Excerpt from Richard Weikart’s new book, Darwinian Racism

Using the possible negative consequences of applying evolutionary theory to social decision making as an argument that evolutionary theory is wrong is faulty logic, pure and simple.

True! But evolutionary theory is an invalid theory by any logic/evidence imaginable was/is being used to drive social decisions. And when bad social outcomes are the result of these social decisions, the invalid theory is ignored. Are then the proponents of these invalid theories condoning these bad social decisions and then just as guilty? jerry

PS, the problem with oh argument to consequences is that this becomes fallacious only if there is an essentially emotive leap, not a reduction to absurdity. Where, the first absurdity of evolutionary materialistic scientism was highlighted by Haldane, 90 years ago and remains unresolved:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the funcionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

If true, we could not know it as ability reason and warrant has been discredited. Further, its amorality and opening the door to nihilistic factionalism, known since Plato, is part of that absurdity, the marginalisation of moral knowledge and associated desensitisation to wickedness up to mass murder etc as we know from recent history, is simply a striking feature of the general self referential undermining of rationality, warrant and knowledge. It is far more certain that we are rational and that rationality is inherently morally governed as a part of how it works than that a self referentially absurd claim that undermines rationality is warranted. We have every epistemic right to reject evolutionary materialistic scientism, never mind its deep embedding in institutions of influence and lab coats. PPS: It is almost a footnote to point out that the notion that science monopolises or is the decisive, dominant form of knowledge is a philosophical claim and is itself self-referential and self defeating. kairosfocus

Sc, you are doubling down, the root is essential to the tree and is the root of the issue so to speak. We can take the doubling down as an implicit acknowledgement of a critical point of breakdown. That is, there is no good reason to accept the speculations as remotely plausible in accounting for the key elements of an encapsulated, smart gated, metabolising, genetic information storing, self replicating entity, including the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Such includes complex coded strings, algorithms and executing machinery, i.e. language and goal-directed stepwise processes. We of course know on trillions of cases the consistent source of language and goal directed processes, intelligence acting through design. Design in the root, design pervades the tree and accounts for the FSCO/I in dozens of major body plans. Inference to the best, empirically based current explanation, using the principle, like causes like. KF kairosfocus

KF: No root, no tree. KF

But evolutionary theory does not address the origin of the root. Natural selection acting on variation simply is not an origins theory. There are origin theories but they are either vastly incomplete or mythical. Using the possible negative consequences of applying evolutionary theory to social decision making as an argument that evolutionary theory is wrong is faulty logic, pure and simple. Scamp

Sc, did you observe above why I pointed to chemical evo and OoL as well as origin of body plans? As in, the root of the tree of life is pivotal to the tree as in no root no tree? And, the OoL case is in fact a first case of the broader problem, origin of body plans. Do I need to observe that textbooks generally tie the two together for very similar reasons, back in my day highlighting Miller Urey as if it were practically a solution to the problem? As to never intended to, Darwin is the person who speculated about his warm pond, then from the 1920's to now from Oparin on, there has been a continual attempt to solve the implicit challenge of Darwin's only illustration in Origin, the tree of life. Let's make it simple: trees have roots and the tree of life's root is OoL. As in, where did the coded strings [language!], algorithms [goal directed stepwise processes], execution machinery using molecular nanotech and the von Neumann kinematic self replicator in the cell come from? In short, the oh let's not go there inadvertently highlights key holes in the framework. No root, no tree. KF kairosfocus

KF: Sc, evolutionary theory only prevails as alleged best explanation through ideological imposition of a priori materialism which is where the anti-civilisational import arises. Start with, explain origin of life by blind physics and chemistry in a warm pond or the like, accounting for the metabolic network and integrated von Neumann kinematic self replication facility to get reproduction.

