Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 129 of 438 (463585)
04-18-2008 3:38 PM


Eugenics was definitely influenced by Darwinism and played a significant role in Hitler and NAZI thinking. To deny this is silly.

Now, to argue that the NAZIs misused evo doctrine is acceptable, just as to argue Catholics misused biblical teaching. The only difference I can see is the Bible unequivocally condemns the persecutorial approach of medieval Roman Catholicism whereas there is not, imo, the same inconsistency between Darwinism's amoral approach and statist eugenics. That doesn't mean Darwinists approve of their ideas being used for genocide, of course. It just means there is a consistency between the amoral approaches to truth.


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 4:07 PM randman has responded
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2008 3:12 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Deftil, posted 04-23-2008 5:57 PM randman has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 135 of 438 (463616)
04-18-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 4:07 PM


What did God order to be done with Achan when he took some of the loot of Jericho? What about all the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites that were killed by the Israelites because they didn't want Joshua to walk through their land?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anything "inequivocal" about how God condemns persecution.

Have you read the gospels and the New Testament?

On your comment on amorality vs immorality, my point on amorality is that there are no absolute morals for Darwinism. Absent of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit, and if he thinks it's fit to artificially select humanity's progress, who is to say he is wrong?

How can you say genocide is wrong per se even? Sure, you can say you find it personally despicable and so wrong according to your morals, but who says your morals are right anyway?

I don't think it takes a genius to see how the Nazis drew inspiration from Darwinism.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 4:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 11:44 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2008 3:14 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 9:04 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 164 of 438 (464153)
04-23-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Deftil
04-23-2008 5:57 PM


Hmmm.....I suspect if I made a similar comment, I would be banned.

But for sake of argument, can you point out where I suggested such a thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Deftil, posted 04-23-2008 5:57 PM Deftil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Deftil, posted 04-23-2008 6:40 PM randman has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 166 of 438 (464163)
04-23-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Deftil
04-23-2008 6:40 PM


It's a statement of fact. Eugenics and so Darwinism played heavily in their reasoning. Is it a natural outgrowth of Darwinism?

I think it is a logical progression from Darwinistic thinking, but that still doesn't mean I have suggested that Darwinists are anti-semitic.

In fact, I don't even think of Darwinists as all that logical so it would not surprise me for Darwinists to think in all sorts of ways about the consequences of Darwinism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Deftil, posted 04-23-2008 6:40 PM Deftil has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 7:35 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2008 7:42 PM randman has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 170 of 438 (464174)
04-23-2008 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by bluegenes
04-23-2008 7:42 PM


Are people part of the natural world or not?

Artificial seems somewhat out of place as you use it, at least from an evolutionary perspective. Man-made selection is still natural selection as man is part of the environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2008 7:42 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2008 9:03 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 172 of 438 (464178)
04-23-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by bluegenes
04-23-2008 7:58 PM


wishful thinking.....read Darwin's comments
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing.

Like Hitler, Charles Darwin saw natural processes as setting moral standards. It’s all in The Descent of Man, where he explains that, had we evolved differently, we would have different moral ideas. On a particularly delicate moral topic, for example, he wrote: “We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience.”

In the same book, he compared the evolution of people to the breeding of animals and drew a chilling conclusion regarding what he saw as the undesirable consequences of allowing the unfit to breed:

“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” In this desacralized picture of existence, to speak of life as possessing any kind of holiness is to introduce an alien note.

Most disturbing of all, in The Descent of Man, Darwin prophesied: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

Please note especially:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

Sounds pretty Hitlerish to me except Darwin probably didn't mean Jews but under-developed nations (ethnic groups in those nations).

More from the same article.....Mein Kempf apparently does mention evolution.

You only have to read Mein Kampf to see the indebtedness. A shrewd manipulator of his fellow Germans’ sympathy for scientifically flavored racial theorizing, Hitler gives a Darwinian-style analysis of how the struggle for existence mandates a defense of the Aryan race.

He invokes the “principles of Nature’s rule,” “her whole work of higher breeding,” in which “struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.” He warns against racial decline from the mixing of blood — his own spin on Darwinism — arguing that the preservation of a “creative race” is “bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right of victory of the best and stronger in this world.” He calls for “a more noble evolution.”

Other Nazi propaganda followed his lead. In a 1937 German propaganda film, Victims of the Past, the audience is shown a retarded person as the narrator intones, “In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply.”

It's a slam dunk case. Now, the real debate should be whether Hitler was following the logic of Darwin or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2008 7:58 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 04-24-2008 3:33 AM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 174 of 438 (464189)
04-23-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Minnemooseus
04-23-2008 8:32 PM


Hmmm....Darwin's comments
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

Sounds pretty Hitlerish to me, though as a man Darwin would likely recoil at Hitler's actions.

Not saying evos are NAZIs or anything, but to act like evolutionist thinking didn't play a role in Hitler's ideas when he extensively used the concept is just misunderstanding history.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-23-2008 8:32 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2008 1:31 AM randman has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019