PDA

View Full Version : Social Darwinism and World War I



Jorge
08-20-2014, 04:24 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

rwatts
08-20-2014, 04:30 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

JorgeOf course, the "beauty" about war is that Newton's theories are used to kill and maim folk as well as destroy property. In fact his theories have been used to kill tens of millions of folk world wide, as well has maim hundreds of millions more. The property damage, thanks to use of his theories, must run into the trillions.

I believe that some folk see Newton as the pre-eminent creation scientist.

I think, three cheers for Newton as well. :ahem:

A book for you Jorge:-

Survival of the Nicest: How Altruism Made Us Human and Why It Pays to Get Along (http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Nicest-Altruism-Human-Along/dp/1615190902)

Anotheree for you to ponder:-

Kindness In A Cruel World (http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/nigel-barber/kindness-in-a-cruel-world-9781591022282.aspx)

Evolution being used to justify many of the good things humans do. Tsk.

seer
08-20-2014, 05:18 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 06:00 AM
Jorge,

Abusus non tollit usum.

Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

K54

klaus54
08-20-2014, 06:02 AM
Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.

So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

K54

klaus54
08-20-2014, 06:06 AM
Since Jorge can't discuss scientific facts, he has to bring up (putative!) misapplication of natural principles as a ruse.

The master of intellectual dishonesty, which he generously projects to others, strikes again!!

K54

rogue06
08-20-2014, 06:28 AM
Jorge,

Abusus non tollit usum.

Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

K54
"Social "Darwinism" is a philosophy and is not the same thing as evolution which is a scientific theory. It is also based far more on the works than Herbert Spencer, who sought to extend the Theory of Evolution (which deals with the natural world of plants and animals) into realms of sociology and ethics, than it does with Darwin. In many ways Social Darwinism is like Social Newtonism: the belief that in nature gravity makes things fall down, so we should push people we don't like off cliffs. IOW, attempts to discredit the ToE based on the fact that some have misapplied the theory are clearly misguided.

seer
08-20-2014, 06:38 AM
So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

K54

But it is keeping with Darwinism and survival of the fittest. The white Europeans were very, very successful.

jordanriver
08-20-2014, 06:43 AM
[I] ... Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

rotsa ruck, Rorge

whag
08-20-2014, 07:00 AM
Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.

And very driven by religion and divine right. Granted, European Christians believed in the principle of "survival of the fittest" long before Darwin voiced it. So freaking what?

seer
08-20-2014, 07:04 AM
And very driven by religion and divine right. Granted, European Christians believed in the principle of "survival of the fittest" long before Darwin voiced it. So freaking what?

Well I have no idea what they believed, it doesn't matter. When one species of bacteria displaces or destroys another species they are doing what is natural, as were the white Europeans.

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:08 AM
Jorge,

Abusus non tollit usum.

Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

K54

But Darwinism (allegedly) is science ... it certainly is considered by most to be science (yourself included). The "social Darwinism" is nothing more than a projection of the Darwinian Principle into all areas of the social sphere (economics, politics, ethics, etc ... etc.).

Try to hide this all you want, it remains a fact.

Jorge

whag
08-20-2014, 07:14 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism. If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:16 AM
So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

K54

Why is it that the obvious has to be spelled out to the Evo-Faithful whenever their Sacred Ideology is shown up for what it is? You ask what this has to do with the "fact of evolution". Are you really so blind that you are unable to see how the Darwinian Principle has been (and is being) applied in all social arenas bar none? Can you not see in this what I have been speaking of since my first day here on TWeb: that there is a scientific aspect to evolution and then there is an ideological aspect ... then the two are intermixed, sold as a single "scientific" fact, and this is then used to "scientifically" justify everything from soup to nuts.

If you cannot grasp any of this, or if you willingly refuse to acknowledge any of it, then perhaps it is best if you remain as an observer (only) of this thread.

Jorge

seer
08-20-2014, 07:25 AM
Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism. If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.

But every war before 1870 was still following Social Darwinism model, even if it wasn't articulated.

whag
08-20-2014, 07:28 AM
Well I have no idea what they believed, it doesn't matter.

You should know precisely what they believe. Divine right is the most popular and most ancient justification for war, and white Europeans often openly expressed their disdain for primitive pagan cultures.


When one species of bacteria displaces or destroys another species they are doing what is natural, as were the white Europeans.

Yea, teleology is weird, I concur. Who enacted that disgusting natural displacement? According to Christianity, God created the natural order that you and Jorge are stupidly comparing to the Trail of Tears and Treblinka.

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:29 AM
Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism.

That is very true, of course, for the simple fact that it would have been impossible to use Darwinism to justify wars before Darwinism ever existed. That doesn't change my OP. Watch ...

Most of us have heard Dawkins' famous quote that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist". Atheists existed before Darwinism - of course! But Atheists could not JUSTIFY themselves and their beliefs as well they could after Darwin. Do you see the analogy?

Wars and atrocities certainly existed before Darwinism. But with Darwinism people could now JUSTIFY the wars and atrocities using "scientific" Darwinian Principles and Darwinian-Speak. Wars now became "a natural order of the unending fight for survival of the fittest over the weakest ... a "good thing" since the resources are limited and the weak of the species must be eliminated so that the strong of the species may procreate". In short, there is now a "scientific" justification.



If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.

I have ... no comment on that. :huh:

Jorge

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:32 AM
Since Jorge can't discuss scientific facts, he has to bring up (putative!) misapplication of natural principles as a ruse.