Evolutionary theory says absolutely nothing about the origin of life and never intended to. It only speaks to how life changes over time. Scamp

PPPS, The late Philip Johnson replied to Lewontin:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]

Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

kairosfocus

PPS, we find ourselves inescapably under branch on which we all sit moral government starting with self evident first duties that even attempted objectors cannot but appeal to, with sound conscience as a witness. No, we do not invent or imagine such then bind them on others, that is a thinly disguised appeal to grand delusion which is self referential and given the pervasiveness of first duties to truth, right reason etc and the linked conscience attested sense of duty, that reflexivity would instantly end in absurdity. No, the only place where the is-ought gap can be successfully bridged is the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded oughtness. kairosfocus

Sc, evolutionary theory only prevails as alleged best explanation through ideological imposition of a priori materialism which is where the anti-civilisational import arises. Start with, explain origin of life by blind physics and chemistry in a warm pond or the like, accounting for the metabolic network and integrated von Neumann kinematic self replication facility to get reproduction. Also, the implied coded string data structures with codes and algorithms for such a vNSR, which show language and goal directed stepwise process; genome length ~ 100 - 1,000+ kbases. Such is, root of tree of life and is necessary for a complete explanation that has a right to be deemed best, no you cannot skip so called chemical evolution. Then go on to provide an actual observation based anchor for origin of body plans by the dozens, each with genomes ~ 10 - 100+ million bases. Sol system search resources are 10^17 s and 10^57 atoms, mostly H and He in the Sun. Cosmic scale goes to 10^80 atoms and organic relevant reactions are ~ 10^12 - 14/s for fast ones. No, apart from ideological imposition there is no way that the modern evolutionary, scientism based narrative constitutes a best explanation, where codes [seen in D/RNA] are language and algorithms [ditto] are stepwise goal directed processes. KF PS, on ideological imposition and indoctrination, this is a cat out of the bag classic moment:

. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads

[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] 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 [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] 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 [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

kairosfocus

KF: Sc, anti civilisational ideologies are destructive.

Accepting that evolutionary theory is the best model for what we observe is not an anti civilizational ideology. It does not dictate or suggest any behaviour. Morality comes from the individual, not from a theoretical model of cause and effect. Scamp

Sc, anti civilisational ideologies are destructive. As for the validity, that is a very mixed bag due to the issue of unwarranted extrapolation and the pattern of other "engines of variation." There is some micro stuff such as circumpolar species complexes and how the American Elk and European Red Deer turned out to be freely interfertile in New Zealand. That in no wise allows us to extrapolate to origin of body plans etc, even things like wings. The information threshold is way beyond blind search capability of the observed universe much less our Sol system. When the theory goes beyond even that to be taken as warranting evolutionary materialistic scientism, that is more than an extrapolation too far, and it undermines even the credibility of mind, becoming anti civilisational and self-refuting. As for the physical sciences, we have acknowledged our part in the technology of war etc, the problem in hand is that the biology and its extensions into health and medicine have not adequately done so as can be seen from responses to the above on the line from Darwin in Descent of Man. Similarly, the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb mounts at a million per week. KF kairosfocus

KF: Sc, the point is, evolutionary materialism is an anti civilisational ideology which here is documented to support aggressive, murderous racism.

Again. So what? Even if I agree that Darwin’s theory has been used to justify all of the atrocities that you list, how does that say anything about the validity of the theory? Chemistry and physics have killed far more people than evolution. Why aren’t you railing against these subjects? Scamp

Anders Brevek wasn't a Christian at the time he was planning and committed the murders. No one just gets to call themselves a Christian. That is meaningless. It's your words and actions that make one a Christian. ET

scamp:

And obviously not a Scotsman.

That isn't obvious at all. Clearly you are just another ignorant troll. Actions speak. Radar's actions proved he was not a Christian. It isn't my fault that you are too dim to understand that. ET

PS, nor was this merely Schicklegruber's idiosyncratic interpretation, H G Wells alone is more than enough to highlight such and Weikart actually documented a massive trend drawing on Darwin's work. Indeed, the excerpt from Darwin himself is chilling. It's time to wake up. As for let's assume, that simply shows refusal to acknowledge the actuality of direct statements, ie denial of objective fact regarding roots of a ruinous ideology via selective hyperskepticism enabling evasiveness. kairosfocus

