As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies
of violence that have spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century.
The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is
"fighting whoever is not one of us."

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs,
worldviews and philosophies in the world. It is very natural that all
these diverse ideas have traits opposing one another. However, these
different stances can look at each other in one of two ways:

1) They can respect the existence of those who are not like them and
try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.
Indeed, this method conforms with the morality of the Qur'an.

2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage
by damaging them, in other words, to behave like a wild animal. This
is a method employed by materialism, that is, irreligion.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the
second view.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Hamady gmail.com>
wrote:

re: "Darwinism" as distinct from the person Darwin

Don't equate his "theory of evolution" with Herbert Spencer's
political adaptation or version which is also known as "Social
Darwinism."

I don't care if the Methodist minister's son is a rightist or leftist
in the senses the terms are currently utilized.

Some Christians regard Jesus as "liberal," while other Christians
regard Jesus as "conservative."

Can we regard Charles Darwin as one of the greatest minds in history
without placing ideological bias & baggage onto breakthrough biology
or science.

"Lysenkoism" is (I think) a fallacy of bending biology to a political
doctrine (Stalinism).

Wm Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow have already been there and
debated about "Darwinism" and religious doctrine in the infamous 1920s
monkey trial.

I now recall the RCC a decade or so ago acknowledging (accepting?)
evolution.