The master of intellectual dishonesty, which he generously projects to others, strikes again!!

K54

Okay, fine. Consider yourself OFF this thread, effective immediately. C-ya! :whip:

Jorge

phank
08-20-2014, 07:37 AM
Groan. Darwin proposed that populations change over the course of generations due to differential reproductive success. His proposal is pure biology, and has nothing to do with better-armed soldiers winning military battles. Since history is written by the winners, who invariably believe they won because they deserved it, any rationalization ratifying their superiority is a Good Thing.

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:38 AM
"Social "Darwinism" is a philosophy and is not the same thing as evolution which is a scientific theory. It is also based far more on the works than Herbert Spencer, who sought to extend the Theory of Evolution (which deals with the natural world of plants and animals) into realms of sociology and ethics, than it does with Darwin. In many ways Social Darwinism is like Social Newtonism: the belief that in nature gravity makes things fall down, so we should push people we don't like off cliffs. IOW, attempts to discredit the ToE based on the fact that some have misapplied the theory are clearly misguided.

I've said this to you many times in the past: You have a knack ... you are a Master ... at creating Straw Men.

I won't waste my time repeating things that I've already written in earlier posts on this thread. Simply go back and read those posts (there aren't that many) and you should easily see why your post above is at least a few notches lower than unadulterated nonsense. What you have posted here is nothing more than your knee-jerk reaction to defend your fanatically-religious adherence to Darwinism in one of its many forms. I cannot help you, R06.

Jorge

Jorge
08-20-2014, 07:40 AM
Groan. Darwin proposed that populations change over the course of generations due to differential reproductive success. His proposal is pure biology, and has nothing to do with better-armed soldiers winning military battles. Since history is written by the winners, who invariably believe they won because they deserved it, any rationalization ratifying their superiority is a Good Thing.

"Groan" back at you.

See posts # 12, 14 and 17 - read for comprehension ... try harder.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
08-20-2014, 07:47 AM
But Darwinism (allegedly) is science ... it certainly is considered by most to be science (yourself included). The "social Darwinism" is nothing more than a projection of the Darwinian Principle into all areas of the social sphere (economics, politics, ethics, etc ... etc.).

Try to hide this all you want, it remains a fact.

Jorge

Once again Jorge can't refute the science so he attempts to smear the theory by associating it with people who misused it.

Kinda like saying all of chemistry must be wrong because the Nazis used Zyklon B gas in the chambers.

Jorge isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. :ahem:

rogue06
08-20-2014, 08:10 AM
That is very true, of course, for the simple fact that it would have been impossible to use Darwinism to justify wars before Darwinism ever existed. That doesn't change my OP. Watch ...
The exact same thing could be said about "Pasteurism" and Germ Theory. It was impossible to use Germ Theory to justify wars before Germ Theory ever existed. And it was Pasteur (along with Robert Koch) and Germ Theory that Hitler and other Nazis repeatedly cited to justify many of their atrocities.


Most of us have heard Dawkins' famous quote that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist". Atheists existed before Darwinism - of course! But Atheists could not JUSTIFY themselves and their beliefs as well they could after Darwin. Do you see the analogy?
A statement made after every major scientific landmark. The same things were said after Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler showed that the sun didn't orbit the earth. The same thing was said after Newton proposed his Laws of Gravity. Find a major scientific accomplishment and you'll find someone whining that it'll be used to justify atheism including such wildly divergent things like the philosophy of Descartes (Cartesianism) to Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod.


Wars and atrocities certainly existed before Darwinism. But with Darwinism people could now JUSTIFY the wars and atrocities using "scientific" Darwinian Principles and Darwinian-Speak. Wars now became "a natural order of the unending fight for survival of the fittest over the weakest ... a "good thing" since the resources are limited and the weak of the species must be eliminated so that the strong of the species may procreate". In short, there is now a "scientific" justification.
And as noted Pasteur and Germ Theory has been cited as justification as well. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis” and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered the Jews.

And while citing a survival of the fittest sort of mentality they weren't thinking of Darwin but thought of Sparta as their role model.

In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf," Hitler himself cited the Greek city state of Sparta as his inspiration, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State":




"Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the 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."


Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state.” During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost" ("Master Plan East"), the Nazi plan for the colonization of Eastern Europe, where it is stated that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots"

It should also be noted that Heinrich Himmler, the infamous Reichsführer of the SS and one of those most directly responsible for the Holocaust, also called Nazi Germany the "new Sparta."

Roy
08-20-2014, 09:18 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein.But not nearly as much as has religion. Funny how Jorge never mentions that.
What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all.Galline faeces.
In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures.As opposed to the far greater number of times when religion was used to justify exterminating those who were not of the 'chosen race', or who worshipped 'false gods', or who ritually mutilated their reproductive organs in a different way, or who thought prophethood should descend through family rather than friendship.

Darwinism does not cause wars or atrocities. The same cannot be said of religion.

Roy

seer
08-20-2014, 09:32 AM
You should know precisely what they believe. Divine right is the most popular and most ancient justification for war, and white Europeans often openly expressed their disdain for primitive pagan cultures.

But it doesn't matter. Men use religion, ideology, greed, politics, race, etc... to dominate their fellow man.



Yea, teleology is weird, I concur. Who enacted that disgusting natural displacement? According to Christianity, God created the natural order that you and Jorge are stupidly comparing to the Trail of Tears and Treblinka.

