Yes, you may be right about Darwin not imagining how his theories would be used, but his works certainly did provide the seedbed for many logical implications and applications. As Richard Weikart carefully argues in his very important 2004 book, From Darwin to Hitler, the concepts found in Darwin’s writings led naturally to the eugenics movement and to the Nazis. Says Weikart:

“In philosophical terms, Darwinism was a necessary, but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism, historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away.”

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

Indeed, many Darwinists made the connection: “Not only did many leading Darwinists embrace eugenics, but also most eugenicists – certainly all the early leaders – considered eugenics a straightforward application of Darwinian principles to ethics and society. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, the founder of modern eugenics, developed his ideas upon reading Darwin’s Origin of the Species.”

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

In reference to your article on the apology to Darwin. Hilter’s use of eugenics to justify genocide had terrible consequences for the entire world. Darwin could never have imagined that his works would be used as a foundation for ethnic cleansing. Ingorance and naivety do not exuse us from our legacy.

The church apologising to Darwin, is like canonising Nero for making the early church stronger in faith.

Justin Lippiatt

Yet, Scottish Reformation leader John Knox now rests under a carpark. His official apology will be long time coming.

Michael Watts

The world does not need an insipid, watered down “faith” which fits in with a secular world view in order to be relevant. People need to hear about a supernatural God and a revolutionary saviour!

Gary Morgan

I have written up that story of apostasy here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/16/the-bitter-fruit-of-apostasy/

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

“I can testify to the high quality of the fruits of God’s Spirit lived by many lesbian and gay Christians (as well as non-Christians) of my acquaintance”

I’m not quite sure what to make of that statement either. It may be possible that some spirit-filled Christians might indeed be living in a homosexual lifestyle. What that has to do with the price of fish though, I cannot work out. Was the writer asserting that because these people were exhibiting evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, that any acts that they do are therefore acceptable to God as a result? This completely ignores the whole question of sin (sin is a dirty word nowadays, I readily concede).

Anyway, what kind of muddle-headed thinking is that? Just as a non-Christian can perform non-sinful acts/behaviours at times, similarly, a Christian can perform sinful acts at times. One’s beliefs do not excuse one’s behaviours. I know the Apostle Paul had a similar problem, but he didn’t seek to resolve the issue by excusing the behaviour, but rather by conceding that it was his wretched sinful nature that just wouldn’t die, despite his best efforts. Perhaps these homosexual Christians could consider taking a lead out of his book?

Stephen Frost

According to Dr Macnab, the new faith transcends denominations and religions. It is about searching, not dogma. It seeks the good, the tender and the beautiful, and finds it in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism.

Have a read for yourself:
www.theage.com.au/national/new-faith-throws-out-the-ten-commandments-20080915-4h3d.html

Ben Williams

It is certainly a matter of either uproarious laughter at something so ridiculous, or deep shame that a supposedly intelligent person could propose such an apology.

Does no-one read Stephen Jay Gould (any more)? Try “Return of the Hopeful Monster” where he cites Richard Goldschmidt on an important distinction which is totally ignored by the majority school of evolutionary theory today – that between micro- and macro-evolution.

And of course the late Gould is on the outer with his concept of punctuated equilibria, despite the obvious fact that within the confines of the evolutionary camp, it does better with the evidence than incremental gradualism.

But he was honest enough to admit that if his theory can’t explain the evidence, then someone else whose theory is closer, (maybe even the creationists, although he could never bring himself to admit that much) deserve a hearing.

The religion of evolutionism has most certainly taken over. But it is still infuriating that false Christians, who have abandoned the religion which pays their wages, claim to speak for all others in this “apology”.

John Angelico