Elitism and Nazism

Now that we all seem to be revealing our disgust, I am disgusted by your constant assertion that everyone else is arrogant and not looking at evidence when you have NEVER presented any. Your constant posting of unsupported assertions including stateing that you would refuse to provide any support for your assertions earlier in this thread strongly suggests that YOU are the one with supreme arrogance.You should find the majority of posts on this forum intimidating. With your profound lack of knowledge, inability to support your assertions, and clear lack of capacity for logical thinking I am surprised you don't keep silent.Your casual ignoring or dismissal of important issues in this thread are truly reasons to be disgusted.It is because of people like you and The General that there will always be a danger that atrocities like the 3rd Reich could occur again.

Can't we all just get along?

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

As I've said before....Much the same of what I say has been said by many mainstream evolutionists about "survival of the fittest". Also much the same has been said about Haeckel's biogenetic law. They say the formulation is flawed, and in it's flaw it is conducive to Social Darwinism. Regardless of any flaw in scientific terms, it is clear that the judgemental language in Darwinism is conducive to judgementalism. Besides that Darwinists have used prosaic books as a mainstay to advance their science, blurring the distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism in the books. Chemistry, or physics is not actually advanced through prosaic books, that is peculiar to Darwinism. Also chemists and physicists do not use the word "goodness" to denote a physical property, that is peculiar to Darwinists. There is also no other science I know of which pretends to answer the question why something happens, in stead of answering how something happens, as Darwinists do, which then problemizes the distinction between purposeless and purposeful action. etc.So far what has been offered as counterargument is that science is neutral, and therefore there can be no meaningful relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Also called the naturalistic fallacy, saying that it is false to derive an ought from an is. The mistake in that argument is to assert that the neutrality of science is a fact, in stead of an ideal.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My point is that there are many more important influences on Nazi belief than evolution and Nietzsche. These are being completely ignored by those trying to place the blame on evolutionary theory.For instance Gobineau's ideas of Aryan superiority:http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=381207
explicitly names it as '...the basis of the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews, Gypsies (Roma), and other non-Aryans.'The companion article on Gobineau is at:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=391045Note the publication dates.We haven't even got to other influences such as Richard Wagner, the nationalistic and anti-semitic composer whose music was loved by Hitler.Anyone who was really concerned about the Holocaust would not spend their time attacking minor influences. What disgusts me is people who think that attacking views they personally dislike is more important than the suffering of the victims.

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

[Replying in kind could result in suspension of posting privileges. --Admin]I find it arrogant that you say I have a profound lack of knowledge about the issue, also since as far as I can tell my knowledge on the subject is wider then yours. I have more then enough knowledge on the subject for a discussion about it on an internetforum. I find it intimidating that you suggest I should be silent because of my lack of knowledge. Your jocular attitude is a rethorical trick to further sabotage meaningful discourse, your whole discourse is full of tricks. You don't really look at evidence, because you have defined science as neutral.Why would you go talking about the Vichy regime of all things? Could it be that you read in the newspaper recently that the French government is paying out victims of the Vichy regime and decided to prop up your knowledge with tidbits from the newspaper?You post the quotes from Mein Kampf but then you provide no argumentation about what these quotes mean. For instance what particular Christian sect does Hitler belong to? He treats Christ greatest as a fighter in stead of a sufferer, That is much distinct from most all the rest of Christianity which has Jesus on the cross suffering as it's central symbol.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Admin, 09-11-2003]

I'd like to request that comments be confined to the thread's topic and not its participants.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

That it is conducive to judgementalism can be proven by your own personal experience of the theory. Because the language is conducive to judgementalism, Darwinists often use quotationmarks around words such as goodness, selfish, and also repeatedly say that words like that are not to be understood in a judgemental way.It appears that you are arguing a strawman. Really I can't see the sense of having a comparitive theory, especially not in place of an individual one. It is just the same as the mechanism of comparitive mountainlength to me. There is no such mechanism, it doesn't exist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

find it arrogant that you say I have a profound lack of knowledge about the issue, also since as far as I can tell my knowledge on the subject is wider then yours. I have more then enough knowledge on the subject for a discussion about it on an internetforum.M: Then by all means, show me that you have more than enough knowledge and provide detailed support for each and every one of the assertions you have made in this thread.