What are you taking about? What the white Europeans did was as natural as what the bacteria did - whether they used religion or politics to justify those acts is meaningless. And remember according to Christian theology something is amiss in the world. In your world this is all completely natural.

shunyadragon
08-20-2014, 09:36 AM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge

The problem is the misuse of science, as well as religion, to justify violence and wars does not in any way indicate that either science (evolution) nor religion is false, or at fault. Terms like Darwinism, Social Darwinism are the basis of describing the science of evolution as somehow false or at fault, or used to justify evil. These terms are not really the terms of science to describe, investigate, nor understand evolution.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 09:46 AM
"Social "Darwinism" is a philosophy and is not the same thing as evolution which is a scientific theory. It is also based far more on the works than Herbert Spencer, who sought to extend the Theory of Evolution (which deals with the natural world of plants and animals) into realms of sociology and ethics, than it does with Darwin. In many ways Social Darwinism is like Social Newtonism: the belief that in nature gravity makes things fall down, so we should push people we don't like off cliffs. IOW, attempts to discredit the ToE based on the fact that some have misapplied the theory are clearly misguided.

Or defenestration...

Or Nuclear Theory. It's wrong 'cuz we can destroy an entire city with a fusion bomb.

Jorge, desperate to keep his pupils in the fold, resorts to a slimy epistemological misrepresentation.

K54

P.S. Do you think he knows better?
K54, you were asked to leave the thread by the OP. Please stop posting in this thread.

Roy
08-20-2014, 09:50 AM
The problem is ...The problem is that this thread is intended purely to create a false association of Hitler with Darwin, instead of with Pasteur or Luther.

Roy

whag
08-20-2014, 10:50 AM
But it doesn't matter. Men use religion, ideology, greed, politics, race, etc... to dominate their fellow man.

It certainly does matter if you blame evolution for justifying conflict. Evolution wasn't invented to justify war. It antedated war by hundreds of millions of years.





What are you taking about? What the white Europeans did was as natural as what the bacteria did - whether they used religion or politics to justify those acts is meaningless.

It's not meaningless if your point is that the discovery of evolution ramped up evil. Obviously, that's not what happened.



And remember according to Christian theology something is amiss in the world.

Is bacteria displacement something that's "amiss," seer? How about the lion killing the antelope?

It's hard to know what you think is "amiss" in nature, exactly. Do tell.


In your world this is all completely natural.

Bacteria displacement is completely natural. We live in that same world. Your error is in saying that phenomenon justifies human wars. You lost all of us on that one.

seer
08-20-2014, 11:00 AM
It certainly does matter if you blame evolution for justifying conflict. Evolution wasn't invented to justify war. It antedated war by hundreds of millions of years.

But that is not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the bigger picture.



It's not meaningless if your point is that the discovery of evolution ramped up evil. Obviously, that's not what happened.

Well like any ideology it certainly can have negative effects. Not necessarily so though.




Is bacteria displacement something that's "amiss," seer? How about the lion killing the antelope?

It's hard to know what you think is "amiss" in nature, exactly. Do tell.

We have been through this before whag on Apologetics 301 (your thread I believe). Don't pretend that we haven't.



Bacteria displacement is completely natural. We live in that same world. Your error is in saying that phenomenon justifies human wars. You lost all of us on that one.

How is killing or displacing our fellow man and taking his property, territory and females not as completely natural as what the bacteria does?

Jorge
08-20-2014, 11:38 AM
Once again Jorge can't refute the science so he attempts to smear the theory by associating it with people who misused it.

Kinda like saying all of chemistry must be wrong because the Nazis used Zyklon B gas in the chambers.

Jorge isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

I see that you're giving R06 a run for his money for the
title of Grand Master Puppa Creator of Straw Men.

You're too stupid, or dishonest, to acknowledge that what I spoke of in the OP is NOT "people that misuse it" but rather a direct, logical application of the fundamental Darwinian Principle (DP) known as "survival of the fittest". You claim to be knowledgeable of Evolution --- go ahead, deny the DP ... deny that there is an unending competition for the limited resources on Earth and that, as per the DP, "superior" species, individuals, populations, cultures, etc. will out-compete the "inferior" ones.

The DP has provided "scientific" justification for everything from genocide to euthanasia and only someone very ignorant (of history) or very dishonest can deny that. Oops, was I just talking about you, Beagle Boy? :blush:

Jorge

Jorge
08-20-2014, 11:50 AM
The exact same thing could be said about "Pasteurism" and Germ Theory. It was impossible to use Germ Theory to justify wars before Germ Theory ever existed. And it was Pasteur (along with Robert Koch) and Germ Theory that Hitler and other Nazis repeatedly cited to justify many of their atrocities.


A statement made after every major scientific landmark. The same things were said after Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler showed that the sun didn't orbit the earth. The same thing was said after Newton proposed his Laws of Gravity. Find a major scientific accomplishment and you'll find someone whining that it'll be used to justify atheism including such wildly divergent things like the philosophy of Descartes (Cartesianism) to Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod.


And as noted Pasteur and Germ Theory has been cited as justification as well. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis” and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered the Jews.

And while citing a survival of the fittest sort of mentality they weren't thinking of Darwin but thought of Sparta as their role model.

