Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
89 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,284 Year: 4,396/6,534 Month: 610/900 Week: 134/182 Day: 14/27 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a racist doctrine
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 376 of 404 (810777)
06-01-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
04-15-2017 5:06 PM


Hitler was a demagogue who crafted his writings (primarily Mein Kampf) and speeches by selecting among arguments for those that seemed to work. What he said before an audience mostly reflected choices of what he thought effective rather than what he actually believed. The passage you quoted in Message 9 is from a April 12, 1922, speech and has often been used to argue that Hitler was Christian, but this was merely how he courted Christian support. Most historians conclude that Hitler was areligious.

--Percy

I can appreciate your intellectual objectivity in this matter.

In the same way I believe the argument that, "evolution is racist/conducive to racism", to be an example of an Appeal To Consequences Fallacy, largely mistakenly argued by creationists to try and muddy evolution theory.

It seems in it's real form my fellow creos are really arguing this; "because evolution might not be contrary to racism therefore evolution is false."

False because they seek to say that evolution is incorrect because it is somehow racist or conducive to it, which is negative thing P if it is accepted.

I myself don't value this argument much because let us say for example that evolution argued that more modern species are, "superior" (which it doesn't), nevertheless even if that was so, this wouldn't affect the veracity of the evolution claim anyway for truth-value isn't decided by what things are perceived to be immoral or negative.

That is to say, even if evolution was conducive to racism in some way, if evolution was factual then this would be a resultant negative consequence in the same way atoms being split are a negative consequence of the formula, E=MC2.

So then, if we can create bombs by splitting the atom, does it follow E=MC2 is "violent activity which is false."

So I think the racism-argument from creationists can be a bit disingenuous. Almost as disingenious as Dr A's lame attempt to somehow associate Hitler with creationism. I think you're right, Hitler did seem like a utilitarian in his practical methodologies. His beliefs and desires were all about himself, IMHO, (means to an end) and attempts to say he was evolutionist or creationist seem like an attempt to besmirch either.

It's the old Ad Hitlerum, "how can cake be tasty if Hitler said it was?"

One can see the obvious advantage in getting Hitler to have believed X, because people are naturally repulsed by him, but it's an intellectually dishonest pursuit.

I see the same but the opposite with Einstein, creationists like to say He was an avid theist, and atheists like to say his beliefs were closer to atheism. Whichever was closer to the truth isn't my point, my point is it's rather obvious that having Einstein on the team by association is better than having Hitler on your team, if you see what I mean. This plays off of those negative/positive associations, in human psychology.

It's "correct by association with Einstein", and, "incorrect by association with Hitler".

This game is played out in debate, the use of rhetorical spin and epithets seems to be rife among the average thinkers. A recent example is the "phobias", people have a knee-jerk reaction to them that immediately makes them associate that person as immoral and evil which is why people like to LABEL people and immediately paint them with the terms, "homophobia" and, "Islamaphobia".

Psychologically people can't see they are doing it until you reverse it, and say; "I am murdererphobic and rape-aphobic," then the mis-use of the epithet presumably strikes home for the dull witted. (one would hope, optimistically)

Some other buz words are, "hate", and "fear" but one should be cautious to use those terms QUICKLY, because a lot of the time they require telepathy. For example if you call Islamic state, "Islamic state" it seems you are now an Islamaphobic but if you call it, "so called Islamic state" you aren't, but do you know of any ISIS members that are Christian, agnostic, Jewish, atheist, or Buddhist?

So then it is okay logically to say that ISIS/islam extremism is Islam but it is not okay to say that if someone is Islamic they are ISIS/Islamic extremism.

For me, I have no "phobia", what I have is deductive reason. The majority of Muslims are clearly relatively harmless.

CONCLUSION; These types of arguments basically try to abuse human psychology, because of our natural repulsion for certain words, actions and people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 04-15-2017 5:06 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022