of the Lord yet tiny differences in between. We all are separated adn I think that if the different dominions were to collect, we could to better things together as a whole. Thats part of the reason I dont go to church. I am a Christian, but, it's weird when I am in Church. You see people there and they preach the word of God. Then later they throw stones, backstab, and belittle others. I think that as long as one believes in God and Jesus that they have a private relationship and nothing else can break that. I do not need to prove my love to anyone else than Him. I feel no need to classify myself as a different person.\n\nI am a Christian.
1028164
The Lord gave man dominion over the Earth and the things thereof. First we must define the word "dominion".\n\nIt means lordship. And THAT mean we were commanded to take care of the earth and all its creations the SAME WAY God would take of it, ie, with nurturing love, with care for the life of all creatures.\n\nDoes this mean to be like the Jains, so afraid of causing harm that they gently sweep the path before their feet so as not to crush a bug, that we wear a mask over our face so as not to breathe in and thereby kill a microscopic creature?\n\nNO. It means that we take from earth and its creations that which we need for survival, that we do so in as humane and painfree a manner as possible, that we do NOT destroy life for the sake of sport, or games, or cruelty.\n\nI have no problem kicking bugs outta my home. I don't share my home with bugs. They got the rest of the planet to play in. I will NOT wantonly kill them, just make it in their best interests NOT to want to live in my home. 20-Mule Team Borax does that quite well, btw.\n\nI am an unabashed, unashamed omnivore. Preferably beef. I try not to get animal tissue from those who butcher them with fear and cruelty. I agitate for legislation which makes cruelty to animals a felonious offense, rather than just a mild misdemeanor slap on the wrist.\n\nI do NOT kill for the fun of it, just to watch a living creature die.\n\nFor THAT is domination. And domination is Satan's way. Unfettered control over all with every intention to use that power to hurt whenever the mood strikes. Utterly evil.
505734
Capitalism as a religion, you should read Mathew. It was clearly stated who those people are that oppose the rise of Christianity, they had him put up on the cross.
491745
"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a misleading formulation. There is no absolute measurement for fitness - what makes you more likely to survive today might hinder you tomorrow and vice versa. So it is not like everything is striving upwards that previously determined fitness slope. Therefore many of the interpretations of Darwinism from early last century where wrong. You can't derive rules from evolution like "society should weed out weak indivudals" or stuff like that. \n\nIt follows that the only thing that really matters in terms of evolution is to survive, or more precisely, to exist. Personally I go as far as to say that "reproduce as much as possible" is not the only strategy. I consider stones as a special case of evolution - they manage to survive for a very long time, too. I see evolution as just "the likely thing will happen".\n\nAs for dropping dead: it is not the individual that evolution operates on. It is the population, ie the gene that evokes a specific behaviour. Death can also be predetermined by evolution, because it might be benefitial for the population.\n\nEdit: in reply to your additional comment, thanks, and I am not saying that death is necessarily always a good idea. Humans live quite long, probably also because they are costly to manufacture. Insects don't live very long, but are also very successful. We humans are free to set our own goals for life, and if it is to live long and well, so be it. The ones who figure out how to live longer will live longer ;-)
508825
Government is enabled by means of the percieved social contract.\n\nThe people of a country have an expectation on how their government will behave based around their belief in what that social contract contains.\n\nThe fun bit is that the social contract is never written down. \n\nThe social contract is ever evolving and changing, but can be traced back to the fundemental philosphical question - "Is man a social animal?"\n\nSocial contract theorists (Yes, all this is just theory), like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke developed rival social contract theories at around the time of the English Civil War.\n\nBoth formed a their philosophies with opposite answers on the question of man being a social animal.\n\nThe really great thing is that neither can be proved wrong or right. \n\nSo, if you believe that Locke is right, then you should be governed by a liberal democracy. If you believe Hobbes, then the best you can hope for is a benign dictatorship or competing, non-violent institutions.
562877
The "church" as an institution I think has really used spirituality to hype the political agenda of it's rulers (witness the Inquisition). But the confirmation of rules that really help a society work (don't steal, murder, cop another person's spouse or property) I think would be something that a "God" would be all in favor of.  I think that there are God ordained humans whose life's work is to remind those of a lesser spiritual bent that "to treat others as you would be treated" is the ideal.  These people SHOULD be "the church" but like you say there are those who for milllineums have used the claim that they have a "direct line to God" to control whole populations.  I figure if there IS a God, and He created me, why wouldn't He care what happens to me and if I am living a worthwhile life or not. I'm not sure about a heaven or hell type of judgement, but once again, if there IS a God/Creator then I figure he cares if I am a hurter or a helper and when I go back to Him He will care about an accounting that I have for my actions while I passed through his Creation.
1011094
Yes, you should try it.  Call your group the Darwinian Witnesses\n\nDW for short.
1045534
The social or mental hygiene movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was an attempt by Progressive-era reformers to control venereal disease, regulate prostitution and vice, and disseminate sexual education through the use of scientific research methods and modern media techniques.\n\nMany reformers, such as Dr Marie Stopes, were also exponents of eugenics. Inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, they argued for the sterilisation of certain groups, even racial groups, in society. This link between racial hygiene and social hygiene can be seen in Australia, where the Racial Hygiene Association of New South Wales is now named The Family Planning Association.\n\nSocial hygiene as a profession grew alongside social work and other public health movements of the era. Social hygienists emphasized sexual continence and strict self-discipline as a solution to societal ills, tracing prostitution, drug use and illegitimacy to rapid urbanization.\n\n\n\nAllied and Complementary MedicineTM is a unique database covering the fields of complementary or alternative medicine and allied health
411197
you could do theology. I did my paper on argument between theology and teleology. depending on your level of understanding (i don't know what class you're in), you could discuss similarities and differences between paley's and ayala's argument. lemme know if you need more help. i'll post a few websites for you to research this topic in depth.
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
55009
"Given where mankind has achieved from even the year 1901 to now where can man go or achieve by 2101?"\nWho knows, maybe our "superiority" will lead us to finally blow ourselves up. :-P\nI absolutely agree with Professor Beatz; I only wish to add one thing. You make it sound as if the whole evolutionary process is a matter of random events. In fact, randomization occurs in the generation of variability (mutations, crossing-over), but natural selection is not random. Evolution does not have a purpose, but neither is it aleatory.\nAlso, evolution is not a "one-time deal" unless you are considering it as a process leading to humans. That is arrogant. \nAnd thinking that evolutionary processes in other places of the universe will work as they did here and lead to human-like beings is more arrogant, in my opinion.