Sc, the point is, evolutionary materialism is an anti civilisational ideology which here is documented to support aggressive, murderous racism. Which was pointed out in the OP. Further to this, it undermines not only responsibility [i.e. moral government of our freedom] but by reducing rationality to computation on a substrate [how programmed?] it undermines rationality too -- a dynamic-stochastic computation is NOT free reasoning. and it undermines freedom ending in grand delusion. Nor is this exactly news, here is Haldane, a co founder of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the funcionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

That's where it ends, self-defeating utter incoherence that defeats and falsifies itself. Such cannot be true. And, as was documented, by turning such into a crooked yardstick set up as a false standard -- which means what is genuinely straight, accurate, upright cannot ever come up to the imagined standard -- there is enabling of demonic, murderous chaos. Some may be so benumbed that they react so what, but that is simply telling us they have fallen victim to misanthropic, anticivilisational destructive fallacies. Which is what the history records. But then, such refuse to heed the inconvenient lessons of history. But that's just another way to see how they have become enablers of misanthropy and anticivilisational chaos and tyranny. KF kairosfocus

Let’s assume that Hitler’s Holocaust was a direct result of his interpretation of evolutionary theory. Or Stalin’s, or Mao’s. So what? Scamp

F/N: Let us refocus from OP:

Weikart: If we delve deeply into the ideology of Nazis, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists, we find that Darwinism — the view that species have evolved over eons of time through the process of natural selection — plays a fundamental role, shaping their views about race and society.

Now, Darwin:

Descent, ch 6: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Prof Schaaffhauson has remarked,” will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, in- stead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. LyelPs discussion,” in which he shows that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an ex- tremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

No footnotes, no recoiling in horror, just, oh that explains gaps. (Except now, with millions of fossils in labs and museums and billions observed all over the world and across the column, the gaps are if anything more deeply pronounced.) So, let's see Wells, student of Huxley in the 1890's, 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?

Now, Herr Schicklegruber:

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 [–> assumed global principle of evolution in a darwinism-driven context] . . . 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 [–> i.e. evolution] would be unthinkable. 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 [–> Jewish or Polish or Russian geese and mice, take due notice] . . . . 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, 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. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. [–> that is, evolutionary advancement] 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 etc in chs 5 – 7 of Descent of Man], 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 . . . [My Struggle, Bk I Ch XI, of course, struggle here echoes Darwin’s Origin of species subtitle, on preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence]

Weikart has a point. As for the Columbine murderer, we can see how he might fit right in. KF kairosfocus

Sc, you continue distractions. KF kairosfocus

KF, I admit that the Brevik example was over-the-top. As far as I know, there is not a single Christian who would try to argue that he was a true Christian. But why don’t we use a couple more relevant examples. 1) Would you think it possible that a person who believes that having pre-marital sex is acceptable can be a true Christian? 2) Would you believe that a man married to another man can be a true Christian? 3) Would you believe that a woman who uses an IUD can be a true Christian? Scamp

SA, thanks for the clarification. I had seen news items where he gave some cultural identification back when his terrorist attack was news. KF kairosfocus

Sc, you are still side stepping the core foundational teaching by an apostle, echoing his master in the all time most famous sermon. i cite it again for your convenience:

1 Jn 3: 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. [–> note, Kingdom ethics are integral to the Good News of God’s realm] 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. [–> notice, murder . . . and gospel ethics starts the law against murder out with classifying words/thoughts of undue anger as harbouring murder in the heart . . . is a mark of belonging to evil] 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no [--> unrepentant, cf the thief on the cross] murderer has eternal life abiding in him. [ESV, nb eternal life is life in reconciled right relationship with God pivoting on penitent faith]

