Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

KF, although Anscombe makes a point similar to my own, I like to stay within a given frame of reference. Moral condemnation of Hitler is not possible in the same context in which one considers Darwin and ID. Indeed, the the same theater, Darwin is quite unable to expressly condemn the exterminating civilized races, and quite oblivious and unhelpful as to how that jives with the superior civilized nature that make these races "superior". Yet in his picture it is clear that a less ape-like civilized races--without losing that designation of "civilized"--have exterminated the other races. This of course is inevitable within the newly-minted "objective" good of "progress". As for how Hitler related to the ethics of a civilized society, I've quoted him before that he believed 1) Civilized ethics were a central trait of civilized societies, 2) As Germans were the preeminent culture (which they were prior to WWI) they represented the pinnacle of civilization, 3) As the creators of aesthetics and ethics, they could put them aside if survival depended on it. 4) As they were nothing without those with the power to craft them. So Hitler shows a similar tension as Darwin. On one hand we have ethics as the high-mark (and mark) of civilization, but somehow we can exterminate the ape-like races and set those ethics aside to defend those who deem themselves the authors of the bounty of civilization. It seems that all Hitler added was *how* civilized man retains his civility and exterminates the ape-kin as prophesied in the Book of Darwin. Evolution is the process of IS. One thing IS in such a way that it gradually becomes another thing that IS in it's new way. We impart the term "progress" to this, and the species that created the worldwide mindlink of the Internet owes to the progress, that was made without one single ought. OUGHT relates to design. An intentional redirection of what IS. If we need an ought in order to condemn Hitler, and it is absolutely true that we ought to condemn Hitler, then any scheme that does not account for oughts just makes us stupider--definitely if purity of method is to be advocated. That's what I originally referred to as the "stupidity" on this thread. A lot of micro-points, a number of misses that some took to be points. But absolutely no understanding of the inherent relationship between concepts. jjcassidy

JJ: More properly, we cannot derive an ought from an is unless the foundational is grounds that ought. This is Anscombe's point in rebuttal to radical relativism and its underlying metaphysics. (Cf here.) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

So much stupid stuff has gone on above. One guy repeatedly misreading what Darwin describes as many points of similarity as "little difference" (Review NS). And, in defense of the natural origin of morality, Seversky trots out Hume's observation that you cannot derive an ought from an is. Obviously, if that is case, what is to be our response? What ought it to be? It seems that much of this is tied up into what makes good Science. I dare say that Science is supposed to be all IS-es. That being the case, and it all IS, where would we possibly get an ought from by sourcing only Science. Either oughts are and Science doesn't describe them, or they are a secondary manifestation. Of course you can't get an ought from an is, only is-es are real! An ought for example, is that we ought not teach evolution because it causes fascism. But, wait, that ought is simply an expression of bias and preference. Questionable as an emotional utterance. There's another group that thinks we ought to teach it because it is true. Regardless of whether we need God for morality, we need an ought. And if Science displaces our trust in ought, before telling us what it IS--or perhaps by telling us that it IS simply an expression or opinion about preference, then the appeal to the partition between "ought" and "is" IS nothing. If we cannot find a good Scientific ought, then Hitler's atrocity IS NOT criticizable in the same context that we want to use to critique ID. And even the naturalist NEEDS an ought when he uses reverses Hume's skepticism against oughts to argue about how we OUGHT to proceed with this disconnect. This is ultimately why Darwin was completely ineffective in arguing that although we WERE undoubtedly (objectively?) injuring the race of man, we OUGHT not neglect our higher (??) nature. Of course, how that nature related to "exterminating" the the more savage races is another question, because he presents that more of as an WILL BE. If Homo Civilis was always to nurture this sensitive side--as some unquestionable asset--then it either has NOTHING to do with exterminating the more ape-like races of man, or Darwin is presenting the case that "civilized" man will ascend regardless of this selective sympathy. He is as least ambiguous and confused on the matter and so his ethical conclusions--as admirable as they were--didn't leave as big of an impression as that we were undoubtedly injuring our race in letting our "worst" members breed. jjcassidy

Further follow up: On egalitarianism as the root of natural law based morality, from Locke's 2nd treatise on civil Govt, ch 2 in which he quotes "the judicious [Richard] Hooker" in Ecclesiastical Polity thusly:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

Locke goes on to remark:

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . . . so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another . . . . In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security [i.e. we see here the right to self-defense for the community, and also the individual, as is discussed at length in the work], and so he becomes dangerous to mankind . . . . [Ch III, S 17] he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power [i.e. to tyrannise upon another, by force, fraud, usurpation or invasion] does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it.

The in-stamped in-common Imago Dei grounds a fundamental equality that leads tot he legitimacy of common accountability before the Tao, as has long been known. The inherent inequality/elitism and cut-throat survival ofthe fittest races or classes etc competition of evolutionary materialism -- allegedly warranted by "science" -- stands in sharpest contrast to this restraint on our propensities to misbehaviour, with consequences that are now a matter of massive and massively bloody record. Sadly, all of this was foreseen and warned against, to no avail. So easily have we been bewitched by the word magic: "Science proves . . . " (And, the methods of science are inherently provisional and incapable of proof in any strong sense of that term. [For that matter, post Godel, so are the methods of Mathematics. Our civlisation needs to learn a little epistemological humility, methinks.]) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Following up: First, CY, thanks for some kind words. Needed as a balance, and they caused the focus to at least in part shift to a serious reflection. Now, too, it seems that it needs to be pointed out that it is a fundamental datum of our existence that we find ourselves morally obligated; as is reflected in how and why we quarrel -- not just fight. That is, we have an in-built, undeniable fairness expectation that when one party says "you unfair me!" the other does not say "what is fairness and how do you get a so-called right to it?" but instead argues on the premise that fairness is a right is true. Those who seem to think that the is-ought gap driven amorality of evolutionary materialism is irrelevant to enabling a civilisation-destructive trend of gross and destructive immorality, therefore should do a serious rethink. (In short, at worldviews level, AMORALIY in the name of "science proves" is worse than "mere" IMMORALITY. And, historically just such amorality is precisely the context in which C19 - C20 racism, "superman" elitism and revolutionism had appalling consequences, as Darwin projected and as Wells warned against.) And, the hint of the Kantian Categorical Imperative on which we can judge that a pattern of thought and behaviour that credibly results in such destructiveness if it spreads across a society is immoral, is not coincidental. That is, that which is AMORAL as a claimed established and institutionalised worldview, is thus plainly also IMMORAL. That is also why it is a very legitimate conclusion -- even on the strength of this alone -- that evolutionary materialism cannot be correct; as, we all know that we are morally bound, so its amorality reveals its inability to account for patent facts. (Of course, as is discussed at 255, it also cannot ground the credibility of the conscious, reasoning, knowing mind that is required to think evolutionary materialist thoughts too, i.e it is self-referentially absurd. The hard problem of consciousness is hard because it is trying to solve a self-referential incoherence. this is most blatantly seen in say Crick's neurological reductionism: "you're nothing but a pack of neurons," but also comes out in the magic of otherwise unwarranted "emergence" -- "matter in motion under blind forces: poof, magic, mind!") Finally, the way that such evolutionary materialism is held to be a scientific finding and fact that is "indisputable" save by the "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" is that (a) the vast difference between operational science and origins science is improperly blurred, and (b) the question is begged at worldviews level by imposing a redefinition of science that is historically and philosophically unjustified. On the first, we can observe the planets in orbit around the sun, or that the world is round. We cannot observe the remote claimed past of life on our planet, especially the relevant sense of "macroevolution," origin of body plans and associated large jumps in functionally specific complex information. (We CAN observe that the relevant type and scale of information is routinely produced by designers and is beyond t5he reasonable reach of chance and necessity on search space and target grounds on the gamut of our observed cosmos.) On the second, let us call up US NAS member Mr Lewontin as a witness, from his infamous 1997 NYRB article on Sagan's last book:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

It should be plain to all but he "true believers" that worldviews level prejudice like that can have no epistemological credibility. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

vjtorley @ 319

(1) Is it possible to formulate a concept of human nature which is essentially egalitarian - in other words, a concept of human nature which precludes the very possibility of one group of human beings being superior to (or more important than) another group, or of one person mattering more than another? If so, then what is this concept? Or, if an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature is incapable of being formulated, then why not?

Before I could answer that, I would have to ask you to be a little more specific about what you mean by "egalitarian". By what measure are you seeking equality? For example, at the individual level I observe that there are many human beings who are variously younger, stronger, faster, smarter, more talented and more skillful than I am. I do not consider myself their equal in terms of many or all of these abilities or properties. There are also people to whom I am superior in some or all of these fields. By these measures we do not observe equality amongst individual human beings. At the racial level, I would have to ask similar questions. Do we consider the white European/North American race superior or inferior to the black African race and what metric would we use to establish that relationship based purely on racial factors, bearing in mind that science considers the differences between the so-called races to be insignificant. Or are you asking if it is possible to develop a philosophy or ideology or policy in which all human beings, regardless of race, culture, creed, wealth or individual capabilities in a given society are held to have equal rights before the law, are entitled to have those rights respected and protected by their fellows.

(2) Assuming that some essentially egalitarian (and hence non-racist) concept of human nature can be developed, what kinds of social and political systems would be most likely to promote that concept?

Winston Churchill once said in the House of Commons:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I would argue that any system of government which upholds the rights of individuals, which upholds the right of individuals to be individuals and which holds those rights to be supreme is probably the most egalitarian we may be able to set up. We should also bear in mind that any form of social uniformitarianism, such as various communist regimes attempted to impose is not what I would consider 'egalitarian'.

(3) What kind(s) of Deity, if any, is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature, and what kind(s) of Deity is/are not?

As an agnostic/atheist, it is not really for me to say. I can say that I was raised as a Christian and believed in the compassionate, forgiving, all-loving God of the New Testament. There are some here, or who have posted here, who appear to cleave more to the God of the Old Testament. If I were still Christian, I would have to say that I do not consider that deity to be either Christian or worthy of worship.

(4) Which account(s) of human origins is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature?

The value of any account of human origins lies in its accuracy as a description or reconstruction of what actually happened. What moral conclusions may be drawn from such a theory are both irrelevant to its accuracy and, on the basis of the 'is/ought' problem, unfounded.

If I believe that each and every human being has a spiritual soul, like mine, made in the image and likeness of God, then four things follow at once.

Obviously, I do not now share your belief in the existence of a God or soul but I do share your belief in the value of each individual human life and the respect we should accord the rights to which each should be entitled. I cannot ground that evaluation in the decrees of some supreme moral authority but then I believe that any claims for objective grounding of moral prescriptions are philosophically suspect. What I can and do argue is that there is nothing to prevent human beings in society from deciding moral codes by which they agree to be bound and which would be just as valid - and arguably better-grounded - than those prescribed by the various faiths.

Seversky

tsmith:

really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it…should be easy…

isn't that kind of what happens already? according to wiki:

Each year the influenza virus changes and different strains become dominant. Due to the high mutation rate of the virus a particular vaccine formulation is effective for at most about a year. The World Health Organization coordinates the contents of the vaccine each year to contain the most likely strains of the virus to attack the next year.

ohyes

hdx -- And since Hitler never talked about speciation or anything related to macroevolution,

The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker,which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all . . . . . . If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

He is saying that process of evolution created the "higher development of organic life". How is that not macroevolution? tribune7

KF, Your post brought together many parts, it was good reading. I'm guessing you didn't go through the public school system's mill. I think you explained it much better than I did. What the writers after you missed in the "amoral" distinction is that while darwinism could be called amoral in an ultimate kind of way, the point is that it lends itself the best to bad stuff happening. Just as there's a whole lot of good that can be taken from Karl Marx, the point is that it's so easily twisted to bad ends. This would be a hard point to argue if Neodarwinist evolution was on firm footing but it's not, so it shouldn't be given exclusive rights. Evolution is at a watershed now where further research can't bring it back to naturalism. You'd have to believe that the cell machinery and genetic entropy and double helix's etc, each and every point can be reconciled. Everyone on both sides knows that this is impossible, and there's only one direction research can go towards. So I'm not worried from a scientific viewpoint but instead how it's communicated to the public. "We therefore need to recapture the C19 - early C20 milieu, in which “science” and “progress” — the latter usually explicitly tied to an evolutionary and often explicitly socially darwinist view (and often with race and/or class as key evolutionary varieties) — were the twin engines of “hope.” (In that context, H G Wells was a dystopian, warning about the moral dangers of materialist and/or irresponsible science through the War of the Worlds, Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau. [Observe the contrast with Jules Verne, who was much more celebratory over he prospects of science.])" I read the unabomber manifesto recently, it's worth reading. And while I don't agree with his methods, he convinces me on the point that technology developed too far is always bad. His solution is to force a dark ages on us. I'd like a more long term solution but in the meantime I think religion should be promoted as a stop-gap. The founding fathers thought the same thing probably. They were interested in promoting religion in this country and so made the church and state separation. It's not just darwinism that bothers me but that all this new science is being used by a global elite to control people. Jefferson said this republic will only last if it remains agrarian. My bottom line is I wouldn't have a problem with Darwinism or the materialist agenda if the humanities were keeping pace with technology advances, and I think this will happen if enough time is given. lamarck

There have been a great many claims and counter-claims on this thread, so I'd like to make a suggestion. What we should be focusing on are these four questions: (1) Is it possible to formulate a concept of human nature which is essentially egalitarian - in other words, a concept of human nature which precludes the very possibility of one group of human beings being superior to (or more important than) another group, or of one person mattering more than another? If so, then what is this concept? Or, if an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature is incapable of being formulated, then why not? (2) Assuming that some essentially egalitarian (and hence non-racist) concept of human nature can be developed, what kinds of social and political systems would be most likely to promote that concept? (3) What kind(s) of Deity, if any, is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature, and what kind(s) of Deity is/are not? (4) Which account(s) of human origins is/are compatible with an essentially egalitarian concept of human nature? For those who might want to follow up a cogent Christian perspective on these issues, I would recommend the following reading. Economy or Explication? Telling the Truth About God and Man in a Pluralist Society by Professor John Finnis. Aquinas' Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy by John Finnis. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Defense of the Immateriality of the Human Soul Hylemorphic Dualism by David Oderberg, University of Reading. From Augustine's Mind to Aquinas' Soul by Fr. John O'Callaghan, Creighton University. (I suggest that readers scroll down half-way to "The Philosophical Claim" and continue reading to the end.) Why the concept of God, properly understood, strengthens rather than weakens the notion of the natural moral law C. S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma by Steve Lovell, at http://www.theism.net/article/29 . Addresses the question: are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? C. S. Lewis argued that the key to the answer lay in the essential goodness of God. I have voiced my own opinions on some of these matters on another thread, but I'd just like to briefly restate the reasons why I think that the belief that every human being has a spiritual sould, created by God, is the best defense against racism or any other kind of -ism which puts people down. Here goes. If I believe that each and every human being has a spiritual soul, like mine, made in the image and likeness of God, then four things follow at once. First, each and every human being possesses a value which cannot be adequately expressed in purely material (let alone monetary) terms. Nothing on Earth can be compared to the value of one human life. Second, each and every human being is just as important as I am: we all have human souls, and spiritual attributes are not quantitative, so no person’s soul can be greater than another person’s. Third, each and every human being exists for the same reason as I do: to know, love and serve God. He/She is a child of God. Fourth, each and every human being has an eternal destiny. He/She was made to be happy with God forever in Heaven. Some religious believers may have forgotten or overlooked these truths in times past. But that does not make them any the less true. It merely makes the people who didn't live up to these truths hypocrites. Is belief in evolution compatible with the religious vision of our origin and ultimate destiny described above? Only if this belief goes hand-in-hand with a humble acknowledgement that a comprehensive "bottom-up" (or reductionist) account of human nature is impossible, and that our capacity for reason is God-given. vjtorley

Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models

really? so what does the flu virus evolve into?? 8xhe8sk (something new)?? haven't seen that...all that 'macro' evolution of a flu virus isn't it still the flu??? tsmith

Your knowledge of evolution is atrocious. Evolution can’t predict what specific changes will be made with the flu virus.

well then what good is it?? might as well say a little green martian made the flu virus. But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus. uh no, the little green man programmed the virus to change... tsmith

hdx:

Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in hummans are based on animal models, which wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t common ancestry.

Except for the fact that common design and convergence explain the SAME data that UCD does. Joseph

hdx:

But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus.

Mutations cause the changes. Evolution is a result. IOW your knowledge of evolution is atrocious. Joseph

KF @301:

And so, we should just as firmly — but with civility — insist that the facts and their implications be faced.

The implications are disturbing, indeed. It's unpleasant even to write of them, because, taken out of context, my own words would make me seem a very sick person. But if morality, and by extension, our moral outrage at wrongdoing are simply evolved behaviors, just like the wrongs themselves which provoke it, here are the implications: Hitler's genocide, and others, were not absolute evils. They were decisions we disagree with. Our moral outrage is subjective. Had the Third Reich succeeded, those same actions might be considered moral and just by most men. Further, the victims of those actions deserve neither pity nor sympathy. Natural selection chooses some and others die. Do we memorialize every population that gets wiped out by disease or predation, by which one creature kills another for its own perceived benefit? The Nazis' victims died because their environmental niche turned hostile. It happens all the time. So what? As I said before, I don't propose such reasoning as scientific evidence against Darwninism. But if, as a Darwinist, one cannot accept such reasoning without hesitation, without flinching, then why not? To accept a premise and not follow it through to its logical conclusion is intellectually dishonest. To those readers: Look it in the eye. It's what you believe. If you cannot accept it, then the reasons why are worth exploring. ScottAndrews

"Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in humans are based on animal models, which wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t common ancestry." This has been discussed many times before and is essentially the issue of homology. It ignores the mechanism that produces the differences. Understand no one is disputing that changes occurred and that some of these changes were large changes. The issue is what caused the large changes or what is the mechanism. Since Darwinian processes have never shown any capability of producing these changes, the debate is over what is the mechanism. Darwinian processes can produce micro evolution or small changes but they cannot produce macro evolution or large changes. The common perceived wisdom is that small changes add up to large changes but this falls apart when one uses an information processing model of the genome. So there are really two separate areas of evolution and one should not conflate one with the other. jerry

really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it…should be easy… Your knowledge of evolution is atrocious. Evolution can't predict what specific changes will be made with the flu virus. But evolution definitely does cause changes in the flu virus. Does keep me employed since some of the work I do has involves detection of the H1N1 Swine Flu. hdx

kairosfocus @ 301

The real problem with the example of this case is that it documents the problem of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism: it is an IS that can ground no OUGHTS.

Quite right. The theory of evolution is amoral - as distinct from immoral. It is a theory in biology not ethics, just like theories of gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics are theories in physics. They are constructed to describe and explain aspects of the observable Universe, not make judgements about them. And, as you rightly point out, you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. That would also apply to any God who 'is'. Just because He might tell us to behave in certain ways does not mean He's right and we ought to obey Him. If He 'isn't' then, of course, He's irrelevant.

Of course, Hume’s “surprize” is rhetorical. (He full well knows that those who argue in the context of God find in God an IS who grounds all OUGHTS.

And he also knows full well that those who do so argue have no more justification for trying to "ground" their morality in an 'is' that isn't than in an 'is' that is.

He is really hinting at something like the Euthryphro dilemma, in an era where were he to have done so explicitly and directly, he would have been brushed aside with the longstanding classical answer: God’s goodness of character and status as undisputed Creator and Lord, ground oughts as the means of his moral government, and do so without arbitrariness.

And he would have been well aware that this so-called "classical answer" is rhetorical ploy that amounts to a blatant failure to engage the substance and the underlying evidence supporting the case against the existence of a God and any claims for overriding moral authority made on His behalf.

But Hume’s usual subtle game is to shift the burden of proof unduly and set up selectively hyperskeptical terms of engagement, just as he does most notoriously on miracles.)

Hume is keeping the burden of proof right where it belongs, with whoever is making a claim, as in his rightly celebrated case concerning miracles. Chanting "selectively hyperskeptical" does not answer a good argument or make it go away.

We now have amorality that grounds social darwinist immorality, and corrupts science, medicine, law and policy alike.

Sorry, no, you can't ground immorality in amorality any more than you can ground morality in amorality. It's just another version of the 'is/ought' problem.

This began to unravel in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, as it was discovered where the "logical" outcome of such thinking ends. So, Germany became the paradigm case of undisputed evil. (Never mind that Stalin's Gulag actually seems to have killed more than herr Schicklegruber's, and Mao's much more yet again. [Not to mention 48+ million unborn victims of the US abortion policy since 1973.])

Speaking of being selective, all this quietly ignores the fact that human beings have been committing evil acts against each other at least as long as recorded history. Just look at the Old Testament for a start. And how about the Spanish conquistadores rampaging through the Americas? They didn't need the theory of evolution to inflict the most appalling catastrophes on the native peoples. Just being good Christians was more than enough. Or what about the European powers plundering Africa, Asia and Australasia for natural resources - which, for them, included slaves - well before "survival of the fittest" was ever though of? There is more than sufficient evidence to support the claim that all of the evils referred to above have been endemic in human society long before Darwin. The Nazi policy of scapegoating and then massacring Jews may have been conducted on a much larger scale but it was far from being the only example of horrors in European history. The theory of evolution may have provided an additional justification for the Nazi policy but it is neither sufficient nor necessary to account for long-standing anti-Semitism in Europe of which it was but one more - admittedly extreme - example. In my view, any history of the rise of National Socialism in Germany which isolates Darwin's theory of evolution as a primary cause while minimizing the roles of the many other causal chains on which such events are contingent runs the risk of being viewed as partisan advocacy rather than the objective and disinterested scholarship which is its ostensible purpose. Seversky

@308 tsmith said evolution, and made no distinciton between the two. And since Hitler never talked about speciation or anything related to macroevolution, the whole point is that Hitler's concept of evolution is different from Darwin's and closer to ID/creationism (since both agree on microevolution but not common descent) Second macro evolution is important in medicine, since many disease models in hummans are based on animal models, which wouldn't make sense if there wasn't common ancestry. hdx

Evolution is always in an important topic. In fact Yesterday I was reading about how useful evolutionary models where for predicting the resistance of HIV to antiviral drugs. Or was HIV designed to resist drugs? I still haven’t seen a creationist or ID models to predict the resistance of HIV to drugs.

really? ok, then go ahead and design a flu vaccine for the NEXT iteration (mutation) of the flu virus..use the awesome powers of evolution to predict it...should be easy... so why would coyne say this??