In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf," Hitler himself cited the Greek city state of Sparta as his inspiration, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State":




Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state.” During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost" ("Master Plan East"), the Nazi plan for the colonization of Eastern Europe, where it is stated that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots"

It should also be noted that Heinrich Himmler, the infamous Reichsführer of the SS and one of those most directly responsible for the Holocaust, also called Nazi Germany the "new Sparta."

I'm impressed with the volume and ferocity with which you come out to defend the "Sacred Fatherland" known as Darwinism. Your dreadfully poor analogies (e.g., "Pasteurism"; Galileo, Copernicus, etc ... etc.) are amongst the worst I've ever seen. I literally had to do a double- and a triple-take to make sure that I had read them correctly. I mean ... heck, I don't even know what to say.

Then, to cap it off, you bring in the "Spartans" to save the day. :dizzy:

Actually, and seriously, you're just trying to use the old magician's ploy of redirecting the audience's attention so as to perform the "trick" without being seen. Well ... I SEE YOU !!!

Jorge

whag
08-20-2014, 11:54 AM
But that is not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the bigger picture.

You're doing the exact opposite. If you understood evolution an its significance to teleology--rather than demonizing it in this cheap way--THEN you'd be looking at the big picture.



We have been through this before whag on Apologetics 301 (your thread I believe). Don't pretend that we haven't.

Pardon me for not remembering your teleology with regard to bacterial displacement and predation. What's "amiss" about those things? Remind me.


How is killing or displacing our fellow man and taking his property, territory and females not as completely natural as what the bacteria does?

Because decimating a group of people causes intense pain and suffering, and I have empathy. It'd be unnatural and counterintuitive to kill a group of people and steal their land for a whole host of reasons you, as a 61-year-old man, should have the brains to figure out.

seer
08-20-2014, 12:22 PM
Pardon me for not remembering your teleology with regard to bacterial displacement and predation. What's "amiss" about those things? Remind me.

Nope, go back and read what I said.


Because decimating a group of people causes intense pain and suffering, and I have empathy. It'd be unnatural and counterintuitive to kill a group of people and steal their land for a whole host of reasons you, as a 61-year-old man, should have the brains to figure out.

That is stupid. Is it unnatural for one group of chimpanzees to destroy the males in another group of chimpanzees and take their feeding grounds and females?

rwatts
08-20-2014, 12:36 PM
No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

Jorge"God told us to do it." Isn't that one we see in the Bible an awful lot Jorge?

HMS_Beagle
08-20-2014, 01:17 PM
what I spoke of in the OP is NOT "people that misuse it" but rather a direct, logical application of the fundamental Darwinian Principle (DP) known as "survival of the fittest". You claim to be knowledgeable of Evolution --- go ahead, deny the DP ... deny that there is an unending competition for the limited resources on Earth and that, as per the DP, "superior" species, individuals, populations, cultures, etc. will out-compete the "inferior" ones.

You say lots of really stupid things Jorge. In fact it's pretty much your trademark. ToE doesn't cause events, it's a passive explanation for empirically observed phenomena. Claiming ToE caused WW1 is as stupid as claiming meteorology caused hurricane Katrina.

Jorge Fernandez, the undisputed King of Stupid. :ahem:

rwatts
08-20-2014, 01:21 PM
Are you really so blind that you are unable to see how the Darwinian Principle has been (and is being) applied in all social arenas bar none? Can you see how, even today, the Newtonian Principle of action at a distance, is being applied to kill and maim folk and do tremendous property damage? This is a world wide phenomenon and an historical one as well.

And his mathematical theories are even worse. They are being used to actually target bombs and missiles with great accuracy to make sure that the deadly items do their jobs more efficiently. Just like the nazis and gas chambers. Efficiency is the key.

Arguing like a YEC to a YEC is great fun.

seer
08-20-2014, 01:25 PM
You say lots of really stupid things Jorge. In fact it's pretty much your trademark. ToE doesn't cause events, it's a passive explanation for empirically observed phenomena. Claiming ToE caused WW1 is as stupid as claiming meteorology caused hurricane Katrina.

Jorge Fernandez, the undisputed King of Stupid. :ahem:

Why couldn't one use the idea of survival of the fittest to justify evil behavior?

Jorge
08-20-2014, 01:28 PM
"God told us to do it." Isn't that one we see in the Bible an awful lot Jorge?

Regarding your comment above: every time you try to bring the Bible into a discussion (you do this fairly often) you provide unmistakeable evidence of your ignorance of God's Word, orthodox Christianity and so on.

"God told us to do it" are very deep and serious events that cannot be examined by the superficial, dismissive extremist prejudices of people such as yourself. It would be like sending a hard-core, fanatical Nazi to report on the Holocaust of WWII.

If you wish to exit this thread then do so - no one is keeping you from this.
It's not like we would miss your "contributions".

Jorge

Jorge
08-20-2014, 01:30 PM
You say lots of really stupid things Jorge. In fact it's pretty much your trademark. ToE doesn't cause events, it's a passive explanation for empirically observed phenomena. Claiming ToE caused WW1 is as stupid as claiming meteorology caused hurricane Katrina.

Jorge Fernandez, the undisputed King of Stupid.

Yeah ... okay ... whatever ... :shrug:

See you in another thread, Beagle Boy, 'cause you're OFF of this one.

Jorge

Truthseeker
08-20-2014, 01:42 PM
I guess a melding of two certain quotes by Robert Anson Heinlein and Mark Twain might be a good thing to put here: Man is the only animal that rationalizes or needs to. To be sure, "needs" requires not-quite-straightforward interpretation!