Even being a true Scotsman echoes this, as I already noted. Courage is so core a Scottish value that a born Scot who turns coward is a failed Scot. Only, moral transformation through penitent faith and the in-working of the Holy Spirit is even more central to genuine Christian commitment. Murder is a kind of blasphemy against God, who made his creatures in his image, that is how serious it is, and the gospel ethics starts murder from hate and even undue anger. So, it is ever more clear that you are fighting against plain facts because you wish to taint Christians and the Christian faith. the cases you cite are not typical of even those who have some affinity towards Christianity through merely cultural identity without any serious commitment. Of such, another Apostle says, faith without works is dead. You are now perilously close to those who in their outright bigotry have tried to suggest that Herr Schicklegruber was a Christian acting out of the tenets of his faith when he set out on aggressive war, mass murder and genocide. Such things say more about the mentality that tries to argue like that than it does about the Christian faith and how genuine disciples of Jesus behave, for all our struggles to consistently live by the teachings of Christ. Maybe I should note what James also said, so, you believe that there is but one God, you do well -- so do the devils and they tremble. A genuine Christian commitment pivots on penitent faith, and it leads to inner transformation expressed in life. As, likely, you well can know from any number of cases you implicitly refuse to acknowledge. Sad. And, of course, you have found this as an oh so handy red herring led away to a strawman soaked in ad hominems, that you have set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere so that the focal evidence on the table regarding the point in the OP and its substantiation is left conveniently behind. Your resort to toxic distractors speaks. KF kairosfocus

LCD

It’s not about people who make mistakes in one side or another , it’s about the background ideology .

People often create that diversion - by referring to individuals instead of the worldview or theory. Any manner of violence or murder is compatible with Darwinism. Evolution is amoral. It doesn't even require what is useful or what is rational or ethical. Christianity has moral and ethical norms. Serial killing is not compatible with Christianity. At the same time, every Christian has moral failings. Just because someone commits a sin doesn't mean he is not a Christian. If he insists that something like murder is compatible with Christianity, then he's not a believing Christian on that point. Silver Asiatic

Scamp

Is Anders Brevek a Christian?

Breivik has identified himself as a fascist[42] and a Nazi,[43] who practices Odinism.[43][44][45] "Breivik mener Jesus er "patetisk" [Breivik thinks Jesus is "pathetic"]". Dagen (in Norwegian). 19 November 2015. "Breivik: Jeg er ikke kristen (Breivik: I am not a Christian)". Vårt Land (in Norwegian). 15 November 2015. Silver Asiatic

KF: Sc, it is obvious that you simply sidestepped a highly substantial issue, in order to continue a well poisoning agenda. That speaks and not to your benefit.

I rest my case. If Joe the Christian does something that Frank the Christian thinks is wrong, Frank will always that Joe is not a true Christian (Scotsman). I am not criticizing Christianity, I am criticizing Christians. Scamp

Seversky Denis Rader, the “BTK killer”, was a member of the Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita and had been elected president of the church council.. Does that invalidate Christianity?

:lol: It's not about people who make mistakes in one side or another , it's about the background ideology . Darwinism? Humans just accidents in this universe. Moving pieces of meat that will rot tomorrow. Nothing to see here folks. Nothing is objectively important. You can do whatever you want as long as you are not caught. Christianity?Human have objective value, uniqueness ,dignity. Eveything he/she does has objective value/or is objective evil . You cannot do whatever you want without objective repercussions even nobody saw you , a sin doesn't depent if others know about it or not because is on God to judge. There is such a huge difference between these 2 ideologies that seems insane that are real people that would defend darwinism. Lieutenant Commander Data