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell's fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all

and why the lament from the article...

It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine's most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as "evolution" in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].

link tsmith

"Evolution is always in an important topic" You are talking about micro evolution and this is not controversial. No one is disputing micro evolution. So to bring it up or continue with it is an irrelevant diversion. jerry

and evolution has nothing to do with modern medicine either…

As someone who works in the biomedical field, I can say that you have no clue what you are talking about. Evolution is always in an important topic. In fact Yesterday I was reading about how useful evolutionary models where for predicting the resistance of HIV to antiviral drugs. Or was HIV designed to resist drugs? I still haven't seen a creationist or ID models to predict the resistance of HIV to drugs. In many other topics of medicine, evolutionary models are also useful. hdx

said you were bearing false witness. I didn’t say you intended to deceive. You don’t read too good, it seems.

now you're lying about your lies...too funny.

But since many religious people support science, and since it is science which created the internet and modern medicine and got us to the moon, to call it “atheistic faith” is quite nonsensical.

sorry Darwin didn't invent the internet, that was ALGORE...and evolution has nothing to do with modern medicine either...or getting us to the moon. and yes evolutionary biology is an atheistic faith, as I have proven, and as its supporters, like miller and provine admit. too bad you cannot admit the truth, but, as we have seen, the truth is not in you.

What I said, tsmith, is that the consensus of historians say the rise of Hitler was due to a range of factors. Your inability to process basic information is quite astounding

the 'consensus'..right...whenever someone says the word 'consensus' they're lying. you can't name any names, just spew unsupported talking points. given your proclivity for lies and your intellectual shallowness, I'm real curious as to what your job is.

Let me just re-state for the record all of the positive evidence you have discussed for Intelligent Design in this thread…

whats the title of this thread again?? 'hitler's ether, the Nazi pursuit of ID'???? no its... Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress are you masochistic?? do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself?? tsmith

olearyfan -- I said you were bearing false witness. That would be calling him a liar. Don't try to parse it. You are using the phrasing of the Commandment and the Commandment involves not just intent to deceive but intent to damage. tribune7

KF, "So, we know what is at stake, and why there is such a stout distractive or deflective rhetorical resistance when this topic is brought up. And so, we should just as firmly — but with civility — insist that the facts and their implications be faced." While others here were most assuredly contemplating the "evils" of God, I spent several hours reading the material in your post and its links. And none of it was verbose. It seems some arguments get lost in the rhetorical sea of quck summaries. Your posts seem to float above all that. You took me from the jungles of Africa to Nazi Germany, to the courts of America, covering a century and a half of history in that time, with one clear focus - evil's clear rejection of a law-giver. Ideas have consequences indeed. Excellent post. CannuckianYankee

tsmith

so you called me a liar first. you’re wrong of course, but facts don’t matter to darwinists, obviously.

I said you were bearing false witness. I didn't say you intended to deceive. You don't read too good, it seems.

so you don’t know, and your ’science’ is nothing more than athiestic faith.

Of course there are limits to our knowledge. But since many religious people support science, and since it is science which created the internet and modern medicine and got us to the moon, to call it "atheistic faith" is quite nonsensical.

in other words ya got nothing…LOL..no surprise. Most of the historians I mentioned were also contemporaries of Hitler, they knew the era VERY well…

What I said, tsmith, is that the consensus of historians say the rise of Hitler was due to a range of factors. Your inability to process basic information is quite astounding.

LOL at least I can name names and provide research and links that actually support my postion, instead of undermining it…

Let me just re-state for the record all of the positive evidence you have discussed for Intelligent Design in this thread... [ ] There. That was easy. olearyfan

Seversky @ 297:

He gets away with it, though, because he is “goodness” personified and the foundation of objective morality. Thus, genocide - or should that be something like ‘bioticide’ - on a planetary scale is a good thing. It is only bad when atheists try their hand at it.

Over at TVTropes, they refer to this phenomenon as "Designated Hero". To quote:

It might be easier to present this character as being deliberately morally ambiguous, if not for other characters (and the writers) repeated[ly] implying they have great traits.

A related trope is "What The Hell, Hero?", best summarized I think by this snippet:

Sometimes, the author doesn't realize his hero just wiped out all the Ewoks...

dbthomas

Lamarck: As the linked lecture documents, it is a bit more complex than schoolyard bullyism writ large; though that is a definite personal component. (We need to ask why any presumably sane culture would hand itself over to the tender mercies of grown up schoolyard bullies, given what we all know of such by observation and/or experience.) We therefore need to recapture the C19 - early C20 milieu, in which "science" and "progress" -- the latter usually explicitly tied to an evolutionary and often explicitly socially darwinist view (and often with race and/or class as key evolutionary varieties) -- were the twin engines of "hope." (In that context, H G Wells was a dystopian, warning about the moral dangers of materialist and/or irresponsible science through the War of the Worlds, Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau. [Observe the contrast with Jules Verne, who was much more celebratory over he prospects of science.]) In the particular case in view in this thread, the above lecture -- observe how the Darwinist advocates above have refused to actually engage the substance and underlying historical evidence of the lecture, resorting instead to "lost in the rage" rhetorical tactics -- and the online articles here and here will help us see what was going on. The real problem with the example of this case is that it documents the problem of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism: it is an IS that can ground no OUGHTS. So, if in the name of "science" it becomes a dominant view in the decision making and decision influencing classes of a culture, it tends to drive out morality from power considerations. (And it seems these trends are resurfacing in our day.) Now, the is-ought gap problem goes back to Hume:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. [book III, part I, section I of his A Treatise of Human Nature]

Of course, Hume's "surprize" is rhetorical. (He full well knows that those who argue in the context of God find in God an IS who grounds all OUGHTS. He is really hinting at something like the Euthryphro dilemma, in an era where were he to have done so explicitly and directly, he would have been brushed aside with the longstanding classical answer: God's goodness of character and status as undisputed Creator and Lord, ground oughts as the means of his moral government, and do so without arbitrariness. But Hume's usual subtle game is to shift the burden of proof unduly and set up selectively hyperskeptical terms of engagement, just as he does most notoriously on miracles.) Now, in a civlisation increasingly driven by that sort of skepticism, enter stage left a new theory of science that sweeps all before it, on our origins, in a context that is also simultaneously arguing that inferences from apparent design to God as designer a la Paley are thereby undermined and proposing that the evils of the natural world are a second argument against such Design. Suddenly, the civlisational tide shifts, and we begin to face a culture that in its intelligentsia is more and more driven by the view that IS cannot ground OUGHT, and the scientifically credible is is a matter of cutthroat struggle for existence at the expense of lesser breeds. We now have amorality that grounds social darwinist immorality, and corrupts science, medicine, law and policy alike. In the socialist movement, this takes place in the name of dialectic materialist social evolution driven by economic manifestations, and leads to Communist Russia. In Germany, it grounds itself in the Blavatsky Aryan Man myth -- a largely lost once higher sixth stage of human evolution, now to be recovered by the races closest to that ideal (the Swastika being a cultural artifact of the Aryans . . . ) -- and ends in herr Schicklegruber's regime. In Britain, it comes down to the white man's burden [not to mention, the identification of the upper classes as the evolutionary elites and the robber baron capitalists as similar elites), and justifies the sort of behaviour indulged by a Cecil Rhodes. It also spawns the eugenicist movement, which boils down to being a softened version of Darwin's envisioned elimination of inferior races by the superior ones. In America, what wee may call eugenicism . . . "applied biology" . . . is the driving force of several key "progressive" social-cultural movements, indeed it is even embedded in the textbook at the heart of the Scopes Monkey trial. (Oddly, in those days, too, much of the "fundamentalist" movement was caught up in the same vision. Young Earth Creationism, from one perspective, is a protest movement against the social-cultural implications of the progressivist- evolutionary myth. That is why the Ota Benga story is so pivotal in understanding the dynamics at work.) This began to unravel in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, as it was discovered where the "logical" outcome of such thinking ends. So, Germany became the paradigm case of undisputed evil. (Never mind that Stalin's Gulag actually seems to have killed more than herr Schicklegruber's, and Mao's much more yet again. [Not to mention 48+ million unborn victims of the US abortion policy since 1973.]) Unfortunately, it has been much harder to get a serious rethink of the underlying philosophy, history of ideas and "science" going in our civlisation. And in particular, science has been insulated from having to address the moral hazard that lies at he core of materialism-dominated paradigms: a "scientific" materialist view of reality asserts that all that is, is an IS that plainly can ground no oughts; and has played a key enabling role in the rise of indisputable evil. That is, utterly demonic evil is all too real -- and can triumph in the most civlised and "scientific" of countries, and in the name of "science" too -- so needs to be reckoned a fact of reality. But, the prevailing view of science among the professoriat and other halls of our intelligentsia is a materialist-evolutionary one: a view of reality that only admits of ISes that can ground no OUGHTS. That is, we have now come to an Acts 17-style critical instability in the foundation of the [hyper-]modernist, evolutionary materialist worldview. That is why the rhetoric, rage and immoral equivalency arguments are so intense on this topic; as, this is the point where the key crack in the foundation of the evolutionary materialist view is most obvious. (And, it is a point that as soon as we consider comparative difficulties on the reality of evil points strongly to a grounding reality beyond the material.) So, we know what is at stake, and why there is such a stout distractive or deflective rhetorical resistance when this topic is brought up. And so, we should just as firmly -- but with civility -- insist that the facts and their implications be faced. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

This idea that Stalin and Hitler and Mao were wrestling with different ideologies and came to the conclusion that Darwin or Jesus were right or wrong is in opposition to how we see politicians act today. They use religion as a tool. When you see a bully on the playground he's not wrestling with abstractions. He'll grow up and still do the same thing but with words. It's a lack of introspection because rage is clouding vision. Insanity is likely not a logical process. When I'm angry I'm not thinking logically, so I have to conclude that these people are feeling chronically what most feel once in a while, and this long term heavy burden leads to extremes if the person is in power. You'll only be able to feel release when you destroy, just as normal people get emotional release of anger through destruction. So ideologies that lean towards destruction if "bought" by the masses, while at the same time lending a veneer of justification, are the ideal choices for Hitler etc. Right now China has their citizens convincingly brainwashed on "nationalist pride" as an abstract ideology. Bad propaganda is as powerful as it contains some grains of truth, without weakening it's power to destroy. People that espouse this type of nationalism the quickest aren't concerned with China's pride. They see it as the best vehicle to destroy everything with a seemingly valid justification. It's all about destruction and this is what Neodarwinism is. This country is the same way. Eventually microchips will be implanted in babies because enough fools think this will bring safety. Safety is always the tool used to get rid of civil liberties because it's close to the truth. The founding fathers knew this and Jefferson didn't think we'd be able to fight the bankers off our backs for long, he gave it 100 years. But anyways, I don't think we can look to history to see anything like what's being set up now. Because Neodarwinism is specifically about ensuring that everyone knows their worthless and there's nothing worth living for. This is unprecedented if it succeeds. I mean there's many vectors to what's suppressing mankind, there's taxes, TV, drugs, the IMF etc, but Darwinism is right up there with those, or even worse. I predict disaster for the world if Darwinism gets a much firmer grip on the next generation. Darwinism isn't that powerful just now but if they got a really good grip on everyone it's all over. I'm glad to see higher physics going forward into spiritualism and mystic minds etc. I saw a vid where an oxford physicist says we're all from another universe. lamarck

Quoted by DATCG: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection." Interesting. It almost sounds like a follow-up to OctoMom. CannuckianYankee

Lenoxus, "Effeminate is when talking about straight men acting weak." Well when I think of effeminate I think of a man having manerisms that are strikingly characteristic of a woman's. If you state that effeminate means straight men acting weak, you really offend a whole lot of people - women, effeminate men, and 'weak-acting" men of any sexual preference. Perhaps you should switch to a better label. I was rather taken aback by this. I know this is off topic, but I thought I'd point that out. CannuckianYankee

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism

According to the Bible, God killed more than the lot of them put together. He gets away with it, though, because he is "goodness" personified and the foundation of objective morality. Thus, genocide - or should that be something like 'bioticide' - on a planetary scale is a good thing. It is only bad when atheists try their hand at it. And atheists are accused of moral relativism? Seversky

Clive Hayden @ 293

I’ll answer if you don’t mind. Cats would be specially created if man were.

Speaking personally, I'd say that if anything were specially created it was cats. I'm pretty sure they think so, anyway Seversky

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism Nope tribune7

olearyfan -- since the second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the “moral decline” I don't know that secularists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the late Oriana Fallaci would agree. tribune7

Gaz, ------"OK - so by your thinking, if you feed a small kitten into your waste disposal unit and switch it on, then that is not immoral because cats & kittens are not a special creation. Correct?" I'll answer if you don't mind. Cats would be specially created if man were. Clive Hayden

Mr DATCG, Morality could evolve or could not evolve? I think you should choose a position before you start arguing. Nakashima

Eugenics is Baaaaaaaaack, current today under a name called Science

this is just restoring science to its rightful place!!

There can be no evolved morality with unguided evoution.

BINGO! tsmith

Nakashima, You quote ScottAndrews... "If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn’t immorality also an evolved behavior?" then say, "I think you should be more explicit there in step two." Why? The statement stands solid. If moral behavior evolved, then so does pedophilia, rape, murder, incest, stealing, cheating on test at universities, cheating on published scientific papers, peeping Toms, corrupt politicians, failed housing projects with crooks and liars, adulterers, homosexuals, polygamist, beatiality, drugs addictions, alcoholism, etc., etc., ad infinitum. How much detail do you demand? If every part of us is evolution by unguided processes then immorality evolved as well as morality. You cannot judge either of these evolved behaivors as being wrong in society. Society itself thus has no right to invoke any judgement of anyone's evolved traits. SAndrews statement stands solid according to unguided evolution. This is why Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Darwin's cousin Francis, China's Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, Chavez, etc., have every right in atheist systems to exercise their evolved powers over the weaker, less evolved. This is why China and India have a right to not participate in Global Warming consensus. The Chinese and Indians did not evolve mentally to do so. Only time will tell which mentally evolved species of human is correct. The species that evolved Global Warming Crisis traits, or those that evolved Don't Care traits. Since every thought is captive to unguided evolutionary processes, why does it matter? There can be no evolved morality with unguided evoution. DATCG

Mr. Nakashima, We may be outraged at some moral offense (worst case scenario, a genocide.) But do we credit evolution with our sense of right and wrong and not also with the genocide? Or have we suddenly and conveniently discovered aspects of ourselves which did not evolve? Thus, both morality and genocide have the same root cause. The underlying behaviors evolved to further our survival. That makes our sense of right and wrong arbitrary. We can lock up the murderer, but it's for our own benefit. If he had his reasons, we can't really say he was wrong. ScottAndrews

Eungenics believer, Totalitarian population controls in the Obama Administration. John Holdren - Science Czar Sample quotes... "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." The Hitlerian conclusions, the Mao-like pronunciations continue... "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection." Eugenics is Baaaaaaaaack, current today under a name called Science! In todays Amdinistration. To be fair to Teh One, I'm sure he did not know he appointed a real Russian Czar. I hope O'Leary sees this. Eugenics never died in the far left agenda of Socialist state mantras. DATCG

Mr ScottAndrews, If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn’t immorality also an evolved behavior? I think you should be more explicit there in step two. Nakashima

olearyfan:

I don’t agree that morality is an “illusion”.

Fair enough. But surely the notion that we are obligated to obey any moral code is an illusion. If I can kill my neighbor, take his stuff, and dump his body without getting caught, who's to say that's wrong? If I benefit, that's good, right? I can give some of his stuff to my kids. Even better. If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn't immorality also an evolved behavior? We can incarcerate or execute the immoral for our own perceived benefit, but that's no more right or wrong than a virus invading or a blood cell defending. If we're animals then we're just animals. ScottAndrews

You should know that being an MA.

BTW..MS...not MA... tsmith

I said you were bearing false witness, tsmith. Time and time again you make absolute statements about what you claim other people say.

so you called me a liar first. you're wrong of course, but facts don't matter to darwinists, obviously.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the eye evolved. HOW it evolved is a different matter. “We do not know” is a perfectly acceptable answer

so you don't know, and your 'science' is nothing more than athiestic faith.

The inference that an intelligent designer might even be part of that understanding

not according to 'science'...ie evolutionary faith.

Go and pick any University history textbook on the rise of Nazism and the Hitler. Turn to the bibliography. Start there.

in other words ya got nothing...LOL..no surprise. Most of the historians I mentioned were also contemporaries of Hitler, they knew the era VERY well...

They are also not the place to hurl abuse and to accuse other of spewing “talking points” when that is all you have to offer yourself.

LOL at least I can name names and provide research and links that actually support my postion, instead of undermining it... tsmith

ScottAndrews: But if we are animals, then we really are just animals, and we should cast off our illusions of morality along with our mythologies.

I don't agree that morality is an "illusion". But I do agree that we need to consider carefully what morality is and what it isn't.

tsmith: eugenics does have a basis in science. I’ve posted plenty of proof, for any other than a darwiniac that is.

A scientific veneer does not science make.

look at who is complaining…re-read the posts, you called me a liar first, I believe…

I said you were bearing false witness, tsmith. Time and time again you make absolute statements about what you claim other people say.

and what does common descent have to do with listing the mutations that led to an eye???

Clearly science does not know this "list of mutations".

oh ok you take it on FAITH that the eye evolved….

It is perfectly reasonable to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the eye evolved. HOW it evolved is a different matter. "We do not know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. The inference that an intelligent designer might even be part of that understanding. You do remember intelligent design, tsmith? That is supposedly what this forum is here to discuss.

you haven’t answered what historians agree with you..remember???

Go and pick any University history textbook on the rise of Nazism and the Hitler. Turn to the bibliography. Start there. A friendly hint, tsmith... Internet forums are not the place to seek more than basic knowledge. You should know that being an MA. They are also not the place to hurl abuse and to accuse other of spewing "talking points" when that is all you have to offer yourself. It makes you look foolish. olearyfan

CY, Effeminate is when talking about straight men acting weak. It's not a sign of weakness if you act like a female if you are one, and it's not about gays either they have another motivation. Women aren't weaker than men in a mental sense. I'm talking about how Darwinism makes you think less of yourself and how this is one of the manifestations. KF, I disagree with you about Tsmith comments. I like sarcasm when it's on point. lamarck

olearyfan: you haven't answered what historians agree with you..remember???

The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World really? well name names…how hard is this??? so SIR Arthur Keith was just a charlatan huh???

name names, don't be shy now!! don't worry, I won't hold my breath!! LOL tsmith

I have said at every turn that eugenics is wrong and has no basis in science. You appear to have some sort of problem of cognition

you have an 'excuse' problem...always giving one for darwin. and you're wrong, as repeatedly proven, eugenics does have a basis in science. I've posted plenty of proof, for any other than a darwiniac that is.

wonder, tsmith, if an evolutionist repeatedly called another poster a liar and used a pejorative term to refer to creationists… I wonder how long they would be allowed to post here…

look at who is complaining...re-read the posts, you called me a liar first, I believe... you post the POPE to defend science??? too funny. sorry I don't believe in common descent, and I don't really care if behe does or not. Don’t be absurd. If Michael Behe accepts most of common descent, why shouldn’t I? and what does common descent have to do with listing the mutations that led to an eye??? again you have to put up straw men to avoid the issue...try answering the question for once..but its obvious you can do no more than post talking points.

We know that the eye has evolved. How this happened, mechanistically, is beyond our knowledge. It might even be beyond our understanding

oh ok you take it on FAITH that the eye evolved....

But to pretend that organisms in the distant past did not have eyes, and that the ability to perceive light and then sight did not arise over billions of years, is simple stupidity, plain and simple

never said they didn't, another lie on your part...but its a darwiniac MO...so tell me how 'sight arose'...you can't...whats stupid is to pretend faith is science. Except rape is not justified in any modern morality in any culture. and that has what to do with the evolutionary basis of morality??? more straw men. I thought the problem was that atheists rejected much of your “morality” only when atheists get absolute power....see stalin, mao, pol pot, etc... you're not encumbered by honesty...guess thats a part of morality you forgot... tsmith

PS: OLF, I think you could do with a read of Vox Day here. kairosfocus

olearyfan,

If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you. If you require a bearded-thunderer to tell you the difference between right and wrong, that is your problem not mine or anyone elses.

On the one hand, we have individuals who have evolved a sense of morality. We also have people who rape and kill and do as they please. They evolved that way, too. Looking at the same thing a different way, we have individuals who follow a deliberately instilled conscience and moral laws. We also have people who exercise their free will, disregard their conscience and morals, and rape, kill, etc. They look about the same side by side. The biggest difference is that any judgment against crime in the first scenario is arbitrary. Our moral code is an illusion. If someone rapes or kills and doesn't get caught, was it wrong? Morality simply becomes a viewpoint enforced upon others. If the majority decides to commit or permit genocide against a minority, who's to say they shouldn't? I am not citing this reasoning as evidence against Darwinism. It's not evidence of anything. Neither, in my opinion, is what Hitler or Darwin did or didn't believe. But if we are animals, then we really are just animals, and we should cast off our illusions of morality along with our mythologies. ScottAndrews

Onlookers: Unfortunately, and as TS has highlighted, most of the above responses by Darwinists show us the underlying problem of propagation of talking points rather than a considered reflection on serious issues and historical documents. For just one instance, I would like to see a serious darwinist exposition of what herr Schicklegruber et al meant by: >> In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, survival of the fittest, for food and for reproduction, including Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development . . . >> Then, I would like to see the key distinction to be made between that and Darwin's: >> Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals . . . . Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [NB: Despite some nive remarks on negro regiments in an 1873 letter, the above remarks stand unaltered int eh 1874 Edn of Descent, i.e it is plain that Darwin retained his same scientific views, and failed to address the moral hazard running through the middle of his work. So, as we study the ethical issues of science and society, we need to learn from that and to address relevant issues on the merits, however painful they must be.]>> That, we need to bear in mind onwards. Cheerio . . . GEM of TKI PS: Evolutionary materialism -- a la Lewontin et al -- is a world view that claims to be warranted by the findings of science. As a worldview, it must therefore address the issues of grounding mind and morality, or fail at he bar of comparative difficulties. That is the challenge I have posed above. kairosfocus

tsmith

LOL lying for darwin…too funny…is there ANY lengths you won’t go to justify evil?