Truthseeker
08-20-2014, 01:46 PM
Yeah ... okay ... whatever ... :shrug:

See you in another thread, Beagle Boy, 'cause you're OFF of this one.

JorgeI am puzzled why you make such posts. Do you just want to preach to the choir? Maybe you have a very deep, serious reason that I for some reason am unable to grasp.(kidding)

Jorge
08-20-2014, 01:47 PM
Why couldn't one use the idea of survival of the fittest to justify evil behavior?

OF COURSE they know how the Darwinian Principle can be (and has been and
will continue to be) used as "justification" ("scientific justification") of anything that
promotes one group (deemed "superior" or "more fit") over others ("inferior" or "less fit").
This includes "justifying" essentially any kind of "evil" behavior. In fact, as I stated in the
OP, it often ceases to be "evil" under Darwinism. It becomes a "natural order of things".

The only reason that they deny, Deny, DENY is because it sure does make their Sacred
Cow look bad. That would then make selling their poison that much more difficult. Like
good propagandists, they HAVE to distance themselves from any and all bad publicity.

That, in a nutshell, is why you will never, ever find an Evolutionist acknowledging the
role of Darwinian Evolution in matters such as wars, genocide, abortion, euthanasia
and similar things. Needless to say, in this they are dishonest in the worst possible
way because they hide the evil so as to be able to sell it to the innocent/ignorant.
It is deception at a Satanic level.

Jorge

Jorge
08-20-2014, 01:53 PM
I am puzzled why you make such posts. Do you just want to preach to the choir? Maybe you have a very deep, serious reason that I for some reason am unable to grasp.(kidding)

Okay ... all kidding aside ...
I would have gladly listened to rational, logical arguments - I stated so in the OP.
I've had my fill of their religious fanaticism grounded on irrationality.

These people think that because they follow Evolution that they should be
granted the respect of a rational and honest critical thinker. They are light
years away from achieving that status. Hence, they got the 'boot'.

Jorge

whag
08-20-2014, 01:56 PM
Nope, go back and read what I said.



That is stupid. Is it unnatural for one group of chimpanzees to destroy the males in another group of chimpanzees and take their feeding grounds and females?


Yes, chimp raids and bacterial slaughter are natural. You seem to have the big problem with it. Either that, or you're saying that only the introduction of Christ stops man's natural inclination to go to war. What is your point exactly?

Jorge
08-20-2014, 01:57 PM
I guess a melding of two certain quotes by Robert Anson Heinlein and Mark Twain might be a good thing to put here: Man is the only animal that rationalizes or needs to. To be sure, "needs" requires not-quite-straightforward interpretation!

God said to us, "Come and let us reason together."

Logical thought is one of the attributes of God and, as creatures made in His image, we too seek to rationalize. We often do so imperfectly, or not at all, due to our Fallen state. With due respect to Heinlein and Twain, that is why we "need to rationalize" - not their secular reasons.

Jorge

phank
08-20-2014, 02:01 PM
Okay ... all kidding aside ...
I would have gladly listened to rational, logical arguments - I stated so in the OP.
I've had my fill of their religious fanaticism grounded on irrationality.

"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with the inheritance of biological characteristics, and hence nothing to do with anything Darwin ever wrote. Instead, the term is used as a somewhat perverse post hoc rationalization the haves use to justify their positions over the have-nots. Sometimes some of the haves LOSE what they have, and then you will never hear them appealing to social Darwinism as the cause of their loss.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 02:02 PM
Bringing up the topic of scientific theory being misapplied to ethics is not only a category error, but is the height of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

Shame on Jorge.

Why even entertain such a reptilian strategy?

Abusus usum non tollit suffices as the knockout punch.

K54Please leave the thread per the OP's wishes. Thanks

rogue06
08-20-2014, 02:26 PM
I'm impressed with the volume and ferocity with which you come out to defend the "Sacred Fatherland" known as Darwinism. Your dreadfully poor analogies (e.g., "Pasteurism"; Galileo, Copernicus, etc ... etc.) are amongst the worst I've ever seen. I literally had to do a double- and a triple-take to make sure that I had read them correctly. I mean ... heck, I don't even know what to say.

Then, to cap it off, you bring in the "Spartans" to save the day. :dizzy:

Actually, and seriously, you're just trying to use the old magician's ploy of redirecting the audience's attention so as to perform the "trick" without being seen. Well ... I SEE YOU !!!

Jorge
Not even remotely close. I mention Germ Theory because unlike the ToE it was repeatedly and directly cited as justification for committing atrocities.

I pointed out that nearly every scientific accomplishment has caused someone to start whining that it will surely lead to atheism.

And I brought up the Spartans because again unlike Darwin and evolution they provided the role model for the Nazi's behavior and they were quite happy to point this out.

I'm sorry that you don't possess the intellectual wherewithal to have followed what I wrote.

rogue06
08-20-2014, 02:28 PM
You say lots of really stupid things Jorge. In fact it's pretty much your trademark. ToE doesn't cause events, it's a passive explanation for empirically observed phenomena. Claiming ToE caused WW1 is as stupid as claiming meteorology caused hurricane Katrina.

Jorge Fernandez, the undisputed King of Stupid. :ahem:
It is a problem with understanding the difference between describing and prescribing

Jorge
08-20-2014, 02:31 PM
"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with the inheritance of biological characteristics, and hence nothing to do with anything Darwin ever wrote. Instead, the term is used as a somewhat perverse post hoc rationalization the haves use to justify their positions over the have-nots. Sometimes some of the haves LOSE what they have, and then you will never hear them appealing to social Darwinism as the cause of their loss.

