Darwin and responsibilty

I have often picked up on the not so subtle referencing of Darwin in connection with both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I am perplexed on 2 issues pertaining to this.1)Is it somewhere recorded the exact references to Darwin by either of these people?And
2)how do people at this forum allow such slips in reasoning?I mean,this is tantamount to drawing the conclusion that those who discover new knowledge and share the results are therefore responsiblefor the use of that knowledge by other human beings even after death. This is the height of illogical and purposeless arguement and I find it offensive that a thinking person can accept such a proposition as being anything of value.So I would like to see if statements such as this can be defended by anyone in these forums.If in making a case we could be careful to show how the conclusions are arrived at perhaps we could avoid some of the sloppy thinking processes before they begin.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-26-2004 08:36 PM

---

"For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon

almeyda This is an untrue statement since an individuals beliefs are his/her own.Therefore they were being consistent with their christian beliefs. As for a Christian standard of morality would you care to back this up with a rundown of what the "standard of morality" is? Could you also at the same time clarify how you arrive at just what is meant by Christian which is fully acceptable by others who call themselves Christian? It is my impression that no standard is in existence which "defines" a Christian.Without a definition of Christian how can a standard of morality exist that is strictly Christian?
I pointed out in post #1 that I wish to avoid sloppy thinking and I believe this qualifies.

---

"For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon

ChiopteraDo you suppose Syamsu would be willing to show where social darwinism is discussed in the online version?

Syamsu Regardless of the implications on the part of Darwin and his social view of the world he lived in how does this tie into the choices that Hitler or Stalin or you or I for that matter use within our lifetime? This is like saying that Sun-Tsu is responsible for the actions of all wars,after his death,that made use of his book the art of war.
We can shape the way in which future generations can live out their lives by what we do today but we cannot know in advance whether our work will be used for betterment or detriment of those generations. Knowledge has no volition of its own.As the saying goes: How we human beings implement that knowledge is what determines the outcome for society but that key must be freely available to all or else we cannot be aware of its potential to help or hinder progress..Those things which we deem evil {which in reality are merely choices made by human beings and not an entity seperate from those choices}use knowledge to further themselaves.If we cannot deal with the knowledge nor properly understand its implementation by people we run a grave risk indeed.
Knowledge is impartial to the dealings of human beings.It is does not change with the passing or births of nations.It is neutral the suffering or joy it may bring.Hitler and Stalin bent and distorted the knowledge of others to their own witless ends.

---

A snarl, a sneer, a whip that stings. These are a few of my favorite things.

Syamsu No, you misunderstand. I am saying that knowledge{whether it is true or not is irrelevant} is subjective only in the hands of human beings and as such has no power to sway it in one direction or another.Hitler and Stalin bent knowledge to purposes its forebeares could not see nor can we say they would have approved and in all likelihood would be disgusted with.If tomorrow you were to find a new energy source and grew rich off its aopplication but in the year 2133 it is found to be capable of killing human beings without a trace of evidence.Do we seriously contend that you, having once or twice in your youth been a violent man,{thought experiment only}are now responsible for whatever horror may be perpetrated by men upon others? I think not.

Syamsu First of all amazon.com has issues of Mein Kampf so what you mean by forbidden I am not sure.Second the book and its contents are themselves not the thing that causes damage it is the use of the book to support the cause of people and it is their actions that makes it what it is. You can have it as part of a university course or as part of a skinhead rally but the book is incapable of damage or construction. I don't understand by what you mean by being forced to hear anything.The freedom to accept or reject any knowledge is still yours to make but you must have the knowledge taught to you for you to make an informed decision. That you have to hear some things you do not wish to hear,well,life sucks eh? but in order to reject knowledge in the first place you must have that knowledge.As the saying goes "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion,they are not entitled to their own facts."