I have said at every turn that eugenics is wrong and has no basis in science. You appear to have some sort of problem of cognition. I wonder, tsmith, if an evolutionist repeatedly called another poster a liar and used a pejorative term to refer to creationists... I wonder how long they would be allowed to post here...

have an MS (not in biology) so I understand a little about science…and evolution is just a fairy tale for atheists

You understand a little about science. <a href="Michael Behe: "Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution." Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith. I take it you are a creationist. Young Earth or Old Earth, I wonder?

ok, here prove your ’science’….tell me the exact mutations that led to an eye…IN ORDER…or better yet, take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal!! *cough* good luck *cough* *laugh*

Don't be absurd. If Michael Behe accepts most of common descent, why shouldn't I? I should also quote the wise words of Dr Dembski in this regard. I do not need to "match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." We know that the eye has evolved. How this happened, mechanistically, is beyond our knowledge. It might even be beyond our understanding. But to pretend that organisms in the distant past did not have eyes, and that the ability to perceive light and then sight did not arise over billions of years, is simple stupidity, plain and simple.

another laughable darwiniac talking point…of course in an evolutionary framework rape would be perfectly fine in order to pass along your genes..

Except rape is not justified in any modern morality in any culture. (It's arguably justified in the ancient world and in the Bible, but that is a different matter). Hmmm... Perhaps all this morality and science is more difficult than you thought?

so much so that atheists have to steal our morality, since they are unable to come up with anything better.

I thought the problem was that atheists rejected much of your "morality"? Gosh, now I am confused. Not as confused as you are, but then it appears that I'm not encumbered by your ignorance and rudeness either. olearyfan

kairosfocus: after that last post of olearyfan, the sarcasm is well deserved. the very monikor of him/hers is sarcastic... tsmith

TS: Pardon a quiet note. Please, tone down on sarcasm etc. (UD does not need a flame war.) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

“Grand” in context means large and immense. it does not mean “good”.

LOL lying for darwin...too funny...is there ANY lengths you won't go to justify evil? your own posts prove how foolish your ideas are....too funny!!

What exactly are your qualifications in evolutionary science

I have an MS (not in biology) so I understand a little about science...and evolution is just a fairy tale for atheists. ok, here prove your 'science'....tell me the exact mutations that led to an eye...IN ORDER...or better yet, take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal!! *cough* good luck *cough* *laugh*

If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you

LOL...more darwiniac 'logic' duck the question, put up a straw man!!

I can only assume mr tsmith, that if you lost whatever religion you had, that you would immediately rush out and rape and steal and murder and plunder.

another laughable darwiniac talking point...of course in an evolutionary framework rape would be perfectly fine in order to pass along your genes.. Of course, only Christians can be moral so much so that atheists have to steal our morality, since they are unable to come up with anything better. tsmith

tsmith

did you read what you posted???

"Grand" in context means large and immense. it does not mean "good". "Utopian" means unattainable. Your inability to read in context is remarkable.

evolution IS bad science…tell that to planned parenthood…

What exactly are your qualifications in evolutionary science, Mr. tsmith, that you are so qualified to cast judgement upon it? *cough* Dunning-Kruger *cough*

another dodge…do darwiniacs ever think through an issue, or is parroting talking points all you can do…again what is the basis of morality in evolution???

One question mark at a time is quite sufficient, tsmith. Morality exists. It provides great benefits to society. Without it, we would not have societies. Without it, we would not have reached the Moon, or created the Internet. Without it, we would not be having this discussion. If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you. If you require a bearded-thunderer to tell you the difference between right and wrong, that is your problem not mine or anyone elses. I can only assume mr tsmith, that if you lost whatever religion you had, that you would immediately rush out and rape and steal and murder and plunder. Of course, you could actually take the time to read up on the history and development of ethics. If you liked.

of course ’science’ is good pure and holy…right.

Of course not. It is a human endeavour and it as open to misuse as any other human endeavor.

the very one…perhaps if europe hadn’t ditched its christianity, and its guts, they wouldn’t have let in the muslims to colonize their countries in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ and perhaps they would have actually cared for those old people left to die in the heat wave….

Of course, only Christians can be moral. All. Science. So. Far. olearyfan

We do have a letter from Darwin to Galton expressing his scepticism over the concept of controlled social breeding in human beings.

did you read what you posted???

Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance

. It was always based on bad science, and it has been thoroughly rejected for decades.

evolution IS bad science...tell that to planned parenthood...

Which part of Intelligent Design requires me to believe that Hitler arose directly from the work of Charles Darwin

reading is fundamental. so whether darwin was around at the time galton founded the eugenics society is of little matter...and of course his son Leonard took over as its head after Galton.

The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World

really? well name names...how hard is this??? so SIR Arthur Keith was just a charlatan huh???

So you are an expert in science, evolution, and even ethics

another dodge...do darwiniacs ever think through an issue, or is parroting talking points all you can do...again what is the basis of morality in evolution???

I think, of the evils which occur when when we reject science in favour of ideology.

of course 'science' is good pure and holy...right.

The chap murdered by a mob of young muslims?

the very one...perhaps if europe hadn't ditched its christianity, and its guts, they wouldn't have let in the muslims to colonize their countries in the name of 'multiculturalism' and perhaps they would have actually cared for those old people left to die in the heat wave.... tsmith

tsmith

of course, the darwiniacs desperate attempts to deny and discredit ANYTHING which puts darwin in a bad light mean nothing…right.

I can only say again that I do not see *anyone* pretending that Darwin was anything more than a human being with human failings. We do have a letter from Darwin to Galton expressing his scepticism over the concept of controlled social breeding in human beings. The eugenics movement arose after Darwin's death. It was vigourously supported by many religious bodies, especially in the USA. It was always based on bad science, and it has been thoroughly rejected for decades.

this just shows how little you know about ID. and you cannot divorce the ’social’ part of evolution from the theory…sorry.

Which part of Intelligent Design requires me to believe that Hitler arose directly from the work of Charles Darwin?

the ADL is a LIBERAL political organization….

I really am not sure how to answer that.

please…and uh who are these ‘consensus’ of historians???

The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World?

there is no evolutionary basis for right and wrong…only survival matters…and whatever is used to survive is justified.

So you are an expert in science, evolution, and even ethics? My goodness. Is there no beginning to your talents? (I jest.)

Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ and wasn’t stalin a marxist???

It is quite possible to accept evolution without being a marxist. As regards Satlin, I grant you his promotion of Lysenko was more a rejection of Mendelian genetics than the theory of natural selection... But that is rather as example, I think, of the evils which occur when when we reject science in favour of ideology.

tell that to Ilan Halimi

The chap murdered by a mob of young muslims? (Maybe they weren't practising muslims. Would it have made them less likely to attack a young Jewish man if they had been practising muslims?)

r the tens of thousands who perished during a heat wave in france a few years back

So that was Darwin's fault too? the bastard! olearyfan

second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the “moral decline”

tell that to Ilan Halimi or the tens of thousands who perished during a heat wave in france a few years back because everyone else was on vacation... c'est la vive tsmith

Or perhaps you read the portions of his text which you consider put him in a bad light, and you ignore any words which might temper that

the words that temper that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS VIEWS OF EUGENICS OR RACE. how hard is this? you post something where darwin says we should 'care for the weak' but you ignore him saying that we shouldn't let those 'lesser' individuals breed...and that is the heart of eugenics...and you totally ignore it. so darwin's words which 'put him in a good light' have NOTHING to do with his other view, and do not contradict those other views at all.

The only person here, tsmith, pretending that Darwin is considered in any way more-than-human is you

of course, the darwiniacs desperate attempts to deny and discredit ANYTHING which puts darwin in a bad light mean nothing...right.

You know, the “science” parts of evolution are almost entirely supported by Michael Behe amongst others in the ID movement

this just shows how little you know about ID. and you cannot divorce the 'social' part of evolution from the theory...sorry.

The Anti-Defamation League do not consider that Darwin is to “blame” for Hitler. Neither do the consensus of historians of Nazism and World War II

the ADL is a LIBERAL political organization....please...and uh who are these 'consensus' of historians??? hmmmm?? you have not listed any that I am aware of...I on the other hand, have listed several that disagree with you.

My friends and colleagues are largely all evolutionists. I am quite certain they all believe in right and wrong

there is no evolutionary basis for right and wrong...only survival matters...and whatever is used to survive is justified. you appropriate christian concepts of right and wrong and think you are so clever. so tell me what is moral, and immoral, in an evolutionary framework??? and why.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism

he did??? where do you get this at??? Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.' and wasn't stalin a marxist???

you have to ignore an awful lot of evidence otherwise to insist that “Darwinism” is as evil as you pretend it is

where is all this evidence of yours...all I see are glib assertions by you and other dariwniacs with very little back it up. tsmith

tribune7

ou don’t think it’s possible that the ADL can be wrong? That new study can overturn old ideas?

My problem is, tribune7, that since the end of the second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the "moral decline" you seem to think will befall the world if science and darwinism are not crushed beneath the feet of your revelation and faith. olearyfan

No and Darwin did not condone or approve of any extermination. Darwin made some predictions

of course not!! Saint Darwin the Just and Good would NEVER approve of anything like that...he was such a saintly holy man!!! please. why don't you go ahead and post his rebuke of his cousin Galton, and his sons, for their involvement (founding of) in the eugenics movement?? his theory gave 'scientific' legitmacy to racism, eugenics, and genocide. truth hurts, deal with it. tsmith

tsmith

could have fooled me. His own words are ignored or whitewashed to make him appear a just and moral man.

Or perhaps you read the portions of his text which you consider put him in a bad light, and you ignore any words which might temper that. The only person here, tsmith, pretending that Darwin is considered in any way more-than-human is you.

yes as I said before, evolution is a theory of everything, trying to explain all of human behavior…it is much more than just a ’science’ theory…

Then the persons who try to extend "evolution" beyond science are not practising science. You know, the "science" parts of evolution are almost entirely supported by Michael Behe amongst others in the ID movement. ID is simply the notion that science is best explained through the inference of an Intelligent Designer. You appear to have some other agenda.

you know its impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it. I have provided numerous quotes from darwin, other biologists, and historians…the record is clear.

That cuts both ways, tsmith. Have you looked for the beam in your own eye before casting motes at others? The Anti-Defamation League do not consider that Darwin is to "blame" for Hitler. Neither do the consensus of historians of Nazism and World War II.

emergent…isn’t that darwin-speak for a miracle? this sentence doesn’t make much sense. darwinists don’t think that morality implies an intelligent designer.

Do you really think, tsmith, that the only credible argument that anyone could possibly make for Intelligent Design is the existence of morality!?

but the morality of evolution is clear….as provine acknowledged..no god, no right, no wrong…

You are tilting at windmills, tsmith, enemies who exist only in your head. I live in Europe. My friends and colleagues are largely all evolutionists. I am quite certain they all believe in right and wrong. I appreciate that you apparently cannot see their basis for doing so. I put it to you that this is your problem, not theirs.

is it any surprise that the 20th century was the bloodiest on record, given this new darwinian morality?

Or is that also to do with history, technology, and happenstance? Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism. The Conquistadors wiped out much of South and Central America, without Darwin to guide them. Hitler's rise (according to most historians) was largely to do with nationalism, long-standing anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Imperial-age-driven First World War. Even if Darwin said bad things, tsmith, and even if Hitler's rise was even in part assisted by Darwin's legacy, you have to ignore an awful lot of evidence otherwise to insist that "Darwinism" is as evil as you pretend it is. But then again, tsmith, it is "impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it.". olearyfan

In conclusion: 1) Aryan master race idea came from Christian creationist 2) Hate against Jews was common in Christian writing (aka Martin Luther) 3) Hitler believed in a creator God that created man, and his concept of evolution/eugenics to keep the Aryan race pure is more similar to the Intellegent Design concept that microevolution occurs through natural/artificial selection to only be involved in 'preserving species' (as stated by Dembski and Wells) than it is to Darwin's theory that natural selection leads to origins of new species. Yeah, Hitler was greatly influenced by Darwin. hdx

In the movie "Expelled" Stein was talking with a German woman who was taking care of the place that Nazis did human experiments and such. When she was asked what linked to this behavior she did not hesitate when she said "Darwinism". Joseph

olearyfan -- Here is what the Anti-Defamation League And Weikart's recent research shows that the Anti-Defamation League is mistaken. You don't think it's possible that the ADL can be wrong? That new study can overturn old ideas? What you are doing is citing authority without questioning it or attempting to address Weikart's claim. Why so dismissive of it? tribune7

hdx:

There is no characteristics of animals that is missing in humans.

Yet there are characteristics of humans that are missing from other animals.

The genetic difference between humans and its closest primate relatives is very small compared to primates and other classes of animals.

We don't really know what that difference is.

If human cells were fundamentally different from primates or if the genetic code or genes found in humans were different from primates than this would have smashed Darwin’s theories.

That is wrong seeing that Darwin didn't even know about the genetic code. Evolution does NOT posit living organisms arose just once. Evolution doies not posit a genetic code. Heck non-telic processes cannot even account for a code. Joseph

tribune7

The tragedies are real and the influence is real, and the importance of coming to grips with their causes in the hope of not repeating them should be obvious.

The mind boggles. Do you really think that the causes of the rise of Nazism have not been studied to an incredible depth by academics and universities worldwide? And that German and Jewish academics in particular have not been extremely thorough in their efforts? Here is what the Anti-Defamation League has to say about the very allegations you continue to repeat: "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis. "

Without revelation and without the wisdom that the material is temporary, the fact is that morality devolves to the Darwinian in that the strong get to oppress the weak and as often as not thrive quite nicely — in the temporal sense — by doing so.

Revelation? All science so far. It appears to me, tribune, that you have no interest in Intelligent Design as science at all. It appears to me that you are just here to promote your religion. I could of course be wrong. olearyfan

… the core concept of Darwin’s theory is that man is just another animal and that survival, until procreation, equals success. tribune7

do they mention anything about EXTERMINATING ‘lower’ races???

No and Darwin did not condone or approve of any extermination. Darwin made some predictions. And although he wasn't 100% correct, Europeans did wipe out a large of number of indigenous people. hdx

Man is just another animal, hdx, right?

There is no characteristics of animals that is missing in humans. The genetic difference between humans and its closest primate relatives is very small compared to primates and other classes of animals. Darwin's theories had a chance to be falsified. If human cells were fundamentally different from primates or if the genetic code or genes found in humans were different from primates than this would have smashed Darwin's theories. But lo and behold they were pretty much the same. Creationism can not make such predictions as anything is possible with God. hdx

you have neatly overlooked the explicit anchorage of the reasoning in Descent of Man.

No I haven't.

... the core concept of Darwin’s theory.

Is not concerned with the idea of a created master race of men who risk destruction by breeding with Hitlers percieved inferior 'races'.

Has it ever dawned on you that the creator herr Scghicklegruber had in mind was Nature, capital N deliberate?

He is truly full of contradictions then, when he says he is 'doing the lords work' you are claiming that he is referring to nature, when he refers to the 'will of the eternal creator' the 'will' he is invoking is just a natural cause? You truly have some strange ideas about language.

In short, your turnabout rhetorical tactic fails. Furthermore, your turnabout accusation on “selectively” quoting Darwin fails.

I demonstrated that you selectively misquoted a piece of text. This is not a 'turnabout accusation', your own retort is just an ad homenim distraction. I've made specific points about the accounts of history you are presenting, you respond with personal attacks and distractions. Please stop. In 244 you seem to be claiming that Darwin advocated war as a solution to overpopulation. Certainly war, like many things, kills people and as such has to be considered when studying human history. War, like disease, affects survival and reproductive success. Discussing this fact does not mean one is advocating war. Even if Darwin did advocate war and inspired Hitler what does this really have to do with a descriptive scientific theory. The question of Darwins ethics is a distraction from the Science that this website claims to be about - does evolution occur or is it an illusion. What Darwin or Hitler believed is irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution happens, for without Darwin or Hitler evolution, if it is true, is still a fact you have to deal with. BillB

Footnote: I guess I need to put up the following, from App 8 my always linked. Note this is on coherent grounding, not on whether one who holds to evolutionary materialism can be in the conventional sense a logical and moral person. With certain limitations, all of us are somehwat reasoning and somewhat moral. But we need to ask, what view of reality provides a coherent ground for that? Okay, excerpts . . . and bye for now: _______________ >>. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies . . . >> AND, from Will Hawthorne: >> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is'. >> _______________ That -- as Provine's quote TSmith used also documents (along with many otehr statements over the years) -- is what has to be cogently addressed by those who serve evolutionary materialism. I will simply note that after years in this blog and elsewhere I have yet to see a solid and satisfying answer from that perspective, especially as a material is does not seem to provide a ground for the ought that we all know we need and experience. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Breeding (aka eugenics) is microevolution and Dembski and Wells acknowledge it. Does this mean they support eugenics?

do they mention anything about EXTERMINATING 'lower' races??? didn't think so... tsmith

Man is just another animal, hdx, right? tribune7

No-one pretends that Darwin is the be-and-end-all of evolutionary thought, or that he was anything other than a human being with human failings

could have fooled me. His own words are ignored or whitewashed to make him appear a just and moral man.

Here is a proposition for you… Isn’t the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at?

yes as I said before, evolution is a theory of everything, trying to explain all of human behavior...it is much more than just a 'science' theory...

Except, of course, for those anti-evolutionists who in the absence of being able to prevent any evidence whatsoever in favor of their own positions, have to smear and misrepresent their perceived “opponents” in a futile attempt at poisoning the well of debate

you know its impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it. I have provided numerous quotes from darwin, other biologists, and historians...the record is clear.

If morality is an emergent property of humanity and the human spirit, then does that not speak wonders for the power of evolution, and the inference that evolution is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer?

emergent...isn't that darwin-speak for a miracle? this sentence doesn't make much sense. darwinists don't think that morality implies an intelligent designer. but the morality of evolution is clear....as provine acknowledged..no god, no right, no wrong...and it is this view of morality, and the human condition, that gave rise to the eugenics movement and hitler. is it any surprise that the 20th century was the bloodiest on record, given this new darwinian morality? tsmith

olearyfan -- Isn’t the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at? This is the problem with those who object to tracing Darwin's influence on the great tragedies of the 20th Century. The tragedies are real and the influence is real, and the importance of coming to grips with their causes in the hope of not repeating them should be obvious. Now you said it is a fact that morality "*does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit." In no way is that a fact. Without revelation and without the wisdom that the material is temporary, the fact is that morality devolves to the Darwinian in that the strong get to oppress the weak and as often as not thrive quite nicely -- in the temporal sense -- by doing so. tribune7

What is ironic is that Creationists and ID supporters view microevolution true and that it is a force for preserving species (almost like Hitler who believed God created man and wanted to preserve the Aryan race) Dembski and Wells in The Design of Life

In conclusion, natural selection helps a species to flourish by favoring gene combinations that allow it to adapt to new and changing conditions. When confined to combinations of existing genes, natural selection is therefore a force for preserving rather than transforming species.

Just like eugenics is a way of preserving the purity of the species. By logical extension of ID thought, if natural selection helps preserve the species, shouldn't he be applying it? The logical consequence of ID is eugenics. We know ID supporters approve of microevolution Dembski and Wells again

In other words, it requires a massive form change known as macroevolution. The occurence of microevolution is not a matter of debate between Darwinists and intelligent design proponents. Microevolution can be observed, and scientists acknowledge it. ... What breeders accomplish is diversification within a given species, a limited form change known as microevolution.

Breeding (aka eugenics) is microevolution and Dembski and Wells acknowledge it. Does this mean they support eugenics? hdx

KF: Instead of trying to deflect and play at immoral equivalency, today’s darwinists would be better advised to address the moral hazard in Darwinist thought and especially in unbridled evolutionary materialism.

I do not know of anyone who proposes that "unbridled evolutionary materialism" should be a basis for morality. Not Dawkins, not PZ Myers, no-one.

tsmith: ...it has no bearing on whether darwin thought they should breed, he clearly did not. and the other quotes are ignored because Darwin was such a kind, caring, good to his mother, saintly bearded old guy, and not a negative word about St. Darwin the Good is allowed to penetrate the darwiniac mindset.

No-one pretends that Darwin is the be-and-end-all of evolutionary thought, or that he was anything other than a human being with human failings. Except, of course, for those anti-evolutionists who in the absence of being able to prevent any evidence whatsoever in favor of their own positions, have to smear and misrepresent their perceived "opponents" in a futile attempt at poisoning the well of debate. Here is a proposition for you... Isn't the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at? If morality is an emergent property of humanity and the human spirit, then does that not speak wonders for the power of evolution, and the inference that evolution is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer? Just insisting that "unguided evolution cannot produce morality" gets us nowhere, given that evolutionists today (no matter what Darwin, Galton and Hitler said) clearly do not reject the notion that morality exists. Unless, of course, we are not interested in promoting intelligent design - and all we wish to do is to force our own notions of morality onto everyone else. olearyfan

BillB -- Darwin never claimed that humans and pigs were the same species. Neither did I, but Darwin did say that neither is a special creation. And that pretty much gets to the nature of man. tribune7

Regarding your selective quotes from Darwin, These have already been corrected in this thread

quite the opposite. yes the darwiniac 'correction' consists of another quote by darwin, no doubt out of context, that shows he 'cared' for the less fortunate...isn't that nice, but of course it has no bearing on whether darwin thought they should breed, he clearly did not. and the other quotes are ignored because Darwin was such a kind, caring, good to his mother, saintly bearded old guy, and not a negative word about St. Darwin the Good is allowed to penetrate the darwiniac mindset.

It’s time to turn from Darwinist deflective talking points to facing the facts of the key historical documents.

very true, but it won't happen. they will not let facts get in the way of their worship of the hairyone of evolution.... tsmith

BillB: Furthermore, your turnabout accusation on "selectively" quoting Darwin fails. FYI, I have given the wider context that shows the framework of his theory, and how he applied it to man. In that context, his root of the concept of natural selection was Malthusian population collapse through positive checks, which includes war. So in Chs 5 - 7 of Descent, he was simply closing back the circle by re-applying his by then generally accepted theory (among the intelligentsia) to man. For Darwin, natural selection includes war and the like, as can be seen from his remarks on the Turks in this letter to William Graham dated July 3, 1881:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

It's time to turn from Darwinist deflective talking points to facing the facts of the key historical documents. Note, too, how by 1897-8 H G Wells pretty well understood the implications and tried to warn against them. (He ended up being sadly prophetic. History teaches us that we have a habit of refusing to accept warnings until it is too late.) Instead of trying to deflect and play at immoral equivalency, today's darwinists would be better advised to address the moral hazard in Darwinist thought and especially in unbridled evolutionary materialism. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

BillB: 1] you have neatly overlooked the explicit anchorage of the reasoning in Descent of Man. 2] for instance in the cite on the fox etc, you forget that he struggle is meant to lead on to progress for the species, i.e the core concept of Darwin's theory. It is when the author has to deal with the fact of persistence of kinds of life forms that he trips up in a contradiction. (I am not arguing for the coherence of Mein Kampf! or for that matter either Origin of Descent: recall the fossil record does NOT show gradual branching of a tree of life, contrary to the diagram in origin.} 3] Has it ever dawned on you that the creator herr Scghicklegruber had in mind was Nature, capital N deliberate? (on the balance of evidence he was a racialist neopagan with occult sympathies, driven by a version on Balvatsky's Aryan man evolutionary myth.) In short, your turnabout rhetorical tactic fails. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.