What you say would be true if (IF!!!) Darwinism only had its scientifically-valid definition. It does not. As I have stated here many times, Darwinism comes in two - count them TWO - forms: one a bona fide science and the other as part of a metaphysical position (namely, Materialism). The two are then intermixed and sold off as one: labeled as "purely scientific". It's all downhill after that.

Thus, Social Darwinism does not have anything to do with biological characteristics - that much is true (this is the scientific part of Darwinism). But you "forget" the rest - and I'm here to remind you. The Darwinian Principle (DP) of "survival of the fittest" has been incorporated into virtually every aspect of human endeavors - politics, economics, art, science, sex, morality and ethics ... and so on. As such, the DP is used as a "scientific justification" for anything including wars, genocide, euthanasia, abortion, rape, homosexual practices ... the list is endless.

If this is too hard for you to grasp then just say so.

Jorge

rogue06
08-20-2014, 02:33 PM
Why couldn't one use the idea of survival of the fittest to justify evil behavior?
Survival of the fittest was a term Darwin loathed and for good reason. It lends itself to misuse and misunderstanding. It is not, as some critics contend, another way of saying might makes right but rather a way of saying that those that leave the most offspring eventually "win."

rogue06
08-20-2014, 02:37 PM
"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with the inheritance of biological characteristics, and hence nothing to do with anything Darwin ever wrote. Instead, the term is used as a somewhat perverse post hoc rationalization the haves use to justify their positions over the have-nots. Sometimes some of the haves LOSE what they have, and then you will never hear them appealing to social Darwinism as the cause of their loss.
It is also far more grounded in genetics than evolution. Darn that Mendel http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/angry/mad.gif.

rwatts
08-20-2014, 02:39 PM
God said to us, "Come and let us reason together."

Logical thought is one of the attributes of God and, as creatures made in His image, we too seek to rationalize. We often do so imperfectly, or not at all, due to our Fallen state. With due respect to Heinlein and Twain, that is why we "need to rationalize" - not their secular reasons.

JorgeGood Godly rationalisation for you Jorge (none of these were using Darwin to rationalize their Christian behaviour, were they, but rather they were using ....?):-

Saints, members of the master race:-
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-grace-peterson.html
"Being a member of a cult has its benefits. There is the self-importance that comes with being a member of the master race"


Saints who abuse their wives and children, the latter who are taught to put up with it.:-
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/fundamentalists_anonymous
"In extreme cases, Luce reports, women and children in violent fundamentalist families suffer further abuse while struggling to follow a religion that teaches them to stay in the home despite beatings."


Saints who are babbling idiots, happy to use prayer instead of medicine:-
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-joan.html
"The parents I knew became babbling idiots who prayed for us rather than take us to the doctor. When I developed mono, I ran a fever of 104 and hallucinated. Still, no docs. Thankfully my aunt dropped by when my temp rose to 105 and I had seizure. She told them they were nuts and took me to the ER. Oh, and those family values?"


Saint - a wife abuser and nutty ministers:-
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-alexandra.html
"When I was pregnant with our second child I caught my husband with another woman. I was crushed (this wasn’t the first time, or the last). I took our 2 year old daughter and went to my parents’ home to stay. I went to see my pastor and get his counsel and prayer for my situation. He told me I should go back home and apologize to my husband for leaving. Being the dumb, 23 year old brainwashed cult member that I was, and thinking this man really had God’s word and wisdom on everything spiritual, I did just that. I basically made myself a doormat. My husband was a sociopath, so he didn’t see the love and virtue in this. He just took full advantage of it for 21 years. One pastor told me that if my husband wasn’t “saved” it was my fault, because if I were truly a “Godly woman” that he would have come around. In reality, my husband just disrespected me more every year for acting like an idiot and letting him get by with murder with no accountability to our relationship whatsoever. One of my pastors over the years taught that babies who were aborted went to hell."




Do you now see what reasoning like a YEC is?

phank
08-20-2014, 03:04 PM
Thus, Social Darwinism does not have anything to do with biological characteristics - that much is true (this is the scientific part of Darwinism). But you "forget" the rest - and I'm here to remind you. The Darwinian Principle (DP) of "survival of the fittest" has been incorporated into virtually every aspect of human endeavors - politics, economics, art, science, sex, morality and ethics ... and so on. As such, the DP is used as a "scientific justification" for anything including wars, genocide, euthanasia, abortion, rape, homosexual practices ... the list is endless.

I think what you're referring to here is the misapplication of the notion of merit. Merit applies to many forms of competition, from foot races to economic success to scientific achievement. But as you imply, merit is also (and IMO incorrectly) attributed to anything that confers relative superiority. "Scientific Darwinism" consists in attributing a perceived position of relative social superiority to inherent merit, when merit as commonly understood has nothing to do with it. So as I said, when people lose that position for some reason, they NEVER attribute their loss to lack of merit.

Sometimes the misapplication of Darwin's theory can be funny (as in the "Darwin awards"), but often it's used to excuse truly vicious behavior. Darwin himself defined "fitness" very narrowly, in terms of differential reproductive success over many generations. I think it's unfortunate that some people misuse a hopeless caricature of a scientific theory to justify inhuman treatment of others.

rwatts
08-20-2014, 03:09 PM
Regarding your comment above: every time you try to bring the Bible into a discussion (you do this fairly often) you provide unmistakeable evidence of your ignorance of God's Word, orthodox Christianity and so on.

