New Levels of Low

[Ryantology]

With that said, I unequivocally stated that science was neutral. I believe if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I never said anything about science being inherently racist. With respect to the larger point, evolutionary concepts like “survival of the fittest” have been used to justify racism in the form of Social Darwinism.

And were quickly discarded as nonsense. This is a viewpoint utterly irrelevant to science in 2013.

Scientists have not been saints, historically. The difference between science and religion is that science admits, discards, and learns from its mistakes.

I sincerely believe that the secular society was not the origin of today’s moral sensibilities. If it was, secular humanism would have independently developed its own moral system. It did not. It rejected God then piggy-backed on the already existing moral system, like how Thomas Jefferson edited out all the NT miracles to leave only the moral teachings of Jesus. Humanism is not responsible for discouraging eugenics, but rather the remnants of unacknowledged religious conscience.

What unadulterated religious narcissism. A complete whitewashing of history. Next thing you know, secular humanism will have been responsible for African slavery, the Crusades, and the continuing persecution of gays and the poor in America.

Whereas we can see secular humanists even today trying to rationalize their acceptance of traditional morals without giving credit their Judeo-Christian source.

The religion whose primary contribution to human history is a series of murderous rampages across the globe wants to be credited for inventing good behavior now that the world is too secular for them to continue it.

Screw that. We know which morals actually have a Judeo-Christian source, and they are not morals any of us want any part of.