Each to its kind - ever so scientific eh! Now the first paragraph you reference does read as an argument that humans ought to avoid breeding with other humans if they regard them as somehow 'lower' and if Hitler believed that this is what Darwin was claiming then you would need to do two things. Firstly show where Hitler referenced Darwins work, and secondly show where Darwin advocated this type of behaviour. As a follow up you might want to provide some real evidence that the ToE prescribes any rules for human behaviour. Interesting to note onlookers that KF avoided paragraphs from the wider context like this:

The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: * Lowering of the level of the higher race; * Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator. And as a sin this act is rewarded.

Hitler has a strong belief in a created pure race which he thought needed to be defended. Regarding your selective quotes from Darwin, These have already been corrected in this thread - Darwin was explicit about how applying selective breeding to humans was morally abhorrent. Also you quote a passage about extermination with the first part missing:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,18 will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

It is clear that this is a device for illustrating to the reader how apparent gaps in the evidence for evolution are to be expected, nowhere is he suggesting that people ought to behave like this but he certainly observes that, sadly, they do. Your quote here:

Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection.

States that Humans are subjected to natural selection pressures like any other creature. Were you trying to make a point? I didn't see any justification for applying un-natural selection there. Your long quotes from H. G. Wells is certainly a good warning of the moral hazards of co-opting and distorting scientific ideas to prop up a flawed ideology, Darwin warned against this as well. I hope that has helped to clear away some of the oily smoke of burning ad hominem strawmen that has been poisoning the debate. BillB

lamarck (224): "And the worst part is all the kids are taught that it’s already proven. Public schools want to make sure the kid graduates feeling like an animal. I see this on TV, on the radio, everywhere; I can tell when someone thinks they’re an animal, it permeates who they are, and the overall effect is hyper-permeating our society right now." Unfortunately for you, it certainly is proven that we are animals - placental mammals, in fact. That's why a placenta came out when you were born and why your mother was able to feed you milk (if she so chose) using her mammary glands (hence the name). It's also good evidence against humans being the product of design - why on earth would any designer actually design males with utterly useless mammary glands? Gaz

HDX: Reflect carefully on "just another" in light of the issues here. (Hint, why did Aristotle speak of RATIONAL animality as a defining feature of the human essence? Similarly, do we blame a tiger as a murderer if he stalks, attacks and kills a man? Do we blame a MAN if he does the same? Why or why not?) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal.

This is not a philosophical claim. This is actual scientific fact. hdx

PS: on the idea that macro-evolution throught is essentially neutral on matters of worldviews and the history of ideas, cf Peterson's discussion here. kairosfocus

Continuing: Now, a challenge to open-mindedness, from H G Wells, in the opening words of War of the Worlds: _____________ >> No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit? >> _______________ 1 --> Wells, who studied under Huxley in Imperial College, her plainly identifies the moral hazard of unbridled evolutionary materialism. 2 --> He here transfers from Darwin's discussion of Caucasians vs Negroes or Australian Aborigines [the latter being just a step above the gorilla in Darwin's plain view], or Turks, to an imaginary superior race that sees earth as its best opportunity for survival. 3 --> And instead of Britons wiping out Tasmanians, he here sees Martians trying to wipe our Britons. [Notice how Darwin applies natural selection to malthusian positive checks, including aggressive war. Indeed, he has originally drawn the idea of struggle for existence from Malthus' theory of population crashes.] 4 --> So, the moral hazard is laid out, in a context that hints at an alternative: missionaries sent to mars. (Observe the rhetorical clash with "the intellectual side of man" in that . . . ) 5 --> Then he raises he issue of the is-ought gap, though the challenge of the plank in our eyes: we must be sympathetic to Martians, as we to have our own guilt in the matter, even as a "Christian" civlisation. 6 --> A subtlety lurks: a material part of what happened with Aborigines in Australia was in the context of documenting the racialist views of descent that became popular in the late C19. 7 --> Thus, we come tot he alternative, which can be put in the words of Jesus on sawdust and planks in eyes, in Matt 7::

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

8 --> So, there must be a mutuality of commitment to the truth and the right, which then leads to mutual recognition of the need to change from the false and the wrong tot he right, and to helping one another in that process. 9 --> This is just the opposite of the "shut-up!" rhetoric approach, that seeks to silence the voice of correction by trying to tar with the brush of immoral equivalency. 10 --> But, if we shut out the voice of mutual correction, we will only hasten the slide off the edge of the cliff. ++++++ So, let us now face some serious issues and seek to correct a major moral hazard -- unbridled evolutionary materialism -- that in the name of science has marred the history of the century just past and threatens to destroy our civlisation in the one just ahead. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Following up: I first observe that the is-ought gap has been raised by Severski and by LH. I cite LH at 165:

. . . You’re conflating “is” with “ought” by reading a “purpose” into a descriptive theory of changes in allele frequencies over time.

The REAL problem my dear sirs, is that evolutionary materialism is not "just" a theory of allelle frequencies, it is a worldview core claim motivated on the claim tha ti t is practically certain "science," a claim that de-moralises the world for those who adhere to it. And, amorality is ever an enabler of immorality. So, we need to learn some lessons from painful history. In that context, I observe that -- quite predictably JT et al (I cross reference a parallel discussion, pardon . . . ) -- a mere link to relevant facts (as I gave at 111 above) is not enough to get a focus on the merits of the issue. So, I must now take up the painful duty of actually citing just how herr Schicklegruber and his ghostwriters drew a significant part of their inspiration form the stream of Darwinism that dews upon Descent of Man and flowed through German culture. Ch XI Mein Kampf (which I refuse to link): ______________ >>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. [Ever so "creationist, nuh?] The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [Here read, Germans vs Poles, Jews, Gypsies, blacks, Amerindians etc, all of whom feartured in Nazi propaganda, and before that in some of the Kaiser's propaganda; i.e much of that Austrian lance corporal's view was shaped in the matrix of German WW I propaganda (as well as in the matrix of the pre-1914 Viennese popular press and street), which BTW was explicitly a motivating factor in Bryan's stance against evoltuionism] . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, survival of the fittest, for food and for reproduction, including Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. [Darwinian natural selection leading to evolution, in a nutshell] If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . . >> _________________ Just where in Darwin's corpus does this draw upon? We can look to the intro to Origin, and to Ch 6 in Descent: ________________ ORIGIN, INTRO: >> [T]he Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world . . . inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase . . . This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. This fundamental subject of Natural Selection . . . almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and leads to what I have called Divergence of Character . . . . I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification. >> CH 1 DESCENT, OPENING ARGUMENT: >> . . . The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals . . . >> CH 6, DESCENT: >> Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [NB: Despite some nive remarks on nego regiments in an 1873 letter, the above remarks stand unaltered int eh 1874 Edn of Descent, i.e it is plain that Darwin retained his same scientific views, and failed to address the moral hazard running through the middle of his work. So, as we studyrt he ethical issues of science and society, we need to learn form that and to address relevasnt issues ont he merits, however painful they must be.]>> _______________ The above should suffice to show that Darwin was indeed a social Darwinist, and that the stream of social darwinist thought stemming from Darwin had in it a major moral hazard that had extremely damaging consequences -- and not just in Germany. As tot he immoral equicvalency argumets on Christinas etc, I will simply observe that to resort ot racism, such have had to twist or ignore the plain and easily accessible teachings of the NT especially. For instance we may read in Ac 17, as Paul challenges the Athenian elites in AD 50:

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

In short, there are resources to address th issue, and a general context that acknowledges thqat morality is an ever present issue that leads to an ever present challenge ot repentance and reformation. (I note too that many early C20 Fundamentalists were what we would call today theistic evolutionists, and at the fringes we have those who ascribed then and now to polyphyletic theories of evolution, including some pretty serious heresies on who are descended from Adam.] this is getting longish so now I will break for the very refreshing 1897 - 8 HG Wells remarks on the moral hazard that so stains the history of the century just past with blood . . . GEM of TKI PS: BillB just above, you are cross-threading out of context. However, much of the above is indeed a manifestation of selectively hyperskeptical thinking int eh teeth of easily accessible facts as I have just posted. I think there is a duty tot he truth in public commentary, and I believe with good reason. kairosfocus

tribune7 (229), you wrote: "If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral." OK - so by your thinking, if you feed a small kitten into your waste disposal unit and switch it on, then that is not immoral because cats & kittens are not a special creation. Correct? Gaz

Berceuse-213

it should’ve gone without saying that I meant completely materialistic evolution.

Clearly not. You have missed the point - the ToE makes no references to gods or creation, theism or atheism. Materialistic and theistic evolution are both ways of incorporating the SAME theory into ones own set of beliefs.

“Given the connection of Hitler’s behavior to the theory of evolution, does our moral outrage serve to undermine the theory of evolution itself?” I don’t see how it does not.

Given the connection between the nuking of Japanese cities in WW2 and Einstein shouldn't our moral outrage undermine atomic theory its self? Given the connection between Luther's antisemitism and Hitlers shouldn't our moral outrage undermine protestantism? Given that the ToE, like any other scientific theory, doesn't prescribe behavior or moral codes it is hard to see why anyones attempt to claim that it prescribes the behavior that they personally want to indulge in would undermine it, the same applies to the Bible:

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..

"It wasn't my fault I threw that woman off a cliff, Newtons laws compelled me to" BillB

tribune7-229-230

What the ToE addresses is the nature of man.

Wrong.

If man is not inherently different than a pig, no more a special creation than a pig, then man can be slaughtered like a pig.

Wrong. Darwin never claimed that humans and pigs were the same species. The ToE makes no claims about the existence of god or whether that god regards humans as special. The ToE does not prescribe behavior in the way religion does, it does not demand that humans do anything in particular. It is descriptive of nature not prescriptive.

If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral.

Once again - The ToE makes no claims about the existence of god or whether that god regards humans as special.

Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal.

If you want someone to blame try Carl Linnaeus, the church certainly did at the time.

Without Darwin, they wouldn’t have happened.

Its a shame we can't wind the clock back, change history and turn your blind assertion into an empirical observation. Of course we have to ignore the pre-existence of racism in general, the antisemitism promoted by Martin Luther, selective breeding and of course the claims of Hitler himself:

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..

Of course without Einstein hundreds of thousands of Japanese would not have died - Ideas have consequences. So what has this got to do with ID?

... the persistence of such an irrelevant argument reflects rhetorical, closed minded objectionism through the use of red herrings to lead out to handy, set up, oil-soaked strawmen that can be ignited to distract attention, and cloud and poison the atmosphere of discussion...

Quite right KF, lets stick to discussing science and ID. BillB

Something just occurred to me, Jerry, which I overlooked by focusing on the history. @227 you wrote:

If you want to deny that eugenicists were primarily influenced by Darwin’s writings, go ahead but to try and put this on someone else is a joke.

This is actually a fairly bizarre thing to say given the post of mine you were responding to:

Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault?

Notice how I said "from Mendel too"? As in "in addition" and not as in "mostly from"? Also the fragment "but to try and put this on someone else is a joke" is interesting. First off, you seem to be assuming there is someone to blame, but it surely ain't Mendel. Second, by asking "is Nazi Germany also his fault?" it should have been dead obvious that I'm not particularly interested in blaming either old Gregor OR Charles. I think it should have been pretty clear that my point there was that Darwin's work wasn't the only contributing factor, and since genetics was a big scientific deal (very big, given Darwin's getting heredity pretty much dead wrong) consistency demands that if Darwin gets the Hitler tarbrush treatment, then so should Mendel. Like I said, personally, I think the idea that either of them should is crap, but at least if people were picking at both their corpses and both their theories, it'd be more consistent crap. dbthomas

herb @ 207 I add my thanks to tribune7. You've set out the argument here (as I mentioned in 171) very clearly...

P1: If undirected evolution is true, Hitler was not wrong.

tribune at 229 puts it this way

If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral.

And yet we do not say atheistic evolutionists lining up to praise Hitler. Instead we have them claiming that morality does have evolutionary basis, and also that biology itself should not be the arbiter of morality. So it appears that something is wrong with herb's P1. How any of this aids Intelligent Design, I Do Not Know. olearyfan

tribune7 @ 205

It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution.

Again, I am here (hopefully) to talk about the positive evidence for Intelligent Design... But it seems to me you are making very strange claims about biology and behaviour here. I'll deal with this in my response to herb.

[Hitler] was rational.

Really? All the time? He wasn't completely and utterly insane sometimes?

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

dbthomas deals with this in 208. You are reading far too much into Darwin's 19th century language. Moreover, why are you treating Darwin as some kind of holy writer? The praise of him may be effusive, but that does not mean that anyone anywhere treats him as anything more than human. Darwin here was making a prediction, not a direction - and he was not predicting what this words would mean today.

And are you really an O’Leary fan?

Of course! olearyfan

Lamarck, Before you go, perhaps you can explain what being effeminate has to do with Darwinism? CannuckianYankee

db, Charles Davenport was a Darwinist. Mendel documented the observation that the inheritance of traits followed laws. Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal. Without Mendel, Nazism and Stalinism and the eugenics movement -- Mendel's work was not well known when Francis Galton coined the term -- would still have happened. Without Darwin, they wouldn't have happened. tribune7

tribune7 [214], you’re just restating the same illogical argument David, not understanding the argument doesn't make it illogical. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality. What the ToE addresses is the nature of man. If man is not inherently different than a pig, no more a special creation than a pig, then man can be slaughtered like a pig. What Hitler did was immoral. That is an inarguable truth. If the ToE is right -- man is not a special creation -- then what Hitler did was not immoral. Since the immorality of Hitler's actions is an inarguable truth then the ToE -- with regard to man not being a special creation -- is false. tribune7

Jerry, it's very simple: Mendelian genetics was a further source of justification for eugenicists. Notice I didn't say when Darwin and Mendel were drawn upon, nor did I say eugenics didn't exist prior to Mendel. You're also ignoring an important fact about what Mendelian genetics offered: eugenics could make itself out to be much more "empirical" by using the genetics that grew out of Mendel's work, and especially so in that period where natural selection was seen as an outmoded idea, which was the tail end of the 19th Century and the first couple decades of the 20th Century. I.e, precisely the period in which Mendel's results were re-discovered, and also one in which the popularity of eugenics grew rapidly. There were in fact different, rival schools of eugenics after genetics was founded:

A school of eugenics arose formally from attempts to apply Darwinian principles to humans in the context of biometry, a school that used statistical approaches to biology. Biometry emphasized blending inheritance and continuous traits, in marked contrast to the particulate inheritance of unit traits in Mendelism. Genetics was therefore a scientific challenge to eugenics, which was rooted in biometry. A Mendelian eugenics arose in the United States primarily under the influence of Charles Davenport.

In light of that, it's worth noting that American laws were seen as models for Germany to emulate:

No wonder that Fritz Lenz, a German physician-geneticist advocate of sterilization (later a leading ideologue in the Nazi program of “racial hygiene”), could, in 1923, berate his countrymen for their backwardness in the domain of sterilization as compared with the United States.

Genetics played a very large role in forming actual policy as well (note the description of Lenz above, too):

The predominant medical presence in the Nazi sterilization program was Dr. Ernst Rüdin, a Swiss-born psychiatrist of international renown. Originally a student of Emil Kraepelin, the great classical psychiatrist, Rüdin became a close associate of Alfred Plotz in establishing the German Society for Racial Hygiene. Rüdin was an indefatigable researcher and saw as his mission the application of Mendelian laws and eugenic principles to psychiatry. A former student and associate of his told me that “the aim of his life” was to establish the genetic basis for psychiatric conditions, and that “he was not so much a fanatical Nazi as a fanatical geneticist.” But a Nazi Rüdin did become, joining the Party in 1937 at the age of sixty. From his prestigious position as director of the Research Institute for Psychiatry of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Munich, Rüdin worked closely with a regime whose commitment to genetic principles he applauded, and was one of the principle architects of the sterilization laws. He became a significant source of scientific legitimation for the regime’s racial policies (including consultations with Hans F. K. Günther, the leading Nazi anthropologist-publicist on racial matters, whose intellectual repute was generally held to be very low). Rüdin was not involved in the direct medical killing of the “euthanasia” program; but a younger associate to whom I spoke had the impression that his teacher, though not without doubts about the program, could well have favored a version of it with careful medical control.

Basically, I'm saying your ideas about cause and effect with respect to Nazi eugenics are too narrow and simplistic. There was no one single and original cause upon which all blame can be laid. In that vein, I am curious as to your thoughts on this question: did the Spartans rely on Origin of Species when developing their rather eugenics-like practice of examining infants to determine if they were good material for the State? Unlike Darwin, Hitler specifically cited them, a notable example being in the unpublished "Zweites Buch":

At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Volkisch State. The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.

Given that, I'd say we should add them to list of "conspirators". Also, if you still think the whole Mendel things is "stupid", give this a shot: search Google using the phrase "mendelian eugenics". dbthomas

"Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault?" This is a stupid comment. The whole eugenics movement was in full force before researchers discovered Mendel's work. The eugenicists personally single out Darwin as the basis for their ideas. Mendel said nothing about survival of the fittest, Malthusian competition, emphasis on artificial selection as a way to select the fittest, differences in races or variation within species leading to some of higher quality than others. Do you really think that eugenics movement is due in a large part to Mendel? If not then why bring it up? Such a non sequitur says that you really believe it was Darwin's ideas and all you are doing is trying to throw out some confusion. If you want to deny that eugenicists were primarily influenced by Darwin's writings, go ahead but to try and put this on someone else is a joke. The question is where did Darwin's ideas lead and the answer is obvious in the words of those who ran with them. They thought they were doing noble things. Well so did Hitler. Both were delusional and morally bankrupt. No one is saying Nazi Germany is Darwin's fault. But some of the more unpleasant aspects of it can be directly related to the implications of Darwin's writings. Darwin was big on the grandiose implications of his theories and a lot of people took him at his word. That is why he is celebrated. jerry

I'm also not aware of Darwin providing support for the idea of perpetuating the Aryan race by way of starting a war and getting millions of adult Aryan males killed, and then resorting to getting a bunch of teenaged (or even younger) Aryan males killed once the supply of adults started to run out. Or providing support for the idea that Aryans even exist in the first place. dbthomas

From Hitler

That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10

Yeah, that really sounds like Hitler believes in Darwinian evolution hdx

I've got to leave I don't have time to read the whole comments section, which I usually do before commenting. So maybe this was covered but: The 20th century's killers didn't come up with their programs because of Darwin, but it needs to be asked; why did they and other 20th Century killer cultures always incorporate Darwin into their Ideology? Why is this the most convenient premise for them and the planned parenthooders etc? Why couldn't they have gone forward with as much success and velocity if they'd preached man's spiritual nature instead? I think the answer is because Darwinism says man is degraded. All Darwinism says is "you are small, prey to nature, part of nature, you have no significance". You can argue against me about nature's "splendor" but I won't believe you believe your own words, so no need. The crusades, star chamber etc is a different story because people only died then. They at least retained some reverence for life. And the lies that perpetrated these religious wars are much more easily undone. They don't have science as a cloak, a much more convincing religion. There's more things that make the Commies and the crusades a bad comparison but I'll go into that tomorrow or something if anyone wants to disagree. And the worst part is all the kids are taught that it's already proven. Public schools want to make sure the kid graduates feeling like an animal. I see this on TV, on the radio, everywhere; I can tell when someone thinks they're an animal, it permeates who they are, and the overall effect is hyper-permeating our society right now. It's tangibly effecting our culture. Read a biography on George Washington and see what kind of a man he was, then contrast this with the effeminate or weak minded NPRish men of today, or the effeminate perversion of bravery which is the NFL fan crowd. They wouldn't be such weaklings if they were taught that some things are worth dying for. I think what I'm describing is the bedrock on which everything that's good stands on. lamarck

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality

its statements like this, and the preceding statements from darwiniacs, this refusal to deal with reality, that is just more evidence darwinism is a religion. facts don't matter, only faith in the infallible hairyone of evolution counts... tsmith

tribune7 [214], you're just restating the same illogical argument, but it's no more logical now. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality. It doesn't say anything about Hitler one way or the other. David Kellogg

All of them? Even the Aryans? No, just some human beings. tribune7

Jerry @ 218: Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault? dbthomas

Tribune @ 217:

db, savage in that quote means other human beings.

All of them? Even the Aryans? Also, you forgot to show the work: how does that quote cause the Nazis (which is effectively what you're saying by bringing it up yet again)? In what way does it say "You should do this (and especially to European Jews, who are part of what we 19th Century folk consider civilized). Seriously, it'll rock"? Prove that Darwin is prescribing and not describing. Thanks in advance. dbthomas

I think people should at least watch the video of Weikart or read his first book before commenting on him. Many of the eugenicists in England and Germany and elsewhere were influenced by Darwin's ideas. They readily admit such. And many of these eugenicists held very extreme attitudes about what to do with those that were considered undesirable. There is a reason that eugenics became very popular after Darwin's work. It influenced how the eugenicists thought. Darwin's son was once the president of the British eugenics society and Darwin's cousin was its founder and the one who invented the term "eugenics." jerry

db, savage in that quote means other human beings. tribune7

OK, Trib, what does "savage" mean in that quote? Show me how that is, effectively, an order or suggestion to commit genocide. Hitler's opinions on black people are irrelevant, so try again. dbthomas

tribune7,

Herb @ 207. Well done!