"God told us to do it" are very deep and serious events that cannot be examined by the superficial, dismissive extremist prejudices of people such as yourself. It would be like sending a hard-core, fanatical Nazi to report on the Holocaust of WWII.

If you wish to exit this thread then do so - no one is keeping you from this.
It's not like we would miss your "contributions".

Jorge
Stop whining Jorge.

What I do is precisely what you do. I just take the boot of inanity from your foot and put it on mine. I am reasoning in the same kind of way that you are.

The thing is, I can see this, but you are too blind to.

Cerebrum123
08-20-2014, 03:28 PM
Survival of the fittest was a term Darwin loathed and for good reason. It lends itself to misuse and misunderstanding. It is not, as some critics contend, another way of saying might makes right but rather a way of saying that those that leave the most offspring eventually "win."

:no:
He said in his own works that it was more accurate than natural selection.

The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to mans power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.

Source. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F387&viewtype=text)

At least get your facts straight.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 03:32 PM
Big deal!

The scientific validity of theory is not affected by how it is misapplied.

K54

Roy
08-20-2014, 03:35 PM
Why couldn't one use the idea of survival of the fittest to justify evil behavior?For the same reason one couldn't use the theory of gravity to justify defenestration.

Survival of the fittest is a description of what will happen over multiple generations. It's not an instruction to the current generation.

Roy

HMS_Beagle
08-20-2014, 04:10 PM
Why couldn't one use the idea of survival of the fittest to justify evil behavior?

Because humans are social animals and have evolved traits such as altruism that benefit our social structure. An individual who kills / steals / etc is going against that social structure of the species and is likely to find himself an outcast, or in modern society doing hard time.

rogue06
08-20-2014, 05:50 PM
:no:
He said in his own works that it was more accurate than natural selection.

The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to mans power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.

Source. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F387&viewtype=text)

At least get your facts straight.
The phrase came from Herbert Spencer and Darwin added it alongside "natural selection" in the 5th edition of On the Origin of Species intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment" after being influenced by Alfred Wallace (who strongly pushed him to adapt it) and others. He felt that it helped to steer clear of the anthropomorphic implications associated with "selecting" and "selection." But by "fittest" Darwin was saying "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape." But it quickly became misused and misunderstood to refer to the strongest, biggest, or smartest and most cunning individuals -- which often is not the case. So the term that Darwin thought would be more accurate turned into anything but and this was what Darwin loathed and FWIU regretted.

klaus54
08-20-2014, 08:23 PM
Okay, fine. Consider yourself OFF this thread, effective immediately. C-ya! :whip:

Jorge

Truth is anathema to dishonesty.

You are shame. And crying shame.

K54

seer
08-21-2014, 04:52 AM
Yes, chimp raids and bacterial slaughter are natural. You seem to have the big problem with it. Either that, or you're saying that only the introduction of Christ stops man's natural inclination to go to war. What is your point exactly?

Nope whag, you claimed that slaughtering our fellow man was unnatural. That was completely wrong - it is perfectly natural.

seer
08-21-2014, 04:56 AM
Because humans are social animals and have evolved traits such as altruism that benefit our social structure. An individual who kills / steals / etc is going against that social structure of the species and is likely to find himself an outcast, or in modern society doing hard time.

That is just stupid. What the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was a very successful evolutionary strategy - for the Europeans.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 05:53 AM
Nope whag, you claimed that slaughtering our fellow man was unnatural. That was completely wrong - it is perfectly natural.

Yes it is.

So what?

OTOH, YHWH Elohim ordered slaughter in the OT stories.

Again, nothing to do with science.

Wise up!

K54

Cerebrum123
08-21-2014, 06:06 AM
The phrase came from Herbert Spencer and Darwin added it alongside "natural selection" in the 5th edition of On the Origin of Species intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment" after being influenced by Alfred Wallace (who strongly pushed him to adapt it) and others. He felt that it helped to steer clear of the anthropomorphic implications associated with "selecting" and "selection." But by "fittest" Darwin was saying "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape." But it quickly became misused and misunderstood to refer to the strongest, biggest, or smartest and most cunning individuals -- which often is not the case. So the term that Darwin thought would be more accurate turned into anything but and this was what Darwin loathed and FWIU regretted.

Other than repeating what I provided you have shown none of your assertions to be true. You got a quote from Darwin, anything to support what is completely contradicted by Darwin in my above quote? The only thing I have seen Darwin regret was when he "truckled to public opinion" when he used the term "creation" for the first lifeforms. When you go and look at his writings, it's pretty clear that he hated any involvement by God in nature, except maybe to get it running. I doubt he liked that prospect much either.

seer
08-21-2014, 06:28 AM
Yes it is.

So what?

OTOH, YHWH Elohim ordered slaughter in the OT stories.

Again, nothing to do with science.

Wise up!

K54

Well yes, I think it does have to do with the evolutionary theory. It comes down the the question: what is man? The accidental by product of natural forces?

To quote Dawkins: In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Or are we creatures with objective and inherent worth, created in the image of God.