Sc, it is obvious that you simply sidestepped a highly substantial issue, in order to continue a well poisoning agenda. That speaks and not to your benefit. Meanwhile, the direct evidence that gives key substantiation on Weikart's concern is also sidestepped. KF PS: Brevik, I gathered, identified with the cultural Christian heritage but is more of the same; I gather he had little regard to Christian commitment and of course resorted to out of control anger then to murder. (I cannot say whether he has had a latterday conversion experience, I only can hope he does even as a certain thief on a cross.) Moral transformation, by sharpest contrast, is central to Christian commitment and genuine discipleship, it cannot be sidestepped without violence to what it means to be a genuine Christian. I would note that even in the scotsman case there are certain breed standards such as great courage that are so close that there is a serious sense in which a born Scot who resorts to cowardice is a failed Scot . . . and that comes through even to my own family which has that derivation, generations later; oats is not quite the same level but you bet it was on the breakfast table and explicitly tied to that heritage. The civilisational formation that was significantly gospel influenced, Christendom, as with any civilisation, has been of mixed character, and indeed, the very calls to prayer, penitence and thanksgiving issued by the Continental Congress cited in another current thread pivot on precisely that issue. The corrective is that regarding liberty and lawful order, the challenge is that the natural tendency of government is lawless oligarchy. At the kind of individual level and extreme group level in this OP, it needs to be frankly faced that the texts cited are real, both from Darwin and Herr Schicklegruber. Wells raised the concern in a classic and widely circulated novel half a century before the holocaust. That some continue to cling to racism tied to classic Darwinist ideas is sad but needs to be faced. Also, the sobering challenge that evolutionary materialism undermines and marginalises moral government. Then, we have the central, corrupting evil of an in progress holocaust that beats the Nazi slaughter of Jews every couple of months. There is need for reformation. kairosfocus

KF: Sc, fail.

As something observed many times, it is definitely not a fail. For example. Is Anders Brevek a Christian? Scamp

Sev, kindly see the just above. Here is Huxley's student, Wells, giving a literary warning on consequences 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?

The implication was there and was understood long before the Nazi aggression. KF PS, just from Wikipedia, it is obvious that Rader led a secret, demonic life driven by awful fantasies which were concealed from wife and daughter much less community and church. kairosfocus

Sc, fail. First, Christian commitment involves a core moral transformation dimension, one is usually born a Scot irrelevant to his or her later moral state. It is possible to profess Christian faith falsely, and it is possible for a claimed church to be an assembly of evil (and that is assuming that the church, for the sake of argument, supported him in his wrongdoing, I suspect there is a good chance it did not). For a simple example on the underlying point, let me cite a key foundational ethical-theological text:

1 Jn 3: 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. [--> note, Kingdom ethics are integral to the Good News of God's realm] 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. [--> notice, murder . . . and gospel ethics starts the law against murder out with classifying words/thoughts of undue anger as harbouring murder in the heart . . . is a mark of belonging to evil] 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. [ESV, nb eternal life is life in reconciled right relationship with God pivoting on penitent faith]

In short, you err, first, as you do not know the teaching you are clearly deeply hostile to. Secondly, you manifestly wish to taint in order to marginalise in the context of an atmosphere-poisoning distraction from a serious point by a serious scholar. let us therefore refocus that point through a key text from Herr Schicklegruber's writings:

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 [--> assumed global principle of evolution in a darwinism-driven context] . . . 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 [--> i.e. evolution] would be unthinkable. 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 [--> Jewish or Polish or Russian geese and mice, take due notice] . . . . 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, 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. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. [--> that is, evolutionary advancement] 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 etc in chs 5 - 7 of Descent of Man], 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 . . . [My Struggle, Bk I Ch XI, of course, struggle here echoes Darwin's Origin of species subtitle, on preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence]

There is no reasonable doubt as to Darwin's influence here. And from Darwin's second book, the Descent of Man, we see a telling further argument taken as a mere matter of fact on the way to "explaining" missing links*:

Descent, ch 6: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Prof Schaaffhauson has remarked," will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, in- stead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. LyelPs discussion," in which he shows that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an ex- tremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

There is a clear line from Darwin to Schicklegruber and it is high time to acknowledge it. Nor, is revulsion at racism, undermining of sound morals, eugenics, euthanasia, genocide etc mere fallacious emotive appeal to consequences, as objectors above should know, reductio is more than to incoherence, demonstrating severe failing at the bar of first duties that govern our very rationality is a very legitimate and sound point. Where, already evolutionary materialism can neither account for mind nor morality without self-referential discredit or even account for the functionally specific, complex organisation and information required for origin of body plans including our own. It is time to rethink. KF * We now have millions of fossils in museums, billions observed in the ground [e.g. Barbados is in major part literally built out of fossil coral, with fossil clams aplenty in the midst; just look at road cuts]. The gaps are even deeper and systematic, to the point of being a trade secret of Paleontology, echoing Gould. kairosfocus