Thanks! Full credit to you for the original argument, of course! :D herb

David, I'll try and help. What Hitler did was immoral. It is more true that what Hitler did was immoral that it is that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun times 10^150. If undirected evolution were true-- that man is the descendant of less complex life solely via natural processes and hence inherently no different than rats or hyenas or crocodiles -- then what Hitler did was not immoral. Hence undirected evolution is false. tribune7

BillB, it should've gone without saying that I meant completely materialistic evolution. I have not "missed" the theistic evolution point, nor have I "missed" the atheists' point you speak of because I've yet to hear a convincing argument for one in the first place. I will accept any sound definition that you can offer, but the point here is not "how did morality arise?", but, "Given the connection of Hitler's behavior to the theory of evolution, does our moral outrage serve to undermine the theory of evolution itself?" I don't see how it does not. Berceuse

Herb @ 207. Well done! tribune7

<You’d be right, if only “savage races” meant “Jews, That's right! Hitler was cool with black Africans LOL. tribune7

olearyfan @204, you have misquoted me Berceuse

tribune @ 205:

Darwin, OTOH, said that “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Hitler put Darwin’s words into action while Phelps refused to do that with Jesus

You'd be right, if only "savage races" meant "Jews, Gyspies, Slavic peoples, homosexuals, political enemies, POWs, those with congenital disabilities, people whose murder was politically expedient and a means to help secure the support of the military" and the like. "Savage", at the time Darwin wrote, was typically used to refer to societies seen as lacking the essential traits of civilization, such as writing, metal tools, urbanization, agriculture, etc. People did attempt to argue that because such-and-such a group was "uncivilized", that meant they were somehow inherently inferior and therefore incapable of civilizing themselves, but they'd been doing it since before Darwin was even born (or Mendel for that matter). It was quite a convenient rationalization for the ever-popular practice of imperialism. Which BTW, is precisely what Darwin was talking about in that quote. Feel free to repeat it and willfully misconstrue it, though. dbthomas

tribune7,

It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution.

Thanks for reiterating this, I think the evos are trying to derail the point here: P1: If undirected evolution is true, Hitler was not wrong. P2: Hitler was wrong. Therefore by modus tollens, undirected evolution is not true. herb

It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. In what way? Please be detailed and specific, as this seems like a rather silly claim. Learned Hand

olearyfan BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler’s immorality. . .In which case, I really do not see the point of the original post in this thread. It's that Hitler's acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution. Hitler was a madman. He was quite sane. He knew where he lived, what his name was, how to beat the French etc. He was rational. He does not have insanity as an excuse for his actions. Fred Phelps is doing what he says Christianity implies. Does anyone say he speaks for all Christians? Jesus would be the one who speaks for all Christians. Phelps is not doing what Jesus said he should do. Darwin, OTOH, said that “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Hitler put Darwin's words into action while Phelps refused to do that with Jesus. And are you really an O'Leary fan? tribune7

CannuckianYankee

Weikert makes the argument with evidence from Nazi Germany, and other examples from history, that Darwinism following it’s own internal logic, leads to abuses towards the sanctity of human life.

And yet it took me two seconds to find Weikert quoted at Darwinian Conservatism thus: "Darwinism does not lead inevitably, or of logical necessity, to Nazism." And yet in all the hundreds of Darwinist events this year, we see no general call for racism or eugenics from supporters of Darwinism. Hmmm... Something here just does not add up. To Berceuse

Weikert also makes the case that many prominent Darwinists even today are suggesting euthenasia and infanticide as a means to do away with “unfit” persons. So not only is Darwinism racist, it is also “fit-ist.” Ideas have consequences.

I'm confused. Are you saying Weikert speaks for Darwinists generally? I have read quite a bit of ethics in my time, and I can assure you that the views you (or Weikert) express are not widely shared. Discussions of legalizing voluntary euthanasia - as wrong as they may be - are not eugenics. And "infanticide? Really? To tsmith

but you do represent the typical darwiniac.

You know nothing about me. You even make your slur sound like something to be admired. And in all of this, in all these posts, I see not one positive argument for Intelligent Design. Not one. For shame. olearyfan

CannuckianYankee -- Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies, Great point, CY. tribune7

CY-198:

Weikert is not making an appeal to consequence.

yes he is, he cites nazism as a evidence of the consequence of the theory of evolution.

An appeal to consequence requires no evidence. It is simply asserting “if you believe such and such, such will be the result.”

Usually followed by claims that events x and y from history are all down to z accompanied by calls for onlookers to witness the fact. BillB

tsmith- I have nothing more to say to you, your abusive tone has removed any inclination I have to continue a discourse with you. BillB

Berceuse-196 I'm afraid I was unable to extract much meaning from Clives paragraph. It seemed to be labored with assumptions and definitions that may be private to Clive, but I may also have just misunderstood - sorry Clive, thats not meant as a slur on you.

We cannot categorically label Hitler’s behavior as “wrong” if we base it on a “morality” (if you can even call it that in this case) that has arisen by chance and natural selection.

I have a suspicion that the only definition of categorically that you would accept would be via teleological imposition, in which case there is little point trying to argue with you. If not god then anything goes? You have missed the theistic evolution point that chance and selection may be the creators preferred method of creation, and you have missed the atheists point that evolved morality does not mean that anything goes (otherwise it wouldn't be morality!)

I suspect that you will always dance around this point

if by that you mean that I disagree with your narrow perspective then yes, gladly. BillB

CY: You're wrong about it not requiring evidence. An appeal to consequences requires that there be something to point to in order to say "See: consequences!" It's just that the evidence tells you nothing about whether the premise is true or not. So, regardless of whether Weikart's case is a good or bad one, it cannot settle the question of whether or not evolution is correct. No matter how much consequential evidence is amassed by him or anyone else, that will never change. The same goes for arguments about the consequences of religion, by the way. dbthomas

olearyfan, 'Appeals to consequences' are a very basic logical fallacy, as discussed in this conservapedia article." Weikert is not making an appeal to consequence. An appeal to consequence requires no evidence. It is simply asserting "if you believe such and such, such will be the result." You should read the link you actually quoted. Weikert makes the argument with evidence from Nazi Germany, and other examples from history, that Darwinism following it's own internal logic, leads to abuses towards the sanctity of human life. CannuckianYankee

BillB @69 It wasn't a comprehension problem for tribune7, ScottAndrews, or Clive Hayden. Either you are willingly avoiding the issue by addressing semantics, or you are simply not getting it. To reiterate Clive: "Exactly, it is an invalidation, for it accepts and demands less than humanity from humanity, and this is not in accordance with the facts about what makes up humanity." We cannot categorically label Hitler's behavior as "wrong" if we base it on a "morality" (if you can even call it that in this case) that has arisen by chance and natural selection. However, I suspect that you will always dance around this point. Berceuse

I very much hope that you do not represent the typical pro-intelligent design poster on this forum

but you do represent the typical darwiniac. tsmith

olearyfan, "Some people say that evolution implies racism. Do they speak for everyone who supports evolution?" No, and if you watched the 1 hour video I linked, Weikert also makes this point. However, he also makes the point that Darwinism started out positing racist ideas - Darwinists like Haeckel made distinctions between the races, with the white race at the top of a heirarchy, and the African race barely above primates. Weikert also makes the case that many prominent Darwinists even today are suggesting euthenasia and infanticide as a means to do away with "unfit" persons. So not only is Darwinism racist, it is also "fit-ist." Ideas have consequences. CannuckianYankee

That is not what I or anyone else here has said. Is that more false witness, or are you just trying to be funny? Or perhaps even deliberately hurtful?

oh please, you defend your hairygod and his theory at every turn. you ignore what he said, in fact you twist and LIE about what darwin said...

I have read this thread several times and I have seen numerous people dealing with exactly that point. That you choose to ignore them, tsmith is your loss

oh yes the darwiniac way of 'dealing with it' is to deny it, and lie. laughable. tsmith

tsmith I see no reason to respond to your last post. If you wish to flounce off and declare victory, so be it. I very much hope that you do not represent the typical pro-intelligent design poster on this forum. Good day, sir. olearyfan

Oh I see. When Fred Phelps speaks, he doesn’t speak for Christianity, but when Galton speaks, he speaks for all evolution. Makes perfect sense. [Facepalm]

but lets just ignore people like Gould and darwin himself said...or 'interpret' it to mean something else... [facepalm] laughable. tsmith

tsmith

of course, Herr Darwin can do no wrong!!! he was much wiser and more noble than any of us today…

That is not what I or anyone else here has said. Is that more false witness, or are you just trying to be funny? Or perhaps even deliberately hurtful?

ignore that whole thing about exterminating the lower races…

I have read this thread several times and I have seen numerous people dealing with exactly that point. That you choose to ignore them, tsmith is your loss. olearyfan

No, because the ‘races’ of humanity are still biologically the same species. That is what I said last time.

too bad darwin, et al disagree with you...but keep ignoring it, all that matters is what YOU say today!!

Are you unable to process information which contradicts your initial beliefs? Is that the problem here?

you are good for a few laughs.

When evidence is presented to you that the quotes you have picked do not reflect reality, or reflect only a minority or outdated position, you go back to your original quotes, as if they are definitive

oh a 'minority' or 'outdated' position...right...well tell me how evolution has changed to prohibit racism and eugenics...this should be good...oh I know, evolutionists don't talk about it these days..except for Watson..but we can ignore him...so lets ignore history and pretend all is rosy..and all those biologists like Gould, who disagree are LIARS!!! The reason I say you are bearing false witness, tsmith, is because you pretend that the quotes you choose on Darwinism reflect the opinions of everyone who might be described as a Darwinist. They clearly do not. post your proof, you cannot, you're a typical darwiniac...ie a liar.

But to insist, as you do, that evolutionism or Darwinism necessarily leads to racism, or that all darwinists are racists whether or not they know they are, is simply bizarre.

you can ignore the OBVIOUS history of the theory, and what historians, and evolutionists have said, doesn't matter...apparently the truth hurts...so you just prefer to ignore it. tsmith

He was referring to varieties. He mentioned the races of cabbages (and other plants and animals).

of course, Herr Darwin can do no wrong!!! he was much wiser and more noble than any of us today... ignore that whole thing about exterminating the lower races... tsmith

No but we have Fox and Friends for that

Now now, hdx, Kilmeade is a noted atheist liberal Darwinist. *cough*. olearyfan

tsmith

inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it??

No, because the 'races' of humanity are still biologically the same species. That is what I said last time. Are you unable to process information which contradicts your initial beliefs? Is that the problem here?

all you can do is dismiss it, becasue you can’t deal with what is put to you obviously…

Don't blame me for your own lack of understanding. It's unbecoming. Here's the issue tsmith. You pick and choose quotes which support your position. When evidence is presented to you that the quotes you have picked do not reflect reality, or reflect only a minority or outdated position, you go back to your original quotes, as if they are definitive. The reason I say you are bearing false witness, tsmith, is because you pretend that the quotes you choose on Darwinism reflect the opinions of everyone who might be described as a Darwinist. They clearly do not. If you wish to shout to the rooftops that some scientists and some evolutionists and some Darwinists are racists, then heavens, you might seem as if you have a point. But to insist, as you do, that evolutionism or Darwinism necessarily leads to racism, or that all darwinists are racists whether or not they know they are, is simply bizarre. olearyfan

so what was that subtitle about race about again???

He was referring to varieties. He mentioned the races of cabbages (and other plants and animals).

Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

There is really not much about human evolution in Origins of Species. hdx

As I noted before, there are dozens (hundreds, thousands) of Darwin Anniversary events going on this year. Where are all the events celebrating his supposed implication of racism?

No but we have Fox and Friends for that

Kilmeade questioned the results, though, saying, "We are -- we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other ..." At this point, his co-host tried to -- in that jokey morning show way -- tell Kilmeade he needed to shut up, and quick, for his own sake. But he didn't get the message, adding, "See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes .... Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society."

hdx

And more fun reading on Bryan and others

In 1925, the Klan became the first national organization to urge that creationism and evolution be given equal time in public schools (see Wade 1987). In the same year, Bryan's participation in the Scopes trial turned it into a major event of international interest. When Bryan died five days after the Scopes trial, the Klan burned crosses in Bryan's memory, eulogizing him as "the greatest Klansman of our time" (Werner 1929). The Klan vowed to take up Bryan's anti-evolution cause, and a defrocked Klan official formed a short-lived rival group called the Supreme Kingdom, "whose primary purpose was carrying on Bryan's crusade against teaching evolution" (Larson 1997).

Although there was no formal connection between fundamentalism and the Klan, both movements appealed to similar people. According to McIver (1994), perhaps as many as 40,000 fundamentalist preachers joined and were active in the Klan. As Mecklin observed, "a fundamentalist would have found himself thoroughly at home in the atmosphere of Klan ceremonies" (1924: 100). Moreover, many of the leading evangelists of the early 20th century were fervent creationists who supported, and were supported by, the Klan (Moore 2001; Wade 1987). William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent Bryan to Dayton to prosecute Scopes - advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution.

-Randy Moore, University of Minnesota hdx

CannuckianYankee

I don’t think you understand the difference between what Darwinism posits and what Christianity posits. Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies...

Boggle. Fred Phelps is doing what he says Christianity implies. Does anyone say he speaks for all Christians? Some people say that evolution implies racism. Do they speak for everyone who supports evolution? As I noted before, there are dozens (hundreds, thousands) of Darwin Anniversary events going on this year. Where are all the events celebrating his supposed implication of racism? Oh I see. When Fred Phelps speaks, he doesn't speak for Christianity, but when Galton speaks, he speaks for all evolution. Makes perfect sense. [Facepalm] olearyfan

Oh the Scopes trial! What about that Creationist William Jennings Bryan and other anti-evolutionists

In the year after the 1924 Democratic convention, where [William Jennings] Bryan [the prosecutor of the Scopes trial] had thrown his weight against a resolution condemning the Ku Klux Klan, Pickens lumped Bryan together with the Klan as a matter of course. Bryan's offense, suggested J. A. Rogers in the Messenger, A. Philip Randolph's radical journal, was the same hypocrisy that tainted Fundamentalists throughout the South: "Bryan from the pulpit preaches the domination of Christ; in politics he practices Ku Kluxism and white domination, the bulwarks of which are lynching, murder, rape, arson, theft, and concubinage." ... And Bryan was one of the more racially benign antievolutionists. One of his allies, South Carolina's former governor and current U.S. senator, Cole Blease, not only endorsed a rigid antievolution law but also virulently and publicly supported the extralegal lynching of black men. Blease had earned notoriety by planting the severed finger of a lynched African American in the gubernatorial garden. ... Secular black commentators charged that the goad to the antievolution movement, from the top on down, was fear of Darwinism's racial implications. If black and white had a common ancestry, as evolutionary theory suggested, then the South's elaborate racial barriers might seem arbitrary rather than God-given.

- Jeffrey P. Morgan; Reading Race into the Scopes Trial: African American Elites, Science, and Fundamentalism, Journal of American History, Vol. 90. No. 3; 2003 hdx

and here from a Civic Biology...the book of the famous scopes monkey trial...

'at the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instinct, social customs, and to an extent, in structure. ' 'There are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.'

naw, no racism in evolution!! nothing to see here...move on... olearfan, let me guess, you're a democrat!! tsmith

olearyfan: try to answer, instead of avoiding it... inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it?? all you can do is dismiss it, becasue you can't deal with what is put to you obviously... tsmith

Olearyfan, I don't think you understand the difference between what Darwinism posits and what Christianity posits. Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies, and that's the point of Weiker's writing. Ideas have consequences. Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A CannuckianYankee

when you make no attempt to respond to most of what is put to you.

again you're a liar. So you keep saying, tsmith, as if your opinion binds everyone else. and you have been unable to refute it.

For the bazillionth time, tsmith, some does not equal all.

so unless EVERY LAST EVOLUTIONIST says something, it ain't so...laughable. so what was that subtitle about race about again??? tsmith

inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it??

So you keep saying, tsmith, as if your opinion binds everyone else. olearyfan

I’ve already posted several quotes of people who disagree, including prominent evolutionists.

For the bazillionth time, tsmith, some does not equal all. Some does not equal most. Does Fred Phelps speak for all Christians? Does Joe the Plumber? These are rhetorical questions. You needn't answer. It's amusing that you declare victory on the basis that not every quotation you make is answered, when you make no attempt to respond to most of what is put to you. olearyfan

The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a “savior”.

miller and provine would disagree, but what do the know??? tsmith

But to pretend that ALL people who believe in evolution must accept YOUR opinion, Mr tsmith sir, is to bear false witness.

never said that...nice lie...apparently you are good at it. you can deny history and the truth all you want...doesn't mean that history didn't happen. and yes when the subtitle is or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life of course race had NOTHING to do with the origin of the species!! sure!!

I have seen in the news this year dozens of events, programs and the like regarding the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. Have ANY of these events included celebrations or promotions of racism or eugenics

what does this matter?

Modern evolutionary understanding, accepted almost entirely (as I understand it) by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary et al. is that all humans alive today are of the species Homo Sapiens. ‘Race’ in the sense of African, European, Asian or Native American, is biologically meaningless, with the differences being superficial

but obviously the races are different..so they must be 'differently' evolved?? right? a common ancestor does NOT mean that all humans are the same race, or that they have evolved at the same rate. as I said, inherent in evolution is the difference of the races...and of course one race must be more 'fit' than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn't it?? tsmith

Darwin formulated the theory of evolution to describe and explain how life on Earth has changed and developed over millions of years - nothing more, nothing less. The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a “savior”.

I've already posted several quotes of people who disagree, including prominent evolutionists.

Obviously there are historians who have no better understanding of the ‘is/ought’ problem than you

because YOU say so...right. tsmith

tsmith @ 72

and evolution was always meant to be the ‘theory of everything’, that explained all human behavior. it has consequences, no god, no right no wrong, no need for a savior…and that is not incidental to the theory…

Darwin formulated the theory of evolution to describe and explain how life on Earth has changed and developed over millions of years - nothing more, nothing less. The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a "savior". As for right and wrong, it is a theory in biology not ethics.

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

Obviously there are historians who have no better understanding of the 'is/ought' problem than you. Seversky

tsmith I am not here to defend evolution.

so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be ‘differently evolved’, right?

Modern evolutionary understanding, accepted almost entirely (as I understand it) by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary et al. is that all humans alive today are of the species Homo Sapiens. 'Race' in the sense of African, European, Asian or Native American, is biologically meaningless, with the differences being superficial. I do think you are flogging a dead horse.

racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution…nobody misused evolution, or twisted it…

So you say, and you are entitled to your opinion. But to pretend that ALL people who believe in evolution must accept YOUR opinion, Mr tsmith sir, is to bear false witness. I have seen in the news this year dozens of events, programs and the like regarding the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Have ANY of these events included celebrations or promotions of racism or eugenics? If not, then I suggest, sir, that your opinion that "racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution" is not shared by those (unlike me) who seek to promote and defend the theory of evolution. Let me make one thing clear. The argument that evolution is "mindless" and that science and all of culture therefore must be predicated on this "mindlessness" is one I would oppose. I suspect that this is the argument you wish to make, although it is not the one you are making. My point is, sir, that I do not think that modern-day evolutionists or philosophers ARE saying that culture and science should be "mindless". I think, and this is only my opinion, that those who support Intelligent Design should be making positive arguments in its favour - and not by attacking straw men. olearyfan

The arguments on this page have been of the form “some people used Darwinism to justify bad things, therefore Darwinism is bad”

you are deliberately misrepresenting the arguments on this page. is it ignorance, or a lie? why don't you answer the questions I asked before?? so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be ‘differently evolved’, right? racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution...nobody misused evolution, or twisted it... tsmith

Hitler hated and detested Christians as well, though not to the point of including them all in the Holocaust. Most people are not aware of his haterd for Christianity.

This isn't a contest to see who Hitler hated most. The arguments on this page have been of the form "some people used Darwinism to justify bad things, therefore Darwinism is bad". If people cannot see the logical fallacy of these arguments, then Lord help us, and Lord help the Intelligent Design community. olearyfan

Olearyfan, Hitler hated and detested Christians as well, though not to the point of including them all in the Holocaust. Most people are not aware of his haterd for Christianity. DATCG

Eugenics lives today at the Supreme Court... Just ask Justice Ginsburg. From a NYT interview online due out this weekend... "Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?" "JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. Hmmmmm... Evolutionist Progressive? Or evil right wing IDist? You decide. Repeating quote... "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." Wonder how Sotomayor feels about this? Conflict at SCOTUS? "Populations... we don't want to many of" against "reverse racist" who supports color above test scores for Firemen? If this wasn't so sad, it would make a great SNL skit. DATCG

Tribune7

Then perhaps arguments-as-to-consequences are not so poor.

That depends on the context. As a general rule, they are not good arguments.

BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler’s immorality.

In which case, I really do not see the point of the original post in this thread. Hitler was a madman. His rise to power came out of fervent nationalism, and fed on long-standing, deeply-embedded antisemitism. To blame Darwin for that seems to me to make as much sense as blaming Pope Pius XII. But we're closer to singing from the same hymn sheet at last, Tribune7. Oh happy day. olearyfan

You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional. Neither teaching is implicit or implied in evolutionary theory or biology generally. You’re conflating “is” with “ought” by reading a “purpose” into a descriptive theory of changes in allele frequencies over time. Nor does biology teach “that man is not exceptional;” my biology classes included a number of lessons about how humans are different from other animals. Perhaps you mean that biology lacks a supernatural or metaphysical assumption that humans are fundamentally different from other organisms. You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it… Are we adopting biology to guide us? Does that require any commitment above and beyond treating biology as an empirical discipline that stands or falls on its merits? Should we adopt intelligent design to guide us after it achieves scientific legitimacy, or concurrently, or adopt it as our guiding principle first, in order to help it succeed in the lab? Learned Hand

You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same. . .That is preposterous. I have never said any such thing. Then perhaps arguments-as-to-consequences are not so poor. BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler's immorality. tribune7

Hoki, Common descent sometimes referred to as universal common descent is really a metaphysical dogma couched in naturalistic terms that all life on the planet descended with modification from some single celled organism in the distant past. It is the microbes to man scenario. It is the basis for the naturalistic world view. Common ancestry is nothing more than two separate species having a common ancestor. A goat and a cow could have a common ancestor. There is no implication or evidence that the ancestral tree goes back to microbes. Nowhere in either theory is there any implication that a certain mechanism for evolutionary change is preferred or likely. Because Darwin asserted the mechanism was gradualism, most people assume gradualism but there is no evidence for gradualism. The evidence is very strong for a lot of common ancestry amongst animals. Not that all are related but that many within a phyla are related. Again no evidence for the mechanism that caused this relationship. jerry

tribune7

You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional.

I did not come here to defend evolution as a philosophy-for-life. I commented in this thread to point out that arguments-as-to-consequences are very poor arguments, especially if one insists that ones own opinions are the only ones which are valid.

You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same.

That is preposterous. I have never said any such thing. tsmith

science isn’t all sweetness and light as you suppose.

