Forum: Darwnist Ideology

Unfortunately, it seems that Skeptick is much in the Syamsu mold.Just read his Nazism/Darwinism conection somewhere, but I've already lost track where.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-10-2004]

It's in "Human Intelligence", oddly enough.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This is simply not true, most all creationists here at one time or another criticize evolutionism as being linked to immorality. You also can't possibly leave out Bryant, who'se arguably the main originator of the anti-evolutionist creationist movement in the USA.Obviously you don't read the links I provided, which is because you have already made your mind up without looking at any evidence? There's a reasonably straight line of argument which says that you are on the wrong side, read about it, read the whole thing.Again, the evcforum is going the way talk.origins has gone without expressly focusing on the issue of Darwinist ideology. I'm quite sure it has absolutely no credibility with any serious intellectuals this way, to ignore Bryant who was in the most dramatic confrontation between evolutionism and creationism to do date. To ignore the broad links to the holocaust, in favour of making inane arguments about baseballbats and math. A quite meaningless bit of faction fighting, the forum is becoming just another weird internet phenomenon this way."Prior to the 1920s, evolution had been criticized by many fundamentalists, though by no means all of them, as being a false doctrine. But the subject had not been a major issue for fundamentalists before the 1920s, and virtually no one had opposed the teaching of the subject, much less thought of waging a public campaign against it, before 1920. Rather, until the 1920s, evolution theory had simply been one among a number of things of which (some, but not all) fundamentalists disapproved.Bryan changed all that by uniting the various fundamentalist factions of the times into a large unified public campaign to eliminate the teaching of evolution from American public schools. In doing so, he made opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools, and opposition to evolution theory itself, a major do-or-die issue for fundamentalists. Thus, Bryan's reasons for opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools are, in large part, the reasons why fundamentalists first adopted opposition to evolution theory, and to its being taught in public schools, as a major issue."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

To ignore the broad links to the holocaust, in favour of making inane arguments about baseballbats and math.

---

So let me get this straight... if I say that, although you may think math has no ideology, the fact that the Nazis used math to accomplish their goals means that math does in fact have an ideology... an evil one at that... that sounds inane to you?Go figure.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

I don't see that anything you said answered anything I said. I don't think some guy named Bryan's opinion of the evolution creation debate matters at all, no matter how much authority you attribute to him, because you are applying your ideas to people here, and no one here agrees with him.And if you're referring to William Jennings Bryan, then a man's opinion about evolution from 80 years ago is totally irrelevant to this discussion.And you're correct that I have no intentions of reading the links you provided, until you say something reasonable enough to make me think you have a point. I read links when someone makes a cogent, effective, or intriguing argument that makes me think it's worth following up. You've providide no such argument, nor a hint that any such argument is available.Why read your links when you can't even address or answer my arguments? They didn't equip you to answer me, so why should I think they provide answers themselves?

I have no idea what points Syamsu might be trying to make beyond this absurd "Darwinist ideology" crap, but I am interested in the origins of the creo vs. evo debate and I think he may have inadvertantly hit on something useful here, something I forget from time to time but remember having learned long ago. In checking The Fundamentals, that series of books released back in 1909 from which 'fundamentalists' take their name, I find that indeed a conflict between science and specifically evolution was downplayed. One certainly wouldn't guess that the original fundamentalists were entirely opposed to teaching evolution in the schools from this bit found in the first book of the series:

quote:

---

In recent years the point in which "conflict" between Scripture and science is most frequently urged is the apparent contrariety of the theory of evolution to the Bible story of the direct creation of the animals and man. This might be met, and often is, as happened in the previous cases, by denying the reality of any evolutionary process in nature. Here also, however, while it must be conceded that evolution is not yet proved, there seems a growing appreciation of the strength of the evidence for the fact of some form of evolutionary origin of species--that is, of some genetic connection of higher with lower forms. Together with this, at the same time, there is manifest an increasing disposition to limit the scope of evolution, and to modify the theory in very essential points-those very points in which an apparent conflict with Scripture arose.

---

As those of us on the evo side read further we find much to disagree with, but I was interested to see that perhaps the original fundies were not so opposed to fact-based education in science. The writer clearly wishes to qualify the ToE, but he certainly isn't equating it with a godless society or saying that a belief in the theory will lead to immorality. I wonder what this author would think of the science "textbooks" today being used by most home-schoolers, the most popular of which are written by the faculty of Bob Jones University.In any case, a review of these books will show that, in the eyes of the original fundies, it was most important to fight the higher criticism, not science.What often gets lost in this debate is the fact that a good man's name has been sullied to the point that many seem to see him as a sort of anti-Christ. This is a man whose studies have led to remarkable progress in virtually every field of science and most dramatically in medicine. Countless lives have been saved thanks to drugs and other treatments which have been discovered by researchers who have taken his theories, expanded them, refined them and drawn new theories. As I mentioned in another forum, Charles Darwin's birthday is tomorrow and I think this is an excellent time to recognize mankind's overwhelming debt to him.If any creationist wants to quible over what I've said I would simply ask them to name a creation "scientist" who has produced anything at all useful to mankind.

Amen I'm not a creationist, and I don't want to quibble over what you said, because what you said was great, but I can name at least one creationist scientist who has produced something useful to mankind: John Baumgardner. He produced the computer program Terra, which can simulate movement of tectonic plates or something like that. I read an evolutionist site that listed him as a creationist that has produced something important. A pro-evolution web site by a Dr. Foster of Eastern Kentucky Universtity (Professor of Biological Studies) says:

quote:

---

For example, John Baumgardner is a lab scientist at the Theoretical Division of the National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy at Los Alamos (New Mexico). He is the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates (plate tectonics). He is the creator of a unique supercomputer program called Terra. Terra graphically models thermal convection of the Earth's mantle over time and can calculate its past and future.

