I was advocating the use of facilities at the municipal level for handling waste more effectively and in a more eco-friendly manner. That would allow for human waste to be used for agricultural purposes on a massive scale. That's not the same thing as taking a shit in your own garden. And biolosids have to be processed a certain way, due to pharmaceuticals and pathogens that may be contained in human waste. I'm advocating a policy change and restructuring of the way our economy and agricultural system works. So your demand isn't even rational. Its as if I had been advocating investing in cancer research and then you criticize me for not being a scientist working on cancer research directly. I wasn't advocating shitting in your own garden. If that had been what I was talking about, then your point would be valid, but that's not what I was advocating. I was advocating that we invest in infrastructure to allow us to expand upon processes and practices that are already in place to some extent. I think that processing human waste for agricultural use should become the norm, so that we can have an ecological society that is more sustainable and has less of a negative impact on the environment.
Furthermore, I think we ought to make more of an effort to recycle food waste and compost it instead of throwing so much food waste into the garbage dumps. In the US, between 30 and 40 percent of the food supply goes to waste. We ought to require grocery stores to either donate excess that would otherwise be thrown away to charities or else set their food waste apart so that it can be recycled and processed/composted for agricultural use. Right now, excess food that goes to waste gets thrown in dumps with chemicals, batteries, pharmaceuticals, etc., which basically means that it is more-or-less indefinitely going to the dump. Even a thousand years into the future, the broken down food waste won't be good to plant anything for consumption in because the dumps are contaminated with poisons and toxins. So, I'd also like to see us come up with better ways of managing waste in general.
Furthermore, as for Darwinian evolution, it is a sound scientific theory (and, btw, "theory" in scientific terminology means a well-tested hypothesis that has not been falsified in spite of numerous attempts). It seems that you are operating off the assumption that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, and that seems to be your reason for distrusting Darwinism. I used to be a Christian. I was heavily influenced by Cornelius van Til and Calvinism, but also read Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other protestant Christian writers. And the general consensus among informed Christians and apologists (defenders of the faith) was that evolution was (1) true and (2) perfectly compatible with Christianity. C.S. Lewis, Dinesh D'Souza, Kallistos Ware, and most reputable Christian apologists believe in the truth of evolution and the compatibility of Christianity and evolution.
Also, here's a site with short videos that give simple explanations of evolutionary theory and explain the evidence for evolution in a simple and easy to understand way: http://statedclearly.com/
As for the Nazis, they actually rejected the particular moral theories suggested by Darwin, which he laid the foundation for in "The Descent of Man". Darwin's theory of ethics is largely identical to that of Thomas Aquinas, the famous Christian theologian/philosopher. Larry Arnhart's work on "Darwinian natural right" suggest that Darwinian theory is compatible with, and even complimentary to, the theory of ethics taught by Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis. The Nazis were actually distorting evolutionary theory. They were not operating off of the scientific assumptions of Darwinism. As far as Darwinian theory is concerned, there cannot be any such thing as a "master race" or superior species. The "survival of the fittest" refers to which specimen is better adapted to particular circumstances of time and place, so there can't be a "master race" per Darwinian theory. Black people are better adapted to African climate and environment than white people are. The Badjao people in the Philippines are better adapted to their watery environment. The "survival of the fittest" is an observation of fact: those that survive are the most fitly adapted for survival, whereas those who don't are less fitted to survive. There is no value judgment involved in this. Furthermore, "mutual aid" or the social instinct to work together so that weaker specimen can survive by working together is an adaptation that constitutes "survival of the fittest," so working together, helping others, and the moral and social instincts involved are part of what makes us survive better. (Cf. Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid")
You shouldnt need this much information to prove a point, let me cut to the chase, If a monkey turned into a man who created the monkey? If microorganisms turned into a man who created the organisms? If the universe was created by the big bang who created the big bang? The answer is GOD. I do not disregard scientific studies, like I do fiction, but to put your faith in them is dangerous. Charles Darwin was respectable but even he had faith in God. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of creation (That is why Eve gets pregnant) it is truth through symbology. I do not doubt man came from ape but to label it "Darwinism" is separating it from a scientific perspective into a way of life or religion. Which is exactly what science isnt suppose to be about.
If the universe was created by God, then where did God come from? We have evidence that humans evolved from lower apes. There is no scientific evidence for the biblical God. And, btw, I don't "put faith" in anything. I am a critical rationalist, following the scientific epistemology of Karl Popper, which holds that all knowledge is conjectural, unlike your anti-scientific position that merely asserts the existence of God because that is the most simple explanation and you are unable to conceive of any other alternative.
