Elitism and Nazism

I don't think this accurately characterizes the position of your opponents in this discussion. No one is saying that the Nazis did not draw upon evolution as one among many justifications for their actions. No one disputes this. It is your position that the Nazi use of evolution has a bearing on the science of evolution that is being challenged.--Percy

I don't think anyone is disputing that this is the case. After all, we have the examples of social Darwinism and the Nazis. I again don't believe this is an accurate characterization. The point being made is that the employment of science to forward political causes has no bearing on the validity of science. If evolution is wrong it's because the science is wrong, not because the Nazis employed evolution as justification for social engineering.--Percy

Even if we postulate for the sake of discussion that Darwin originated the eugenics movement, it wouldn't be a factor in judging the validity of the theory of evolution. If you're only point is that eugenics, social Darwinism and some Nazi rationalizations drew upon the theory of evolution, I don't think that is being disputed.--Percy

Even if we postulate for the sake of discussion that "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law are scientifically flawed, being "conducive to social Darwinism" is not a scientific flaw, and so isn't relevant to making the case that they're scientifically flawed.--Percy

Your reluctance to repeat an argument you've been unable to support is understandable. Your argument is that evolution is flawed because it's been used by the eugenics movement, social Darwinism and the Nazis, but you've been unable to demonstrate how this is in any way related to the scientific validity of evolution.--Percy

Darwin chose to describe his theory in the popular vernacular of the time, and your perception is that the style and words of the presentation of the theory somehow relate to its scientific merits. You have failed to present any reason or rationale why this should be so.--Percy

The scientific content of Darwin's theory is descent with modification through natural selection. You have not to this point identified any flaws.--Percy

There are a few possibilities:

1. Your explanations are clear but I'm not capable of understanding them.
   ​
2. Your explanations are clear but I'm refusing to understand them.
   ​
3. Your explanations are not clear and so require more elaboration.
   ​
4. You're wrong.

From where I sit, your explanations are not clear or are wrong or, as in this case, provide no support for your argument, eg: This is an old point you've made before (and that no one has ever accepted), but it has nothing to do with eugenics, social Darwinism or the Nazis, and so you still haven't supported your original point that the fact that these things have drawn upon evolution somehow affects the validity of the theory itself.--Percy

I think you're forgetting your original point. You said that because eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology draw upon the theory of evolution that it somehow affects the theory's validity. While you've indicated a flaw, comparative versus individual theory, not only does no one agree with this, or even understand what you're getting at, but you haven't even tied it to eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology, which was the original point you were trying to make.--Percy

If I haven't been successful in reconstructing what you're trying to say then all I can say in my defense is that no one else has been able to make sense of it, either.Perhaps the crux boils down to two parts

1. You believe the theory of evolution is flawed in that it is conducive to judgmentalism and thereby aids such causes as eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology. I don't think anyone disagrees that these causes have drawn support from the theory of evolution, but you've convinced no one that the specific language used to explain a theory represents a flaw in the theory itself.
   ​
2. You believe the flaw in the theory of evolution is that it is comparative and not individual. You've convinced no one of this, either

In order to successfully carry the day in this discussion you have to do both of the following:

• Convince people of both points 1 and 2.
  ​
• Draw a convincing connection or relationship between points 1 and 2.

So far, you haven't done either.--Percy

That sounds fine to me. As long as you never argue it the other way around, namely that being conducive to things like social Darwinism means evolution is wrong, then I have no problem with this. For some reason I felt sure you were saying that the fact that evolution contributes to eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology means the theory itself is wrong.--Percy