I think we are disputing that the theory of evolution is used as a basis for nazism. Eugenics which is based on a false characterization of natural selection is the basis of Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf. If you can glean from Mein Kampf anything resembling what Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species I would like to see it since everything I have read is a confused jumble demonstrating Hitler had zero clue about natural selection (like Galton) and didnt know diddly about genetics. The rest is a mix of bizarre christian and pagan symbolism and rants against the Jews.In the case of evolution one can at least point out that what the nazi's said had bears no relationship to the actual theory of evolution put forth by Darwin or studied today....The General's only defense of christian participants in the holocaust is to claim he "knows" they were not real christians.Your point about science being used for bad purposes is a good one and makes me wonder that nobody is criitcizing the scientists who developed nuclear weapons during the Manhattan project where the clear objective was a weapon of mass destruction...or current development of biological weapons etc. The science is a tool, what you make of with it or do with it can be good or bad..the science is not intrinsically one or the other.

quote:

---

Why would you go talking about the Vichy regime of all things? Could it be that you read in the newspaper recently that the French government is paying out victims of the Vichy regime and decided to prop up your knowledge with tidbits from the newspaper?

---

Nope.

quote:

---

You post the quotes from Mein Kampf but then you provide no argumentation about what these quotes mean. For instance what particular Christian sect does Hitler belong to? He treats Christ greatest as a fighter in stead of a sufferer, That is much distinct from most all the rest of Christianity which has Jesus on the cross suffering as it's central symbol

---

I think what I was implying with the quotes was pretty straight forward...which ones do you need interpreted?I never claimed that Hitler had his christian symbolism right. The originator of this thread and you have made the outrageous claim that Darwinism leads to nazism and The General has denied that christianity could have anything to do with it.To this point neither of you has shown that the science of the theory of evolution and actually nothing of what Darwin wrote is in Mein Kampf rather there are relatively few instances where Hitler refers to the eugenics of Galton and his followers (relative to the number of references to christian symbolism)...and I have not denied that eugenics played a role in the 3rd Reich.I on the other hand (as has PaulK) demonstrated that christian symbolism (which is almost as badly distorted as Hitlers rants on natural selection) pervades Mein Kampf and obviously it had an influence on Hitler's thinking.On the one hand both you and The General claim that because Hitler was influenced by eugenics Darwin = Nazism yet because you both do not like how Hilter described his christian influences, christianity must have had nothing to do with Nazism.I find this to be a strange double standard, and hypocritical.Most importantly it does a great disservice to the victims of the holocaust because it is revisionist.Note to Admin: I did not in the last 3 posts reply in kind.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-11-2003]{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-11-2003]

It's not really about the theory of evolution IMO it's more specifically about Natural Selection. "The Descent of Man" is Darwin's book on people not "Origin of Species", and in that book valuejudgement and "objective" statements of fact are in an inextricable mix. Darwin even wrote on such esoteric questions as to what the highest state of morality is for a person, as well as giving eugenic marriage advice.If I remember correctly the main reason that the Nazi's didn't develop nuclear weapons is because a scientist gave a contaminated sample of some substance. Would the scientist be innocent if he had just done his job and given a proper sample? Is the knowledge how to make a nuclear bomb really separate from the device itself? You seem to consistently want to make some room for an absolute innocense in science that is really not reasonable considering the responsibility we have in for instance.... not blowing up the earth, or not wiping out an ecosystem. IMO nothing much is intrinsically good or bad, including people, so it doesn't mean much to say science isn't intrinsically good or bad.The case with Darwinism is different then with making nuclear bombs, because Darwinism influenced ideology. The science that went into the nuclear bomb didn't influence ideology.As far as I know Galton is one of the main founders of the statistical method. He was not some lay person who was out of his depth with Natural Selection. I don't know what version of selection he used, but there are many versions of selection even now.I don't agree with the General, since there is copious amount of evidence of anti-semitical teaching by Christian priests, and collaboration by Christian churches to eugenic programs. But Nazism especially in the higher ranks was still anti-christian IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have wondered Syamsu, and I hope I don't digress too far from the topic of the thread, about your view on evolution. A number of people, both creationist and pro-evolution supporters, have reffered to you as being a creationist. I have certainly found your views on natural selection to be highly unorthodox and your critique of darwinism quite strident, but I don't remember anything that struck me as particularly creationist.Where would you say you sit on the evoltuiton-creation question, setting aside for a moment the question of the moral issues you have with Darwinism?Thanks,Wounded

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