I was advocating the use of facilities at the municipal level for handling waste more effectively and in a more eco-friendly manner. That would allow for human waste to be used for agricultural purposes on a massive scale. That's not the same thing as taking a shit in your own garden. And biolosids have to be processed a certain way, due to pharmaceuticals and pathogens that may be contained in human waste. I'm advocating a policy change and restructuring of the way our economy and agricultural system works. So your demand isn't even rational. Its as if I had been advocating investing in cancer research and then you criticize me for not being a scientist working on cancer research directly. I wasn't advocating shitting in your own garden. If that had been what I was talking about, then your point would be valid, but that's not what I was advocating. I was advocating that we invest in infrastructure to allow us to expand upon processes and practices that are already in place to some extent. I think that processing human waste for agricultural use should become the norm, so that we can have an ecological society that is more sustainable and has less of a negative impact on the environment.
For further reading, here's the EPA's FAQ on biosolids (recycled human waste) for agricultural purposes: https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/frequent-questions-about-biosolids
Furthermore, I think we ought to make more of an effort to recycle food waste and compost it instead of throwing so much food waste into the garbage dumps. In the US, between 30 and 40 percent of the food supply goes to waste. We ought to require grocery stores to either donate excess that would otherwise be thrown away to charities or else set their food waste apart so that it can be recycled and processed/composted for agricultural use. Right now, excess food that goes to waste gets thrown in dumps with chemicals, batteries, pharmaceuticals, etc., which basically means that it is more-or-less indefinitely going to the dump. Even a thousand years into the future, the broken down food waste won't be good to plant anything for consumption in because the dumps are contaminated with poisons and toxins. So, I'd also like to see us come up with better ways of managing waste in general.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm
Furthermore, as for Darwinian evolution, it is a sound scientific theory (and, btw, "theory" in scientific terminology means a well-tested hypothesis that has not been falsified in spite of numerous attempts). It seems that you are operating off the assumption that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, and that seems to be your reason for distrusting Darwinism. I used to be a Christian. I was heavily influenced by Cornelius van Til and Calvinism, but also read Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other protestant Christian writers. And the general consensus among informed Christians and apologists (defenders of the faith) was that evolution was (1) true and (2) perfectly compatible with Christianity. C.S. Lewis, Dinesh D'Souza, Kallistos Ware, and most reputable Christian apologists believe in the truth of evolution and the compatibility of Christianity and evolution.
Here's an article on the compatibilist position:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/evolutionary_creationism_jeff_hardin_reconciles_evangelical_christianity.html
Also, here's a site with short videos that give simple explanations of evolutionary theory and explain the evidence for evolution in a simple and easy to understand way:
http://statedclearly.com/
I like this particular video a lot:
As for the Nazis, they actually rejected the particular moral theories suggested by Darwin, which he laid the foundation for in "The Descent of Man". Darwin's theory of ethics is largely identical to that of Thomas Aquinas, the famous Christian theologian/philosopher. Larry Arnhart's work on "Darwinian natural right" suggest that Darwinian theory is compatible with, and even complimentary to, the theory of ethics taught by Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis. The Nazis were actually distorting evolutionary theory. They were not operating off of the scientific assumptions of Darwinism. As far as Darwinian theory is concerned, there cannot be any such thing as a "master race" or superior species. The "survival of the fittest" refers to which specimen is better adapted to particular circumstances of time and place, so there can't be a "master race" per Darwinian theory. Black people are better adapted to African climate and environment than white people are. The Badjao people in the Philippines are better adapted to their watery environment. The "survival of the fittest" is an observation of fact: those that survive are the most fitly adapted for survival, whereas those who don't are less fitted to survive. There is no value judgment involved in this. Furthermore, "mutual aid" or the social instinct to work together so that weaker specimen can survive by working together is an adaptation that constitutes "survival of the fittest," so working together, helping others, and the moral and social instincts involved are part of what makes us survive better. (Cf. Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid")
Here's a video on the unique adaptations of the Badjao people:
Cf. Kropotkin on mutual aid among ants:
You shouldnt need this much information to prove a point, let me cut to the chase, If a monkey turned into a man who created the monkey? If microorganisms turned into a man who created the organisms? If the universe was created by the big bang who created the big bang? The answer is GOD. I do not disregard scientific studies, like I do fiction, but to put your faith in them is dangerous. Charles Darwin was respectable but even he had faith in God. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of creation (That is why Eve gets pregnant) it is truth through symbology. I do not doubt man came from ape but to label it "Darwinism" is separating it from a scientific perspective into a way of life or religion. Which is exactly what science isnt suppose to be about.
If the universe was created by God, then where did God come from? We have evidence that humans evolved from lower apes. There is no scientific evidence for the biblical God. And, btw, I don't "put faith" in anything. I am a critical rationalist, following the scientific epistemology of Karl Popper, which holds that all knowledge is conjectural, unlike your anti-scientific position that merely asserts the existence of God because that is the most simple explanation and you are unable to conceive of any other alternative.