---

So someone who's an evolutionist thinks Baumgardner's program is awesome, even if I've heard he's not terribly honest with evidence about an old earth. Baumgardner is a young earther.I also read once about a YEC scientist who was involved in finding a cure for some disease. YECers trumpeted it around a lot, and research on the web seemed to indicate the guy was at least heavily involved in the cure, but I can't remember much else about it.Anyway, I agree with your overall point about what creationists have produced in their science, which is pretty much nothing, but I couldn't resist putting forth Baumgardner's terra.

There is an existing Baumgardner topic, where the content of your message would be nice (HINT).It's "Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!"Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

I gladly stand corrected, TL, I didn't know about Terra. I'll read up on it a bit. Thanks.Sorry to lead the discussion off-topic.

The "crap" you refer to is standard history writing about the holocaust. You want to ignore the history of the holocaust because Darwinian medicine saved lives?Actually I'm not aware of any Darwinist medicine, I only hear them make questionable policy initiaves like not giving any anti-HIV drugs to Africa, to slow down the rate of HIV resistance.But apart from that an inquiry into Darwinist ideology will provide a more clear distinction between Darwinist theory and Darwinist ideology, it would be very helpful indeed, it will save lives."An impressive number of the most influential Volkish writers, propagandists, and spokesmen were influenced by or involved in some way with either Haeckel or his Monist followers. In the development of racism, racial eugenics, Germanic Christianity, nature worship, and anti-Semitism, Haeckel and the Monists were an important source and a major inspiration for many of the diverse streams of thought which came together later on under the banner of National Socialism."The contest itself, which ultimately led to the publication of ten volumes of influential social Darwinist tracts, was sponsored by the industrialist, Alfred Krupp, and its theme was: What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism for application to inner political development and the laws of the state?'2 The first prize was won by Haeckel's disciple, Wilhelm Schallmayer""Like Haeckel, he argued that any mixture of the races would lead to the biological deterioration of the Germans. Woltmann, like Haeckel, taught that life was a constant struggle for existence and for racial purity, and he sought to forearm Germany against biological decay.""In obvious imitation of Haeckel, Ammon taught that Darwinism had to become Germany's new religion. It had to be accepted as a complete Weltanschauung and its ideas had to be encouraged in every facet of life""Ammon believed, of course, that it was the Germans who possessed superior racial and biological characteristics and he appealed for a return to the values and attitudes of the primitive Germanic tribes, who had led lives of natural bravery unencumbered by the errors and weaknesses of Christian civilization.11""And in another influential and widely read book which also received the approbation of Haeckel, Von Darwin bis Nietzsche (1895), Tille, who acknowledged his debt to Haeckel, explained the impact which the discovery of biological evolution had made on ethics, and agreed with Haeckel that all absolute ethical values had been obliterated by the discovery of evolution. Tille argued that only the unimpeded laws of nature could be the source of morality .14Together with Haeckel, Krause edited the joumal Kosmos, the chief organ of the Darwinian movement in Germany in the 1870'S and in the 1880's. In addition, Krause had been the noted author of popular biographies of Erasmus and Charles Darwin. In these books he had attempted to demonstrate the continuity which he believed to exist between English and German Darwinism, and he became one of the most widely read popularizers of Darwinian ideas in Germany. But Krause was also at the same time an imposing figure in the Volkish movement. In the early 1890'S, and shortly before his death, he wrote two influential books in defense of Aryanism and Germanic ideology.etc. etc. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Funny, I seem to have overestimated you. I thought your point might be a bit deeper than this. If the only thing you're seeking to establish is that Darwin was a racist and that some of his ideas were used by the Nazis then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Anyone reasonably familiar with Darwin and Hitler would know this.You don't seem to know very much about the history of Jewish pogroms. If you did, you'd realize that Christianity has just as much to apologize for as do the Nazis. Darwin's racism is indeed a point against him, but I think it pales in comparison to the sins of the church throughout history.Perhaps you should think about opening a book one day.[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-11-2004]

So then answer me this:the one reproduces more then the other,the one reproduces or notWhich provides for better theory? Which one is standard Darwinist theory and why? I believe, ideological prejudice is why the one is standard, while the other isn't. It is not as clear as math, or gravity theory.The question of ideology goes to address the question of all prejudice in theories. Apart from things like racism, a theory might be prejudiced towards a Newtonian view, in stead of relativistic Einstein view. But why should we identify groups of people by skincolor in stead of some other varying trait? etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually this is not true. Go read talk.origins or the talk.origins faq, it is generally blatantly denied that Darwinism had much of any significance to do with Nazism. This is not the opinion of standard historians like Fischer, Gasman and others.Chief responsible for this view on talk.origins is John Wilkins who writes such things as that social darwinism never really existed, because noone called themselves social darwinist, and then says that all investigation into the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism is meaningless because of the naturalistic fallacy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No creationist agrees with Bryant?Wishful thinking I'm sure. The creation vs evolution controversy is carried on wide public support, it's not just Christian fundamentalists. In general public opinion the concern about the immorality associated with evolution theory is also widely held. I think this wider concern is what creationists are mainly supported by, what makes creationism so big.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm trying to tell you that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone reasonably conversant with Darwin's teachings and the Nazis who doesn't know about social darwinism. So what? Why do you insist that it be studied? We already know it happened. We also know there's a connection between Jesus and the Inquisition, should we study that too?