I have never said it was. olearyfan

#156 nice try, but eugenics and racism still exists in science...sorry. science isn't all sweetness and light as you suppose. tsmith

olearyfan --I can’t believe that you would really tell someone to reject Christianity without properly trying to understand it. But I never told that to anyone. You ignored what I said about the Spanish Inquisition. My point is that just because people commit evil acts in the name of Christianity, this does not invalidate Christianity. No, I didn't. You are missing my point. Evil has always existed. You have a teaching that says evil exists and that we must refrain from doing it. You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional. You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same. The death toll for the Spanish Inquisition over 300 years was 2,000 which if you want some perspective is about the same as that of lynchings in the US during the 70 years of Jim Crow. The death toll due to genocide during the 12-years of the Third Reich was 12 million. tribune7

To insist that “Darwinism” necessarily leads to racism and eugenics

that is true, and all the quotes that I have to support that proposition make it very clear. and your *proof* that its not so is, because you say so....right. so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be 'differently evolved', right?

while ignoring the facts that racism and genocide existed before Darwin is, in my opinion, not a good argument

and what does that have to do with the notion that racism and eugenics are inherent in evolution??? As Gould said: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Stephen Jay Gould, 'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128 so is Gould a liar too?? as far as 'slinging mud' whatever...continue with your lies...since its apparently all you have.. tsmith

tsmith

...they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles... ...these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s...

Thank you for making my point for me. olearyfan

tsmith

what have I said is a lie?

To insist that "Darwinism" necessarily leads to racism and eugenics while ignoring any "Darwinists" who oppose racism and eugenics, and while ignoring the facts that racism and genocide existed before Darwin is, in my opinion, not a good argument. It may make you feel good to sling mud at those who don't believe what you believe, tsmith, but I do not think it's the right thing to do. To Bevets... Are you the same person frequently mentioned in Fark threads? olearyfan

from wikpedia, under eugenics...

A few scientific researchers such as psychologist Richard Lynn, psychologist Raymond Cattell, and scientist Gregory Stock have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology, but they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles.[112] One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donors were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson). In the U.S. and Europe, though, these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s. Because of its association with compulsory sterilization and the racial ideals of the Nazi Party, the word eugenics is rarely used by the advocates of such programs.

tsmith

The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton Dedicated to the memory of MY FATHER. For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book. ~ Leonard Darwin The Need for Eugenic Reform (1926) Dedication Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind. ~ Leonard Darwin bevets

You have failed to convince me that you are doing that, tsmith, and I am supposed to be on your side.

really? well what do you dispute? what have I said is a lie? post your proof. tsmith

Not in the slightest. darwin made that clear Quite the opposite, as you have been shown again and again

right, all those scholars were soooo wrong..and you are right!! sure. tsmith

And yet racism, hatred, genocide and all manner of evils existed before the time of Darwin - as tribune7 so prosaically demonstrated above.

so? those things existed before christianity too.

Do you have any evidence that evolutionary science today in any way support racism or eugenics?

the aforementioned Watson....and from wikpedia...under 'scientific racism'

The accusation of scientific racism is often levelled at those whose research claims that there are real differences in intelligence between races, particularly if those differences are claimed to be at least partly genetic in origin. Contemporary researchers who have been called scientific racists include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.[43] The critics of these authors, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, write that their works are motivated by racist assumptions and are not supported by the available evidence. The authors respond that their work is objective, and that their critics are motivated by prejudice, political correctness or censorship. Some publications, such as the Mankind Quarterly, have been accused of systematically publishing racist research. The Mankind Quarterly is an anthropology journal that contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race. The journal publishes work they feel might otherwise be ignored, due to its controversial nature.[44]

tsmith

racism and eugenics are inherent…ie a central part, of the theory of evolution

Not in the slightest.

darwin made that clear

Quite the opposite, as you have been shown again and again. And now I have to go collect my daughter from school so that's it from me for the moment. BillB

tsmith

evolution is an all-encompassing theory, and it tries to explain all human behavior…as a religion would…the racism, the eugenics, are direct results of the theory…the word ‘eugenics’ was coined by galton, Darwin’s cousin.

And yet racism, hatred, genocide and all manner of evils existed before the time of Darwin - as tribune7 so prosaically demonstrated above. Do you have any evidence that evolutionary science today in any way support racism or eugenics?

you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers.

You have failed to convince me that you are doing that, tsmith, and I am supposed to be on your side. olearyfan

BillB: still waiting for those quotes from darwin where he rebukes Galton and his own children for supporting eugenics... tsmith

Lott and his daughters

racism and eugenics are inherent...ie a central part, of the theory of evolution...darwin made that clear...as did his followers...have you read what Watson recently said??? tsmith

you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers.

Based on my observations so far, if you were not an ID supporter then I suspect that accusing an ID supporter of lying would get you put in moderation. I hope you appreciate the privileged position you have.

ideas have consequences.

Lott and his daughters... BillB

quote mining from darwin and ignoring the conclusions from the quotes

oh yeah 'quote mining' which means 'inconvenient truth' too funny...you darwiniacs all post talking points...try some independent thinking..but you wouldn't be darwiniacs if you could do that... tsmith

This selective quote is not representative as it delibertaly misses out on the wider context of what he is discussing, as I have already illustrated.

oh of course *my* quote is 'selective' while yours is not!! and you ignore what you cannot deal with. and of course Gould, and all those other people were mistaken about Darwin...and his cousin Galton was mistaken too...and his kids...and you can give me all the quotes where Darwin rebukes Galton for euginics, right??? tsmith

@138 fixed

you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quote mining from darwin and ignoring the conclusions from the quotes.

hdx

BillB, why don’t you comment on what you think this means…

I've already expressed my opinions on what Darwin was trying to get across. This selective quote is not representative as it delibertaly misses out on the wider context of what he is discussing, as I have already illustrated. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and start selectively referencing the story of Lott and his daughters in order to claim that the Bible advocates drunken incestuous orgies? BillB

It appears that you select the portions of a text which re-enforce your prejudices, and ignore anything which contradicts them

couldn't have anything to do with sanger being the most prominent american eugenicist...and her offspring planned parenthood still being around today..and still accepting donations from people trying to get rid of black people....sigh... tsmith

I fail to see how bearing false witness and casting motes is “truth”.

you 'sir' are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers. TRUTH hurts. tsmith

Intelligent Design, like evolution and all science, stands or falls on it’s own merits… Not on appeals to consequence or tu quoques.

evolution is an all-encompassing theory, and it tries to explain all human behavior...as a religion would...the racism, the eugenics, are direct results of the theory...the word 'eugenics' was coined by galton, Darwin's cousin. ideas have consequences. tsmith

tsmith

interesting that your article doesn’t mention margaret sanger, and planned parenthood…

It appears that you select the portions of a text which re-enforce your prejudices, and ignore anything which contradicts them. The article I linked (not "my article") gives ample credit to those Evangelicals (and others) who opposed the evils of the Eugenics movement.

I think the truth will further that cause, don’t you??

I fail to see how bearing false witness and casting motes is "truth". Intelligent Design, like evolution and all science, stands or falls on it's own merits... Not on appeals to consequence or tu quoques. olearyfan

I’m sure people like Newton believed in creation..but I would not call him a creationist…because creationism is a relatively recent movement.

Maybe because universal common descent wasn't an issue before Darwin's time. Perhaps? hdx

Thus the weak members of civilised 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 why is this injurious to the 'race of man'??? darwin sure was interested in 'race' now wasn't he?? tsmith

BillB, why don't you comment on what you think this means...

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206

tsmith

There are such things as Muslim creationists as well

very true...but I don't think they believe God only created white people... tsmith

I guess you must have missed that bit.

so darwin thought helping an weaker individual was OK, but it wasn't OK to let them breed. tsmith

Gobineau mentions Adam and Eve, how is this not referencing the Bible and biblical creation? hdx

The Eugenics movement had strong support in the Bible-believing Fundamentalist Southern States of the USA

interesting that your article doesn't mention margaret sanger, and planned parenthood...

This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Lenin had a word for these kinds of people...useful idiots... from your article...

An excommunicated Seventh-Day Adventist, Kellogg used his magazine Good Health to reach a wide audience, and the guest list of his Battle Creek Sanitarium reads like a Who’s Who of American elites of the early twentieth century. Kellogg was convinced that poor dietary and moral habits were leading America down the path of "race degeneration." His solution was eugenics, not merely as a set of policies, but as a quasi-religious ideology.11

excommunicated huh?? yeah he sounds like a rabid christian fundamentalist!!

I really fail to see how your arguments do anything to further the cause of intelligent design

I think the truth will further that cause, don't you?? tsmith

its not a view that white people were created by God…and apparently the rest were not…

You just quoted this:

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

There are such things as Muslim creationists as well. BillB

tsmith-119 you just quoted a passage where Darwin starts to explain why selective breeding in humans is bad in order to support your claim that he was into eugenics. How about adding the following to your quote:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

I guess you must have missed that bit. BillB

tsmith wrote: "this notion of a ’struggle’ sure did pervade his writing apparently…hmmm where else have I heard of this struggle…my struggle….." ....and now I think there's absolutely no point reading your posts any more. You are clearly here just to throw mud at Darwin, even to the point of mentioning that he used the term "struggle" in the long title of "Origins" and Hitler later (60 years later) used the German word in the title of his book, and somehow trying to make it significant. That is pathetic. Gaz

tsmith The Eugenics movement had strong support in the Bible-believing Fundamentalist Southern States of the USA. I really fail to see how your arguments do anything to further the cause of intelligent design. olearyfan

and that definition is from link sorry. tsmith

Main Entry:cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation:\-sh?-?ni-z?m\ Function:noun Date:1880 : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b its not a view that white people were created by God...and apparently the rest were not... tsmith

He is interpreting scripture. Are you claiming that you are only a creationist if you DON’T interpret scripture?

the allegation has been made that he was a creationist...creationists believe very specific things...not included with them are the stormfront people for example. I'm sure people like Newton believed in creation..but I would not call him a creationist...because creationism is a relatively recent movement. tsmith

@117 Your brand of creationism is based on your interpretation of the bible. Since there are so many inconsistencies in Genesis it is easy to come up with your own interpretation. Gobineau believed God created humans in their current form, that is creationism. hdx

ok so its not creationism then…since creationism is based upon the bible…

Umm

We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white.

He is interpreting scripture. Are you claiming that you are only a creationist if you DON'T interpret scripture? BillB

Darwin's cousin galton started the eugenics movement, and his children were very active in it...and yet darwin did nothing to dissuade them.... tsmith

Because he was aware of how people like you are happy to distort and abuse science to suit their own ends and he wanted to make his opinions on the subject of eugenics clear, e.g

his views were very clear to people like Huxley...and darwin did NOTHING to stop it.

In other words ‘it is wrong to apply selective breeding to humans’. Please, its rather obvious isn’t it??

not at all...

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

tsmith

but of course the bible doesn’t say that Adam was the ‘common ancestor of white men’ now does it?

No, it doesn't which is why Arthur de Gobineau's interpretation of scripture was wrong - I think you may have been missing the point here. BillB

He is not quoting the Bible he clearly states Adam is the ancestor of all white men. See page 118 of the link.

ok so its not creationism then...since creationism is based upon the bible... tsmith

and lets not forget the entire title of Darwin's book... On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life this notion of a 'struggle' sure did pervade his writing apparently...hmmm where else have I heard of this struggle...my struggle..... tsmith

@111 He is not quoting the Bible he clearly states Adam is the ancestor of all white men. See page 118 of the link. hdx

why talk about it all?? unless its a direct result of his theory?? hmmm?

Because he was aware of how people like you are happy to distort and abuse science to suit their own ends and he wanted to make his opinions on the subject of eugenics clear, e.g:

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind

In other words 'it is wrong to apply selective breeding to humans'. Please, its rather obvious isn’t it??

the extent to which darwiniacs will defend their hairygod is just another indication that evolution is a religion.

A more generalised form of your statement would be "Your refusal to accept my claims are proof that I'm right" BillB

If you will forgive me for my opinion, I true believe that all this “darwnism leads to nazism” is doing the ID movement no favors.

the scholars who studied hitler, were often evolutionists like Sir Arthur Keith...

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Reference Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.

tsmith

He acknowledges Adam as the common ancestor for white men and that his view is based on scripture. You may quibble about the term creationist but he does appear to believe in the biblical account of creation, at least as far as Adam goes

but of course the bible doesn't say that Adam was the 'common ancestor of white men' now does it? tsmith

He says we must acknowledge Adam as the father of the ancestor race Wow what more can I do? You know just because wikipedia or Encarta leaves something out, doesn’t mean it isn’t a fact.

wow, you totally ignore what creationism means in order to further your agenda. I have no doubts that Voltaire quoted the bible, does that make him a religious fundamentalist??? tsmith

Folks: I think a few facts from Darwin, H G Wells and herr Schicklegruber himself will make a difference. Please do not force me to quote Ch XI of Mein Kampf. The roots in Darwin's Descent of Man, are as plain as can be. GEM of TKI PS: The above cite fr ch 6 of Descent on extinction of inferior races appears without alteration in the 2nd edn 1874, i.e all those nice words on Negroes in that 1873 letter made no difference to Darwin's scientific work. the moral hazard is plain and it is undeniable that he did nothing about it in the place where he should have. At least H G Wells warned. kairosfocus

ou still haven’t shown where Darwin proclaims, in direct contrast to some other statements, that extermination is a good thing.

why talk about it all?? unless its a direct result of his theory?? hmmm? the extent to which darwiniacs will defend their hairygod is just another indication that evolution is a religion. tsmith

tribune7 @ 79

If you think Christianity causes evil you should reject it

I can't believe that you would really tell someone to reject Christianity without properly trying to understand it. You must be joking with me. You ignored what I said about the Spanish Inquisition. My point is that just because people commit evil acts in the name of Christianity, this does not invalidate Christianity. As you yourself say, evil (and by implication racism, genocide, anti-semitism and all that go with them) existed long before Christ and Darwin. Certainly, monsters have used Darwinism to justify evil - just as they have used Christianity, Islam and (for all their lovely-doveyness) Buddhism. If you will forgive me for my opinion, I true believe that all this "darwnism leads to nazism" is doing the ID movement no favors. "Appeals to consequences" are a very basic logical fallacy, as discussed in this conservapedia article. I came to Uncommon Descent for positive, scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, such as that discussed in The Spiritual Brain. I really hope this forum isn't just about he-said she-said mud-slinging. olearyfan

OMG @103 read the book that i gave a link for. it has the quote i mentioned in #2. He says we must acknowledge Adam as the father of the ancestor race Wow what more can I do? You know just because wikipedia or Encarta leaves something out, doesn't mean it isn't a fact. hdx

you said he was a creationist…nothing in your quote supports that.

I tend to agree about that specific post but then there was this quote from Gobineau at the start of the thread:

We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. - Arthur de Gobineau; An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853

He acknowledges Adam as the common ancestor for white men and that his view is based on scripture. You may quibble about the term creationist but he does appear to believe in the biblical account of creation, at least as far as Adam goes. BillB

I am just summarizing my thoughts and I am out of here 1) People before Darwin were racists 2) Even creationist using the Bible to justify beliefs were racists 3) Darwin's writing were some of the least racist at the time 4) Darwin felt there was little biological difference between the races 5) Darwin believed the European civilization was superior, to others but 6) Civilizations come and go and have more to do with knowledge morals religion than biology 7) Darwin felt that weaker members breeding would have some bad effects 8) But it would be worse to check our morals and not allow all people to breed freely 9) Others after Darwin used evolution to justify racism 10) Others after Darwin who were not evolutionist were racist 11) Hitler based some of his views from people who were evolutionists but many of his views came from creationist (Gobineau, Luther) 12) Hitler and eugenics have nothing to do with natural selection and common descent, but more with artificial selection, something that has been practised for 1000s of years. In conclusion Darwinism is not the cause of all the ills of society. Just because a theory is misused by people does not mean that it is wrong or shouldn't be taught. If that is the case we should not let the Bible be taught. hdx

yeah just ignore all that stuff about EXTERMINATING the ‘inferior’ races…and again who was darwin talking about being INFERIOR???

You still haven't shown where Darwin proclaims, in direct contrast to some other statements, that extermination is a good thing. BillB

#102...you said he was a creationist...nothing in your quote supports that. tsmith

@96 tsmith Took only a couple minutes to find this. Look at page 118 http://books.google.com/books?id=JeM_1BCeffAC&printsec=titlepage& (yes google is easy to use) Ooh here is what Encarta says about him

Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882), French diplomat and social philosopher, whose racial theory, pervaded by anti-Semitism, later became a philosophical justification for Nazi racism. Gobineau was born in Ville-d'Avray, near Paris, France, to an aristocratic family. From 1848 to 1877 he held diplomatic posts in Iran, Germany, Greece, Brazil, and Sweden. In addition to his diplomatic roles, Gobineau was an avid writer. He wrote novels, and books on religion, philosophy, and history. Gobineau's most famous work, Essay on the Inequality of Human Races (1853-1855), stated that the Aryan, or white, race was superior to all other races. His theory of racial superiority later influenced the German composer Richard Wagner and Wagner's son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and was eventually adopted by the German dictator Adolf Hitler. Gobineau's theory of racial superiority has been thoroughly refuted and is considered worthless by modern anthropologists. Gobineau's other books include The Renaissance (1877; translated in 1913), a study of the psychological motives behind the Italian Renaissance.

hdx

Selectively quoting to misrepresent like this when the full quote appears on the SAME PAGE just doesn’t work. Why would a eugenicist say that eugenics was bad?

yeah Darwin was for taking care of the weak...but not allowing the inferior to breed...what would you call that?? oh yeah eugenics... tsmith

#98 yeah just ignore all that stuff about EXTERMINATING the 'inferior' races...and again who was darwin talking about being INFERIOR??? Gould, and a host of other disagree with you, but what did they know? tsmith

No he doesn’t, none of his claims are a product of or form a part of the theory, they are his personal beliefs about its consequences, which he is entitled to. There is a BIG difference between interpreting scientific theories to support your beliefs and what those theories actually are. I suspect though that you are disinclined to acknowledge differences like this when it suits you

you'll notice he said that at DARWIN DAY...a religious holiday for atheists...and here is MILLER...that patron saint of 'theistic evolutionists' in a TEXTBOOK...

"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

no divine plan to guide us?? philosophical materialism??? isn't that atheism?? tsmith

@93 wow again fail. Darwin said we shouldn't do anything to prevent breeding and this is quite clear. This is clearly not eugenics. Since you can't comprehend what Darwin is talking about let me try to explain in simple terms. I have a neuromuscular disease. I can function decently well but I can't run and I often trip. Some of genes are obviously inferior to others. If I didn't live in a highly civilized society and had to hunt for food, I would probably die. Now in this society I can pass on my genes to offspring. A eugencist would say that someone like me that has bad genes and should be prohibited from passing them on. Darwin says this would be bad biologically, but to prevent someone from breeding would be morally wrong. He clearly states that natural selection should run its course and laws shouldn't get in the way. hdx

#92 again, thanks for proving my point.. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; that is EXACTLY what a eugenicist would say…

What, this: but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Selectively quoting to misrepresent like this when the full quote appears on the SAME PAGE just doesn't work. Why would a eugenicist say that eugenics was bad? BillB

OMG a historian said so, it must make it true.

as opposed to YOU said it, so it must be true??? right. Arthur de Gobineau...I looked him up in wikpedia, they didn't mention him being a creationist...so where do you get this at??? obviously racism and anti-semitism have always existed...darwin gave them a 'scientific' respectability...as Gould admitted...but what did he know, compared to you? tsmith

tsmith-90

hate to tell you, but provine speaks for evolution in a way you do not.

No he doesn't, none of his claims are a product of or form a part of the theory, they are his personal beliefs about its consequences, which he is entitled to. There is a BIG difference between interpreting scientific theories to support your beliefs and what those theories actually are. I suspect though that you are disinclined to acknowledge differences like this when it suits you. BillB

@91 tsmith OMG a historian said so, it must make it true. Aryan master race from Gobineau. He was clearly a creationist.

We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. - Arthur de Gobineau; An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853

Yes the Bible says all humans came from Adam and eve, that is why a number of creationist believed non-whites were a separate race. Also antisemitism was also there long before Darwin. Just read the works of the creationist Martin Luther, which greatly influence Nazi propaganda. hdx

#92 again, thanks for proving my point..

We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

that is EXACTLY what a eugenicist would say...why do you think there were so many people sterilized in the US as a result of eugenics??? so the 'weak' and 'useless eaters' would not breed. oh yeah you forgot the preceding sentences....

On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted

who are these INFERIOR MEMBERS??? tsmith

@86 wow your failure at reading comprehension is amazing nowhere in 80 does Darwin give approval but he does say

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

This is completely opposite of what a eugenicist would say! And again darwin states that

Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.

He clearly states that no law should prevent people from breeding! Completely opposite of a eugencist. hdx

By the way no one ever commented on the fact that the master Aryan race notion came from a creationist who used the Bible to justify some of his ideas.

obviously it didn't, and you saying it did doesn't make it so. creationism says humans came from adam and eve...we're all ONE RACE...all related...and Hitler, as his historians acknowledge, got his ideas from darwinism. tsmith

ScotAndrews (74), "If morality is a product of evolution then it is a convenience to be employed when it suits us." A bit of a loaded question, which as is always the case depends on what you mean by "morality". Is it wrong to kill? If so, were the Crusaders acting immorally? "It is not binding." What do you mean by "binding"? Who or what does the binding, even if there is a morality? Surely not the God that stood by and watched as the genocide unfolded? "Our rejection of it is just as valid as our acceptance of it. Only history can judge whether genocide is selected or rejected as beneficial for the species, not morality." Not at all. I think the vast majority of humanity today would regard genocide as totally prejudicial for the well-being of the species. Most people I know despair at scenes of genocide (especially as we never seem to learn and the same sorts of acts get repeated). On the other hand, those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God would surely need to conclude that genocide was part of God's overall plans (otherwise, why let it happen?) and thus a moral good. Not my view at all. "We can still judge Hitler, but based on what? Our emotions? What make ours more valid than his?" The fact that humanity can generally get along and progress much better with our views. Following Hitler's led only to general devastation. Basically, our way works, his doesn't. Gaz

I’ll take you at your word then but I find your support for racism and eugenics abhorrent for, as you seem to believe, the fact that you have stated these things about evolution must therefore mean you support them

more darwinian 'logic' lying for darwin, its what evolutionists do.

And? He is entitled to his opinion, and I disagree with it. What has his personal views on the existence of God got to do with the theory of evolution

hate to tell you, but provine speaks for evolution in a way you do not. are you published? are you one of the leading darwinists in the world today? all I can is its rather obvious the truth hurts...your saint charlie was a racist eugenicist.

tsmith

Challenge to everyone. Can anyone give a quote from a creationist scientist around Darwin's time that states that all the races have similar mental abilities. For example Darwin stated.

There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers

hdx

tsmith-77 I'll take you at your word then but I find your support for racism and eugenics abhorrent for, as you seem to believe, the fact that you have stated these things about evolution must therefore mean you support them?

and hate to tell you, but evolution IS a religious theory…as provine admits…

And? He is entitled to his opinion, and I disagree with it. What has his personal views on the existence of God got to do with the theory of evolution - almost nothing, its just his opinion. Try asking Ken Miller for his opinion. As for reading things into text:

darwinists never do.

What you mean is 'there is only one valid interpretation of anything - MINE'

to them darwin was the most sainted, wonderful person who ever lived!!

You have a vivid but inaccurate imagination.

Please its rather obvious isn’t it??

It is a stretch of Olympian proportions. BillB

By the way no one ever commented on the fact that the master Aryan race notion came from a creationist who used the Bible to justify some of his ideas. So does this mean we should stop teaching the Bible? hdx

@80 wow you completely ignore the conclusions of Darwin that eugenics would be wrong. Hence evolutionary thought does not necessarily lead to eugenics.

it OBVIOUSLY does..you ignore plain english. even evolutionists admit it, why can't you? tsmith

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Life of Charles Darwin", [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

Darwin's most rabid followers were pretty about this too...

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], "Emancipation-Black and White," in Rhys E., ed., "Lectures and Lay Sermons," [1871], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

tsmith

@80 wow you completely ignore the conclusions of Darwin that eugenics would be wrong. Hence evolutionary thought does not necessarily lead to eugenics. hdx

@49 PaulN

You continue to assert that he is simply alluding to civil development when he clearly relates races to their ape-like counterparts, providing specific analogies between blacks, aboriginals, and their respective evolutionary proximity to gorillas. It’s clear that he is referring primarily to evolutionary development, and its respective civilizational development. He prefaces this with what he believed to be the impending deliberate extermination between these distinctive developmental stages of evolutionary castes.

You seem to continue assert that he is talking about racial difference and you never address the fact that Darwin stated multiple times (in the following Chapter) that there is very little biological differences. Some of those quotes from @40

The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man.

I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.

As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs)...

No back to the quote you and everyone else love to quote.

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian,

I am not making any assertion about civil development, Darwin specifically is talking about civil development. Yes this really sounds like he is talking about racial differences. hdx

I'm in Italy right now---not very far from the G-9 meeting, and won't be able to respond very easily. But let me say this: I beleive that "social Darwinism" actually refers to "capitalism". This might sound strange, but, of course, when you take a "laissez-faire" attitude, then you rather expect the "survival of the fittest". Thus, if this is what social Darwinism truly represents, then "eugenics" is the 'social' movement flowing from evolutionary thought. But, again, what probably triggered eugenics is very likely the "Hardy-Weinberg Law", which tells us that if a °population is isolated and fully interbreeds, then the gene pool never changes." If one takes this thought seriously, and then add that to the mutability of species that is argued by Darwin, then, "yes", I believe you end up with "eugenics". Likewise, if "social Darwinism" is the term used to redefine "capitalism", then the word to likely represent 'control' over the economy would be "fascism". So, that Hitler the fascist, was also Hitler the 'eugenicist', should not come as a surprise. Whereas fascism led to the Great Depression, "eugenics" would lead to the Holocaust. PaV

even gould admits the racism inherent in evolution... "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Stephen Jay Gould, 'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128 indeed if the races are 'evolving' or 'evolved' then one must be more 'fit' than the others...right?? tsmith

#78 you own quotes show that darwin DOES approve of eugenics...

On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication;

did you notice that part about 'struggle for existence' my struggle...mein kampf...and Galton was his cousin, and the founder of the eugenics movemement...his children were involved in this movement to, with his approval...

Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement -- his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as "president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain"), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the "eugenics crusade." Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing "to cut off communication" with his disciple Mivart when the latter "criticized an article by Darwin's son George that advocated eugenics."

link tsmith

Surely, Tribune7, you do not believe that people should reject Christianity simply because they do not like any supposed or projected “moral implications” they think it might have. If you think Christianity causes evil you should reject it. For instance, if you think we would be better off if a fellow didn't walk the Earth 2000 years ago and teach us to love our neighbors and that all of us -- you, me, clergy, doctors, educated professors -- are capable of evil, great and small, and must constantly be on guard against doing so; and, well, before this fellow came there was no war, or cruelty or death by torture or lies and everyone was out passing flowers to each other, you must have attended a U.S. public school because you don't know history. tribune7

@71 No Darwin did no morally approve of eugenics. Just becuase he talks about the negative consequences of certain people breeding, does not mean that he approved of preventing it. He said it might give us some benefit, but is ultimately evil. Hence just because you believe in evolution (like Darwin) does it logically mean that you would believe in eugenics (like Darwin did not)

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871 The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

hdx

???? I don’t see anything in the quotes you provided that endorse eugenics or racism, he appears to be lamenting the unfortunate tendency of humans to be cruel to each other and other animals.

darwinists never do. to them darwin was the most sainted, wonderful person who ever lived!! please its rather obvious isn't it??

Thus the weak members of civilised 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.”

His cousin, Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, saw it quite clearly, as did Sanger, Hitler, and a host of others...

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

link in this quote you get a twofer racism and eugenics...

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

so you missed that 'exterminate' part? and hate to tell you, but evolution IS a religious theory...as provine admits...

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

tsmith

BillB--I’m a little confused by this

if man really came about from less complex life through undirected means . . .That still leaves open, of course, the possibility of front-loaded TE-type evolution

There are a lot of flavors of TE but if you accept front-loading you accept that man did not come about via undirected processes. And if you accept that man's existence was the end and that evolution was the means, you can believe in evolution and the immorality of Hitler. Of course, this view is 180 degrees different than how the matter is usually considered. IOW, if it is true that what Hitler did was immoral any conclusions that contradict that truth -- even if drawn from accurate observations of nature -- are false. tribune7

Berceuse, ------"I’m glad you’ve brought that up, tribune7. I’m tired of seeing the “that doesn’t make his theory any less valid” card, because yes, actually it does. If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler’s–albeit extreme–application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. The fact that this is not the case is quite an invalidation." Exactly, it is an invalidation, for it accepts and demands less than humanity from humanity, and this is not in accordance with the facts about what makes up humanity. Clive Hayden

Also, if morality is a product of evolution then Hitler’s actions can be a transgression. This IS the case.

If morality is a product of evolution then it is a convenience to be employed when it suits us. It is not binding. Our rejection of it is just as valid as our acceptance of it. Only history can judge whether genocide is selected or rejected as beneficial for the species, not morality. We can still judge Hitler, but based on what? Our emotions? What make ours more valid than his? ScottAndrews

tsmith - 66-67

Darwin saw what was happening and believed it could be understood in evolutionary terms but there is nothing in his writing to suggest that he approved of it or thought it was morally justified. quite the opposite, actually.

???? I don't see anything in the quotes you provided that endorse eugenics or racism, he appears to be lamenting the unfortunate tendency of humans to be cruel to each other and other animals.

and evolution was always meant to be the ‘theory of everything’,

It is doing a pretty bad job then given that it limits its self to explaining how living things change from one generation to the next. Where does Darwin claim evolution can explain electromagnetism, nuclear radiation or star formation? Not everything Darwin thought or wrote is a part of the theory of evolution. The big problem here is that there are two theories of evolution. There is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, a scientific theory which forms a cornerstone of the biological sciences, and then there is what I guess we could call the religious theory of evolution which you are referring to, and which only bears a passing resemblance to anything in modern science. BillB

and evolution was always meant to be the 'theory of everything', that explained all human behavior. it has consequences, no god, no right no wrong, no need for a savior...and that is not incidental to the theory...

"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- 'Darwinism' was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], "Darwin," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

tsmith

Darwin saw what was happening and believed it could be understood in evolutionary terms but there is nothing in his writing to suggest that he approved of it or thought it was morally justified.

quite the opposite, actually.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

the racism, the eugenics, all built into the theory of evolution....

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." (Brookes, Martin.,"Ripe old age," Review of "Of Flies, Mice and Men," by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

tsmith

dbthomas @ 60

But, anyway, German for “biology” is “Biologie” and not “Rassenkunde” That’s OK, though. I found a source, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis by Robert Proctor, which places those words on Hess’ lips:

Bavarian Cabinet Minister Hans Schemm declared in 1934 that National Socialism was nothing but “applied biology”; Rudolf Hess called the new movement applied racial science (angewandte Rassenkunde)

Am I the only one to hear an echo of "creation science" in this - an attempt to apply a veneer of scientific respectability to a political ideology or theology? In other words, it is arguably evidence for the case that the Nazis were opportunists, cherry-picking whatever could be pressed into service in the cause of their bid for power. In any event, and this bears repetition, you cannot derive "ought" from "is". The way the world is does not mean that is how we should behave. The fact that, in Darwin's time, native peoples were suffering terrible mistreatment at the hands of European or white American powers does not mean that it was justified or moral even if it were part of an evolutionary process. Darwin saw what was happening and believed it could be understood in evolutionary terms but there is nothing in his writing to suggest that he approved of it or thought it was morally justified. Seversky

Berceuse-49:

If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler’s–albeit extreme–application of the theory should be of no moral transgression.

I don't understand how you 'apply' the ToE. How would you apply the theory of Plate tectonics? If I apply an understanding of aerodynamics in the design of wings for a German WW2 bomber does that make aerodynamics evil? Also, if morality is a product of evolution then Hitler's actions can be a transgression. This IS the case. BillB

tribune7-58

if man really came about from less complex life through undirected means why is what Hitler (or any murderer) did wrong?

I'm a little confused by this because you follow up with this:

That still leaves open, of course, the possibility of front-loaded TE-type evolution and Hitler’s immorality existing without contradiction.

You seem to be pointing out that the theory of evolution is neutral with regards the idea of God, just that it rules out a limited set of creation methods. I would agree with this so how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement:

If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation, existence can be explained without recourse to the supernatural hence no eternal judgment ...

The ToE says nothing about whether humans are a special creation, it just rules out certain methods of creation. The theory of Plate tectonics explains mountains without the need for a special creator who sculpts mountains but says nothing about how the universe came into being. BillB

"As the Germans of the ’30s and ’40s did." As did the Catholics of the Spanish Inquisition. Surely, Tribune7, you do not believe that people should reject Christianity simply because they do not like any supposed or projected "moral implications" they think it might have. olearyfan

it is plain that humans divide actions into “moral” and “immoral” categories. As the Germans of the '30s and '40s did. tribune7

Hi Mario, I can't seem to find any contact information for you... so this is the only way I can think of to contact you. I am the publisher of a book on Hitler, the bible and the Holocaust. It is written by Joe Keysor and was released this last April. I'd love to put a copy in your hands for review. If only I could get some contact info for you! To learn more about Joe's book, check out: http://hitlerandchristianity.com You may contact me at the email address associated with my user account on this blog. sntjohnny

I’m glad you’ve brought that up, tribune7. I’m tired of seeing the “that doesn’t make his theory any less valid” card, because yes, actually it does. If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler’s–albeit extreme–application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. The fact that this is not the case is quite an invalidation. Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Let us examine it: If morality is a product of evolution... Granted, arguendo. ...then Hitler’s–albeit extreme–application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. Why? This is a non sequitor. Whether or not morality is a product of evolution, it is plain that humans divide actions into "moral" and "immoral" categories. Nothing about the premise that morality is a product of evolution suggests or requires that an "application of the theory" would be exempt from moral outrage. (You are also assuming the conclusion that "Hitler's-albeit extreme-application of the theory" was an application of evolutionary theory, despite the trenchant observation that artificial selection--and genocide--were understood long before evolutionary theory.) Curiously, the ID proponents here seem to draw very little distinction between empiricism and calumny. I do not believe that it is possible to shout Hitler! loudly enough, or often enough, to substitute for research results. If evolutionary theory is ever supplanted, it will not be through well-poisoning or mudslinging. Learned Hand

Actually, bevets, that's not the same thing. In Lifton, Hess is reported as saying

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.

That actual quote (as opposed to similar rhetoric) is only, as best I can tell, in Lifton. What your other source reports is slightly different (it lacks a verb for one thing):

Nationalsozialismus angewandte Rassenkunde

and the provided link doesn't say where the phrase came from. I imagine the full text does, but, alas, it's apparently unavailable in digital form. But, anyway, German for "biology" is "Biologie" and not "Rassenkunde" That's OK, though. I found a source, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis by Robert Proctor, which places those words on Hess' lips:

Bavarian Cabinet Minister Hans Schemm declared in 1934 that National Socialism was nothing but "applied biology"; Rudolf Hess called the new movement applied racial science (angewandte Rassenkunde)

Interestingly, this shows that "Dr S." may have been misremembering what Hess actually said at that 1934 meeting. In any case, "applied racial science" has no real basis in evolution as expressed by Darwin, as Lifton noted in his book. Just to refresh everyone's memory:

The regime actually rejected much of Darwinism; since evolutionary theory is more or less democratic in its assumption of a common beginning for all races, it is therefore at odds with the Nazi principle of inherent Aryan racial virtue.

Given that Nazi "racial hygeine" was utterly dedicated to that proposition of "inherent Aryan racial virtue" that phrase, "angewandte Rassenkunde", makes my point about Nazi "distortion and abuse of science" that much more plain. Modern Evolutionary Theory, for its part, is quite explicit about this: races don't even exist in any meaningful sense, so clearly this cannot be said to be an inevitable consequence of "Darwinism". It also doesn't hurt that, as Proctor noted:

Scientific racism is older than one might imagine. As early as 1727 the earl of Boulainvilliers tried to argue that the noblemen of France represented descendants of an original and superior race of long-headed Nordic Franks, whereas the lower estates of French society were descended from subjugated Celtic Gauls.

and also that:

It is important to realize that Social Darwinism was not simply the result of of any straightforward application of science to society. Others, after all, saw the import of Darwin's message quite differently. Socialists tended to stress the historical fact of evolution (that is, that humans are descended from apes); conservatives or liberals tended to stress the mechanism of selection (natural selection, the struggle for existence). People generally found in Darwin what they wanted to find.

dbthomas

If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler’s–albeit extreme–application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. The fact that this is not the case is quite an invalidation. Exactly, Berceuse tribune7

Whether or not Hitler was influenced by Darwin, it has no bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Theory. ppb, if man really came about from less complex life through undirected means why is what Hitler (or any murderer) did wrong? If what Hitler did was wrong then man did not come about without guidance, without purpose. That still leaves open, of course, the possibility of front-loaded TE-type evolution and Hitler's immorality existing without contradiction. I was commenting on the “facts” you were pointing out in comment 3. I put “facts” in quotes because it is questionable how much Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Then it would be irrelevant to ask "If the “facts” are irrelevant why point them out?" Right? It's not irrelevant to point out facts. If, however, you question the claim say that. tribune7

Evolution has plenty of predictive power. Only as one imaginary event in the past predicts more imaginary events in the past, which begets imagining things about the skeletal remains of organisms and so on. But as far as actual and verifiable events go the comparison was to the theory of gravity, so what general trajectories of adaptation have been predicted based on the "theory" and then verified empirically and biologically in groups of organisms? As far as Tiktaalik, the Coelacanth was also imagined to provide evidence of imaginary evolutionary time lines, which in turn fit into paleontological hypotheses used to date rocks and other fossils and so on and so forth. It was considered a transitional form in an imaginary sequence. But then it was discovered alive and paleontologists stopped imagining things about its skeletal remains. Its soft anatomy and actual biology did not match what was imagined of its skeletal remains and it did not use its bony fins to “walk,” etc. Its fossils were generally found right were they were "predicted" to be based on what was imagined of it, yet what was imagined of it was clearly wrong so perhaps the same is true of Tiktaalik. At any rate, note that a fish-like creature that seems to be “intermediate” between “fish” and “mammals” would provide little evidence as to the veracity of evolutionary creation myths because a vague classification like “fish” does not evolve, specific organisms do by specific mechanisms. Unfortunately verifying a biological theory with actual biological evidence is not as glamorous as supposedly verifying a creation myth rooted in Progress, so fossils are imagined to be “transitional” and basic forms of pattern recognition (”Let’s dig here, not there.”) are portrayed as validations of a grand theory of the ancestry of all living things instead. mynym

Three points: Has anybody read Weikart's first book or watched the video of him discussing his first book. If not then I suggest you refrain from commenting till you do. Second, Weikart never comments on the validity of Darwin's ideas or their implications, only what others have taken away from them. Third, if Weikart's thesis is correct, and he has lots of written evidence, and Darwin's ideas are wroing, what does that mean? jerry

This was not science, but rather the distortion and abuse of science under the direction of a fundamentally unscientific ideology with very deep historical roots. A national exercise in self-deception. Aren’t actual sources fun? ~ dbthomas @ 43 Lifton was not the original source of the quote. Here is an earlier source. bevets

If Weikert’s thesis is that the theory of evolution was primarily responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the eventual Holocaust then it raises serious doubts. If you're downplaying the impact of hypotheses of evolution and the theory of natural selection on the eugenics movement then that raises serious doubts. If it downplays or ignores the anti-Semitism that has been embedded in European society for a thousand years, and which was given a particularly vicious expression in what was to become Germany by Martin Luther, then we have to lean towards propaganda. Do you have to lean towards propaganda? It is a historical fact that their anti-Semitism was biological. E.g.

S. became a missionary for this biomedical vision… As for anti-Semitic attitudes and actions, he insisted that "the racial question"¦ [and] resentment of the Jewish race" had nothing to do with medieval anti-Semitism"" That is, it was all a matter of scientific biology and of community." (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton :130) As Hitler argued:

Old-fashioned antisemitism, Hitler argued, was insufficient, and would lead only to pogroms, which contribute little to a permanent solution. This is why, Hitler maintained, it was important to promote 'an antisemitism of reason,' one that acknowledged the racial basis of Jewry. (Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany by Alan Steinweis :8)

In any event, as many others have already pointed out, the eugenics movement or the Nazis have no bearing on whether evolution is a good theory. Evolution is imagined explain the conception of good and bad themselves and it is also often imagined to dissolve and explain traditional morality, so of course it has some bearing on it if it actually does not. After all, that's why many proponents feel that they have to explain away charity, altruism and other anti-Darwinian or anti-Nazi facts of life.

mynym

mynym, Evolution has plenty of predictive power. ppb

tribune7 You still are missing my point. Whether or not Hitler was influenced by Darwin, it has no bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Theory. I was not saying that evolution was a fact. I was commenting on the "facts" you were pointing out in comment 3. I put "facts" in quotes because it is questionable how much Hitler was influenced by Darwin. ppb

Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity... "Evolution" is hypothetical goo that can comport with all biological observations. What biological observations would falsify evolutionary creation myths and hypotheses (or "theories") of evolution in general? “Putting Darwinism into practice” makes as much sense as going around and pushing people off of tall objects in order to “put the theory of gravity” into practice. You're conflating a physical science with predictive power with pseudo-science rooted in imagining things about the past. A key difference is that the theory of gravity is specified and verified by observers based on objective mathematical and logical reasoning while the "theory" of evolution simply merges the subject with everything based on imaginary events in the past. You point to a supposed difference between morality and science but given the "theory" of evolution the prescriptive is merged with the descriptive, the "theory" explains both. That is what the Nazis thought. I.e. there is no morality, only what is. mynym

Tribune, here's what you wrote:

ppb — the point you are trying to make

and then you reworded ppb's point in terms that he clearly would not agree with. Those are your terms, Tribune, not ppb's. Doesn't matter if you think that's the correct way to look at it or not. In any case, your argument is basically an appeal to consequences. Sorry, but that's now how logic works. dbthomas

I'm glad you've brought that up, tribune7. I'm tired of seeing the "that doesn't make his theory any less valid" card, because yes, actually it does. If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler's--albeit extreme--application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. The fact that this is not the case is quite an invalidation. Berceuse

dbthomas, it is not I doing the "quotemining". My initial response to ppd was with regard to his statement "I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have." I'm attempting to help him understand why it very important to recognize the influence Darwin had on Hitler (and Stalin and Trotsky and Sanger etc. if we should start discussing them). You are not thinking the implications through when you say that the extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin has nothing to do with the validity of the ToE. If the ToE is right -- man is not a special creation, existence can be explained without recourse to the supernatural hence no eternal judgment -- why is what Hitler did wrong? If what Hitler did was wrong, the ToE (man descending from less complex life solely via natural processes) is also wrong. And what Hitler did was very, very, very wrong. tribune7

Tribune, you're quotemining:

[W]hy bring up that Hitler’s ethics were greatly influenced by Darwinian evolution?

Here is what ppb actually wrote (emphasis mine):

To whatever extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin, it has no impact on the validity of the Theory of Evolution, or even the Theory of Intelligent Design for that matter.

I see no "greatly influenced" or anything remotely equivalent either there or in anything else ppb has written here. Would you care to amend your description? dbthomas

ppb -- the point you are trying to make is that since evolution is "true" -- namely and directly that man is not a special creation -- why bring up that Hitler's ethics were greatly influenced by Darwinian evolution? If man is not a special creation with a soul that transcends biology to which is ultimately accountable to a judgment that transcends the physical, how did Hitler do anything wrong? tribune7

ppb --If the “facts” are irrelevant why point them out? Why would facts be irrelevant? tribune7

One has to wonder at what point historical exposition becomes political propaganda. If Weikert's thesis is that the theory of evolution was primarily responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the eventual Holocaust then it raises serious doubts. If it downplays or ignores the anti-Semitism that has been embedded in European society for a thousand years, and which was given a particularly vicious expression in what was to become Germany by Martin Luther, then we have to lean towards propaganda. In any event, as many others have already pointed out, the eugenics movement or the Nazis have no bearing on whether evolution is a good theory. As for this mantra that ideas have consequences, well, yes, of course they do. So what? Should we abandon the search for new insights just because some people might pervert them to a harmful use? Should ID proponents call off the search for evidence of design because they might discover that, far from being God's chosen people in all the Universe, we were actually genetically-engineered by little green men who have fetish for conducting rectal examinations on us and having sex with us in flying saucers? Seversky

bevets @ 12

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess

Interesting to track down the source of that quote: THE NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert J. Lifton Specifically, it comes from interviews with a "Dr. Johann S.", a Nazi physician, and S. attributes it to a speech Hess gave at a 1934 meeting. S. had interesting views on the origins of the "Jewish Problem":

Clearly a fierce anti-Semite at least during the Nazi era, S., upon learning that I was Jewish, declared unctuously, “The Jewish question became our tragedy and your tragedy.” He explained that it was initiated “by the flood [of Jews] from the East”, and by Darwinian principles enabling Jews to become especially able “through such a hard selection during these two thousand years” to take so many medical positions that German doctors were excluded from; but he added, “Nowadays we know that all of us, Jews and Germans, belong to the same cultural community” and must stand together against the “adverse cultural community,” including China and Russia but especially the expanding numbers of the people of Islam, which “is where the danger comes from.” Except for rearranging his cast of characters, Dr. S. had not changed much.

Yeah, you read that right: he said Jews were so successful, especially in the medical profession, because of natural selection. Lifton also addressed the purported Nazi embrace of Darwinism:

It was a religion of the will — the will as “an all-encompassing metaphysical principle”; and what the Nazis “willed” was nothing less than total control over life and death. While this view is often referred to as “social Darwinism,” the term applies only loosely, mostly to the Nazi stress on natural “struggle” and on “survival of the fittest." The regime actually rejected much of Darwinism; since evolutionary theory is more or less democratic in its assumption of a common beginning for all races, it is therefore at odds with the Nazi principle of inherent Aryan racial virtue. Even more specific to the biomedical vision was the crude genetic imagery, combined with still cruder eugenic visions (see pages 23-24). Here Heinrich Himmler, as high priest, spoke of the leadership’s task as being “like the plant-breeding specialist who, when he wants to breed a pure new strain from a well-tried species that has been exhausted by too much cross-breeding, first goes over the field to cull the unwanted plants." The Nazi project, then, was not so much Darwinian or social Darwinist as a vision of absolute control over the evolutionary process, over the biological human future. Making widespread use of the Darwinian term “selection,” the Nazis sought to take over the functions of nature (natural selection) and God (the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away) in orchestrating their own “selections,” their own version of human evolution. In these visions the Nazis embraced not only versions of medieval mystical anti-Semitism but also a newer (nineteenth- and twentieth-century) claim to “scientific racism.” Dangerous Jewish characteristics could be linked with alleged data of scientific disciplines, so that a “mainstream of racism” formed from “the fusion of anthropology, eugenics, and social thought.” The resulting “racial and social biology” could make vicious forms of anti-Semitism seem intellectually respectable to learned men and women.

and later:

The Nazi ethos thus came to contain a sacred biology, whose logic was taken on and actively promulgated by the Auschwitz self. For the claim of logic and rationality was part of the larger Nazi claim of direct outgrowth from the biological laboratory. To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes — as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time. They drew upon that, science, however, in an apocalyptic, wildly romantic fashion. Hence the merging of the death-haunted, Wagnerian “twilight of the gods” with the most absolute positivism. Whatever the visionary absurdities in projected killing and. healing, the logic of science was always, at least in Nazi eyes, close at hand. This combination, apparently manageable in the abstract, required considerable mental effort when acted upon in places like Auschwitz. That combinatory effort was an important struggle of the Auschwitz self, a struggle made possible by the claim of return to the solid ground of science from the most far-flung, romantic stratosphere. The insistence upon rationality and science was as vehement as it was precarious.

This was not science, but rather the distortion and abuse of science under the direction of a fundamentally unscientific ideology with very deep historical roots. A national exercise in self-deception. Aren't actual sources fun? dbthomas

PaulN-25

If you acknowledge the theory of evolution to be true, then you also believe that blacks are closer to their ape-like ancestors, making them less “evolved” than say white Europeans who are further developed.

I don't believe that having darker skin makes you less evolved, and there is nothing in the MET to suggest this either, not even remotely. Remember Paul,those assertions about black people you just made are yours, not mine.

This is the logical objective conclusion one comes to when adopting the theory of evolution to be true, regardless of one’s own opinion on racial equality.

...? Why? Why black people and not people with ginger hair? Remember paul it is you who are making these claims that black people are 'less evolved', not me, or anyone I have ever met in the scientific community.

The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites,

Please explain...where does it say this? Making an assertion is not a fact, repeating again and again that black people are inferior will not make it so, trying to blame your own prejudices on others is shameful. BillB

hdx, You continue to assert that he is simply alluding to civil development when he clearly relates races to their ape-like counterparts, providing specific analogies between blacks, aboriginals, and their respective evolutionary proximity to gorillas. It's clear that he is referring primarily to evolutionary development, and its respective civilizational development. He prefaces this with what he believed to be the impending deliberate extermination between these distinctive developmental stages of evolutionary castes. PaulN

Hdx, In regards to Eugenics, please read Darwin's own descendents use of Eugenics and Darwin's beliefs. See: Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Here is an example of a recepient of a Darwinian medal awarded to Karl Pearson... not far removed from Darwin, appointed by Darwin's cousin. "No degenerate and feeble stock will ever be converted into healthy and sound stock by the accumulated effects of education, good laws, and sanitary surroundings. Such means may render the individual members of a stock passable if not strong members of society, but the same process will have to be gone through again and again with their offspring, and this in ever-widening circles, if the stock, owing to the conditions in which society has placed it, is able to increase its numbers." To cleanse the human race of "feeble stock," he advocated “war with inferior races.” "Pearson was appointed as the first Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College, London in 1911 and remained in that position until his retirement in 1933. He was nominated for the position by Francis Galton himself, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin and a passionate Darwinist and eugenicist." "Pearson’s eugenic ideology was a natural consequence of his Darwinian ideology. In 1898, in the midst of his eugenic advocacy, Pearson was awarded the Darwin Medal by the Royal Society of London. He was the 5th recipient of the biannual award. Other Darwin Medal laureates included Francis Galton and fellow eugenicist Ernst Haeckel." Why were Eugenicist awarded medals by a Eugenics society created on the back of Darwinism, supported by his family? ok... this time, must go... check in later. DATCG

PaulN, although I don't believe you are correctly characterizing Darwin's views, it doesn't matter. As I pointed out, the science of evolution does not stand or fall based on something written in 1871, and no one reveres Darwin except in the minds of creationists. Anthony09

Are global warming "deniars" like Nazis? Al Gore speaking at Oxford..., sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore says: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” So is this OK? To invoke WWII? Nazis? For Global warming? He continues: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.” Haha... yes and so to is Communism, Nazism and Socialism, as well as Eugenics. "Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany." Go figure, at least some in the public understand the difference between an imminent threat and that of theory - failed in fact the last few years. “The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change. “The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity." Interesting, so creating a crisis like the left is oft to do, or creating a scientific conclusion as factual, like the left is oft to do is the way to make people feel its a necessity. How does one do that? Promote global warming as an enemy like Nazis? Promote other races as amoral, savages, below European races, as "undersirables" Hitler certainly used Darwins teachings, so did Darwin's own descendents utilize it for their own Eugenics beliefs. That is uncontroversial. But the Al Gore thing, haha.. wow. DATCG

In your quote he is talking about culture and civilization which Darwin says that people can acquire and lose through time. Without some of these things we get through knowledge habits and religion is what makes us different than the apes. But in terms of biological differences of humans here is an expanded quote.

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead. Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man. As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871

Show me any creationist of the time with anything remotely close to this. hdx

@32 Common ancestry from a single (group) of humans. As I mentioned, the fact that humans interbreed (and he mentioned studies) and there is no single feature to distinguish the races. People who argued against common ancestry stated that human races could not interbeed well and their were too many differences between the races. In regards to eugenics. Please read previous comments Darwinian theory involved natural selection and common descent, not artificial selection. @37 Expanding the quote

My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips. * Letter to Thomas Higginson (27 February 1873)

Darwin also wrote of them as savages whom he thought would go extinct.

In many cases natives were killed off by Europeans. Darwin was not condoning it, just making a prediction. Savages just means 'wild and uncivilized', and is not necessarily appropriate to various native populations that did not have the same degree of science art and culture in the mid 1800s. It was a common term at the time.

It was the Christians in England and America who rose up against slavery, putting their lives on the line. Not Darwin.

Darwin abhored slavery while the Christian captain of the Beagle approved of it. And the Christians who opposed the slavery were matched by the Christians who supported it.

On the lawfulness of holding slaves ... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. - Rev. Richard Furman; President, Baptist State Convention, 1822

hdx

I think it is interesting, even laudable, that a site devoted to Intelligent Design is one that mentions a book that in effect admits that Hitler's theory of racial biology was in fact a theory of the intelligent design of humanity. (For the slower readers here, ID advocates are very quick to point out that the breeding of animals and plants is more akin to design that natural selection. Eugenics and "theories" such as Hitler's are exactly the breeding of humans. Thus, in every real and accurate sense, Hitler was the ultimate ID proponent. He carried ID to its logical, if twisted, conclusion.) Arthur Hunt

Anthony, You and Hdx must have missed the quote from the "Descent of Man" 2nd edition written by Charles Darwin in 1887. Again:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated.

Who do you suppose he refers to as "the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people]," and to which "people" is he comparing them to? His personal opinion of negroes might not follow his own scientific assessment according to his theory. In other words, the objective "facts" of his theory may not support his personal feelings. Even so, according to the quote above, it's hard to believe that he considered black men to be equivalent to whites in any sense. PaulN

PaulN, Thanks, didn't see your quote from Darwin. It is worth repeating... "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races(whites) of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races(blacks in Africa) throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla’ Darwin considered the "negro" and aborigional closer to the ape. Not much scientific thinking at this point of his life. Seeing as how he failed in math miserably, it is understandable how he conjectures and fails in other areas so easily and clumsily. DATCG

Hdx, Please provide context of your quote, what time, which publication? Darwin also wrote of them as savages whom he thought would go extinct. It was the Christians in England and America who rose up against slavery, putting their lives on the line. Not Darwin. OK, i must go, will check back later. DATCG

jerry:

Today it is still speculation though common ancestry is strongly supported for a high number of organisms using genomic data but not common descent.

I never realised there was a difference between common descent and common ancestry. What is it? Hoki

Hdx said, "Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau’s views" Making an assertion is not a fact. First, Darwin did not provide any evidence at all, only conjecture and hypothesis. Second, Common descent from a single organism? This TOL theory is being chopped up by secular evolutionist today into small bushes and forest of trees. But, maybe you can point to Darwin's evidence for us? Also, Please review history of Eugenics, including Darwin's own descendents that utilized Darwin's interpretations of history and science, plus Margaret Sanger, et al., that utilized Darwinian eugenics programs to kill the innocent, the colored, the "feeble" minded, the unwanted of society. It is hardly a Nazi thing, or Hitlarian, as Americna scientist were caught up in the Darwinian Eugenics movement as well. Planned "parenthood" was started by the racist Sanger. From her Darwinian beliefs, 50 million American babies have died, including a majority of blacks which she despised. I'll check back in later tonight. Seems a promising commentary. DATCG

@26 Darwin did believe that European culture was “summit of civilization”. But he does not think that this has anything to do with race. Instead this came from influences such as education, morals and religion. He states that “all civilised nations are the descendants of barbarians” and “that savages are independently able to raise themselves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually thus risen.” He states “that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals and religion.” Darwin also writes that civilizations can rise and fall. Darwin states “The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible.” But my quote in @22 shows that Darwin believed that there were very little mental differences in the races. In fact of Africans he wrote (as previously quoted)

I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed.

hdx

ppb @ 14 I am not aware of any nazi politicians who had advanced degrees in Biology, however you may have noticed that I also linked to Ernst Haeckel Ph.D., M.D., LL.IX, Sc.B., Professor at the University of Jena, and recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Anthony09 @ 27 Instead of shrugging your shoulders, how about refuting the logical and historical connection? bevets

Jerry @24: I am not sure where you have been getting your information, but there has been a lot published on the subject over the last few centuries. You could start here for some pointers. ppb

Sorry for the double post, but you do realize that book was published in 1871. You also realize the current year is 2009. Why are you acting like the science of evolution hasn't progressed since 1879 (I mean besides because it supports the polemical point you hope to make)? Anthony09

PaulN, that's silly. The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blacks are closer to their apelike ancestors than whites. It doesn't claim anything like that. You need to read the actual science and not creationists' biased summaries of the science. Anthony09

From the descent of man, 2nd edition, page 156:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla’

PaulN

"The Theory of Evolution has the support of almost 2 centuries of scientific discovery from a variety of disciplines." Could we please stop making such claims. If such information were available and anyone who comes here could present it, then this site would close down. We have an advantage because we know that such information does not exist. So when someone makes this or similar claims it leads nowhere because the person claiming it can not back it up. It has happened hundreds of times here and in public debates. jerry

BillB,

If I throw someone of another race off a cliff and cite Newton as my inspiration would you claim that his laws of motion are racist? or that gravity is racist?

Well that depends, what about the theory of gravity claims that whites are more gravitationally inclined than blacks? I think people are confusing an idealogical bias with a logical conclusion. If you acknowledge the theory of evolution to be true, then you also believe that blacks are closer to their ape-like ancestors, making them less "evolved" than say white Europeans who are further developed. This is the logical objective conclusion one comes to when adopting the theory of evolution to be true, regardless of one's own opinion on racial equality. The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites, period. The laws of motion do not. PaulN

Upright - 19: I don't see any observation or critique of the theory here. It comes across as a blunderbuss ad hominem attack - 'If you believe in evolution then you are racist'. As other have pointed out, all the evidence of Darwin as a person points to someone who was remarkably liberal (in terms of ideas about race) for his time, and that is largely irrelevant as it has little bearing on whether evolution occurs. The evidence for the Nazis taking Darwin as an inspiration is scarce to the point of being virtually non existent. If I throw someone of another race off a cliff and cite Newton as my inspiration would you claim that his laws of motion are racist? or that gravity is racist? BillB

@15

It is that Hitler’s whole ethic (as per the book in question) was based on Darwinian evolutionary concepts.

Darwinian evolution explains evolution through natural selection. Hitler's practise of eugenics is artificial selection, something practised long before Darwin.

Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with biological natural selection.

They merely took Darwinian evolution as a fact, took it to its logical conclusions and thus realized that (under that paradigm)humans are no more valuable than a monkey or dog. That’s why the SS could kill without the slightest tinge of conscience - in their minds they were killing animals, subhumans at most. Like shooting ducks in their minds. Darwin's conclusions were that there was very little biological differences between the races. Darwin also abhored slavery.

Darwin did indeed consider some races as “inferior” or “superior”. Those 2 words riddle his works. (As do the words “let us assume” and derivatives).

If there are so many examples of calling a race inferior or superior than it should be real easy to find a quote.

Nazism was based largely on polygenic (or polyphyletic if you please) Darwinism - something Darwin himself most certainly believed and view that only started to lose popularity after WWII! Yet is still believed by many today.

This is complete b.s. Borne then quotes Darwin. Darwin is talking about the civilized vs the uncivilized, and yes Darwin does thinkg the his culture is a more civilized state. But he does not think there is a large biological difference among the races

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man.

hdx

PaulN,

Evolution has not been verified, tested, and observed to anywhere near the extent of gravity, in fact I’d say that every attempt to do so with the ToE thus far has fallen incredibly short of the standard that defines the scientific field of physics which is readily observable.

Excellent point, PaulN. Can _any_ of the evos point to specific quantitative predictions that follow from the tenants of evolution, which have been confirmed empirically? I thought not... herb

Anthony,

Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity and the germ theory of disease.

The theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity, where extremely precise calculations and correlative factors can be determined with hard numbers. Evolution has not been verified, tested, and observed to anywhere near the extent of gravity, in fact I'd say that every attempt to do so with the ToE thus far has fallen incredibly short of the standard that defines the scientific field of physics which is readily observable. Comparing evolution to gravity is like comparing highly speculative, questionable and elaborate ideas to real-world observed events- oh wait... PaulN

Anthony would prefer it if the reigning ideology were not subject to observation and critique. Please everyone, go home. Upright BiPed

Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity and the germ theory of disease. "Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period." "Putting Darwinism into practice" makes as much sense as going around and pushing people off of tall objects in order to "put the theory of gravity" into practice. Let's just call this whole thread what it is-- and what much of this website is-- a simple attempt at guilt by association. Anthony09

Borne, You are clearly missing my point. Whatever twisted logic the Nazis may have used to justify their actions has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurred, or indeed whether or not an intelligent designer was involved. The Theory of Evolution has the support of almost 2 centuries of scientific discovery from a variety of disciplines. To whatever extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin, it has no impact on the validity of the Theory of Evolution, or even the Theory of Intelligent Design for that matter. ppb

The simple fact is that ideas have consequences. Darwinism is no exception. herb

"ppb" (#11) asked: "So why is this book of any interest in the Evolution/ID debate? Because creationists never miss an opportunity in their absurd attempts to connect Hitler and Darwin. See, for instance, Coral Ridge Ministries' film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Ridge_Ministries#Darwin.27s_Deadly_Legacy What creationists always conveniently neglect to mention is that Darwin is not mentioned in "Mein Kampf" at all, whereas God is mentioned prominently and favorably in Hitler's writings. And creationists also conveniently neglect to mention the part that Martin Luther played in the development of Nazi anti-Semitism - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies PaulBurnett

ppb :

...It is not as if Hitler’s ideas about it would have any bearing on whether or not evolution occurred.

You miss the point entirely. As do most Darwinists, and many others also, on the issue. It is not that Hitler was a Darwinist therefore Darwinism is wrong. Its not that Darwin himself was evil or would have condoned the Nazis - certainly he would not have. Darwin himself was something like Dawkins - one who believes in unguided and purposeless molecule to man evolution, but who would not want to live in a country with Darwinian based morals! Ideas have consequences! It is that Hitler's whole ethic (as per the book in question) was based on Darwinian evolutionary concepts. And Hitler's conclusions were not illogical, nor were they distortions of Darwinian theory put in practice (often called social Darwinism). Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period. Hitler's conclusions - indeed those of all the scientists he had on board the Nazi juggernaut - were simply logical conclusions easily deduced. Not distortions at all. They merely took Darwinian evolution as a fact, took it to its logical conclusions and thus realized that (under that paradigm)humans are no more valuable than a monkey or dog. That's why the SS could kill without the slightest tinge of conscience - in their minds they were killing animals, subhumans at most. Like shooting ducks in their minds. Hitler considered blacks to be "monsters" - inferior to whites because of standard evolutionary doctrine, not in spite of or in disregard to it's 'real' meaning. If Darwinism were true, then indeed, humans have nothing special to separate them from mere animals. In that case why should it be morally wrong to kill other humans one considers, under support of the scientific consensus, to be sub-human and less evolved? There is no reason under atheist Darwinism. And I have heard Darwinists say as much! Look up Peter Singer's moral diarrhea. Darwin did indeed consider some races as "inferior" or "superior". Those 2 words riddle his works. (As do the words "let us assume" and derivatives). Your whole argument is ignorance based and does not correspond to either logic or the historical facts. Nazism was based largely on polygenic (or polyphyletic if you please) Darwinism - something Darwin himself most certainly believed and view that only started to lose popularity after WWII! Yet is still believed by many today.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

~ William Provine, Cornell prof. And in Darwin's own words:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. - DOM, ch. ON THE BIRTHPLACE AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN

The Nazis were merely taking Darwin's word and deciding to fulfill the prediction themselves! Weikart is merely giving the accurate historical account with it's logical connections and he right. Borne

And Rudolph Hess got his biology degree from where? ppb

@11 From the book description: Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. Of course since selective breeding had been perfomed 1000s of years before Darwin, the Nazi concept of evolution had little to do with Darwin's writing (ie Hitle never mentions common descent or natural selection in creating new species) hdx

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess bevets

So why is this book of any interest in the Evolution/ID debate? ppb

I just noticed that the original post nor the book description on Amazon mentions Darwin. I am sure he gets mentioned in the book some place. On the video I linked to above there is a mention of a Nazi ethic. jerry

"Post-Darwin anthropologists tended to by polygenist, regarding different races as separate species, some being little more evolved than apes," This was certainly Ernst Haeckel's view and he was German and I believe influential in Germany on evolution. jerry

The most interesting thing about this is the price. It is listed at $80 for a 268 page book. Has Weimar Germany prices hit the book industry? jerry

1) Darwin believed there was very little biological differences between the various races and that humans can readily interbreed, showing a common ancestry of humans and showing that humans can be grouped as one species. 2) Monogenists before Darwin in general did not regard the races as being equal and neither did polygenists. Just because others after Darwin ignored Darwin's arguments, does not make evolutionary theory racist. People (monogenists and polygenists) were racist before and after Darwin. Darwin's writing were not racist at all. But my point was that Darwin was one of the first people to bring real solid evidence (as shown in point 1) to the idea of monogenism. 3)No one actually responded to the fact that the master Aryan race concept came from a creationist, while Darwin stated that the races have “similar inventive or mental powers” and there is “similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits”. He “doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. “ He even thought highly of Africans writing “I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed.” 4) And just to add a few more items Darwin did not feel that anyone should be prevented from breeding (Unlike the Nazi and the eugenic movement) and Darwin felt that there were more important things than natural selection. “Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, than through natural selection”. hdx

"Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau’s views." Darwin never had any evidence for common descent. Today it is still speculation though common ancestry is strongly supported for a high number of organisms using genomic data but not common descent. Before one runs off in either direction on the overall topic, it may be interesting for those who want to weigh in on this debate to see what Richard Weikart has to say on this. There is an hour video on Youtube and his doctoral dissertation was on this topic and he also wrote a previous book on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A jerry

hdx, In fact, Darwin's theory did not result in all the races being seen as the same species. Pre-Darwin physical anthropology was monogenist, meaning all races were seen as one human species. Post-Darwin anthropologists tended to by polygenist, regarding different races as separate species, some being little more evolved than apes, others (i.e. Europeans) being a much more advanced species. See my post here. jlid

tribune7, If the "facts" are irrelevant why point them out? ppb

I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have. Pointing out facts isn't the same as having a fascination for. tribune7

The person who developed the idea of the Aryan master race was Arthur de Gobineau. Here is what he said about human origins: We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. - Arthur de Gobineau; An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau's views. hdx

I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have. It is not as if Hitler's ideas about it would have any bearing on whether or not evolution occurred. Would these same critics reject nuclear physics if Hitler had developed the a-bomb first? ppb