And your point about God ordering killing is meaningless because:

1. If God actually ordered such attacks they would be just and moral.

2. If God didn't order the attacks then you can not put that on Him.

3. And if God doesn't exist then it is probably a good evolutionary strategy to invoke God to marshal ones forces.

phank
08-21-2014, 06:53 AM
Other than repeating what I provided you have shown none of your assertions to be true. You got a quote from Darwin, anything to support what is completely contradicted by Darwin in my above quote? The only thing I have seen Darwin regret was when he "truckled to public opinion" when he used the term "creation" for the first lifeforms. When you go and look at his writings, it's pretty clear that he hated any involvement by God in nature, except maybe to get it running. I doubt he liked that prospect much either.


What are you arguing against here? You made the correct claim that Darwin accepted "natural selection" as a good descriptive phrase. Yes, at first he did. Subsequently, he discovered that this phrase was being manipulated and misused, out of context, to rationalize some viewpoints and motives. Yes, it was. Eventually, he changed his mind and decided that "natural selection" wasn't such a good phrase after all, because it had become misapplied to matters far outside Darwin's scope.

I think it's incorrect to say that Darwin "hated any involvement by god in nature". No valid scientific theory has ever had, nor ever will have, any magical component unexplainable in natural terms. This isn't because there can be no such involvement, but because the nature of the scientific method renders science incapable of addressing such agencies.

So the problem must be approached indirectly, by asking whether an explanation that fails to include anything supernatural is missing something important enough to render the theory useless, insufficiently explanatory, or cause it to make consistently wrong predictions. In such cases, something is obviously missing. Historically, what's missing has ALWAYS been successfully filled in through a more complete understanding of natural processes, and NEVER through the insertion of magic or the supernatural.

Roy
08-21-2014, 07:56 AM
2. If God didn't order the attacks then you can not put that on Him. No, but we can put the blame on all those religious frauds who claim that their god orders them to commit atrocities, and on those religious frauds who teach falsehoods which lead others to commit atrocities.

Roy

seer
08-21-2014, 07:59 AM
No, but we can put the blame on all those religious frauds who claim that their god orders them to commit atrocities, and on those religious frauds who teach falsehoods which lead others to commit atrocities.

Roy

Why? They are only doing what the evolutionary process created them to do.

phank
08-21-2014, 08:03 AM
Why? They are only doing what the evolutionary process created them to do.

There are some of us who believe that ALL religious beliefs are fraudulent, whether that was an evolutionary development or not. But many people do NOT commit atrocities, and actually oppose them. Didn't those people also evolve? And perhaps even moreso?

Roy
08-21-2014, 08:19 AM
Why? They are only doing what the evolutionary process created them to do.Is that your actual belief, or merely what you think others believe?

Roy

Cerebrum123
08-21-2014, 08:28 AM
What are you arguing against here? You made the correct claim that Darwin accepted "natural selection" as a good descriptive phrase. Yes, at first he did. Subsequently, he discovered that this phrase was being manipulated and misused, out of context, to rationalize some viewpoints and motives. Yes, it was. Eventually, he changed his mind and decided that "natural selection" wasn't such a good phrase after all, because it had become misapplied to matters far outside Darwin's scope.

Wrong phrase. We're dealing with "survival of the fittest". I'm asking for evidence that Darwin ever "loathed" said term. Especially since he added it to later editions of his own works as "more accurate". Question, does a term cease to be more accurate because a few misuse it?


I think it's incorrect to say that Darwin "hated any involvement by god in nature". No valid scientific theory has ever had, nor ever will have, any magical component unexplainable in natural terms. This isn't because there can be no such involvement, but because the nature of the scientific method renders science incapable of addressing such agencies.

You haven't read his personal correspondences have you? For example, when dealing with Alfred Russel Wallace, and his insistence that evolution couldn't explain humanity, and that a higher power needed to be involved, Darwin responded with this.

I shall be intensely Curious to read the Quarterly: I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child.f5 I have lately i.e. in new Edit, of Origin been moderating my zeal, & attributing much more to mere useless variability.

Source. (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6684)

Wallace, and many others, have very good reasons for believing that mankind's capabilities are far beyond that of natural selection and mutation to reach.

Historical science can certainly address whether something happening is beyond the forces of nature alone to cause. Unlike you I don't accept "methodological naturalism". IMO it's merely metaphysical naturalism in disguise.


So the problem must be approached indirectly, by asking whether an explanation that fails to include anything supernatural is missing something important enough to render the theory useless, insufficiently explanatory, or cause it to make consistently wrong predictions. In such cases, something is obviously missing. Historically, what's missing has ALWAYS been successfully filled in through a more complete understanding of natural processes, and NEVER through the insertion of magic or the supernatural.

I think that ALL science hits that roadblock eventually, although I wouldn't say it renders them useless. I see so many things that do not fit within a naturalistic paradigm, and from many fields too. Also, historically you are wrong. There is no "natural" explanation that fits the events of Jesus and His resurrection. Although that would be a thread entirely of it's own.

Note the underlined though, evolution hits all of it. Especially the failed predictions part.

As this is likely about to devolve into a flame war, I'm out as of this post.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 08:41 AM
Well yes, I think it does have to do with the evolutionary theory. It comes down the the question: what is man? The accidental by product of natural forces?

To quote Dawkins: In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Or are we creatures with objective and inherent worth, created in the image of God.

And your point about God ordering killing is meaningless because:

1. If God actually ordered such attacks they would be just and moral.

2. If God didn't order the attacks then you can not put that on Him.

3. And if God doesn't exist then it is probably a good evolutionary strategy to invoke God to marshal ones forces.

Evolutionary, like any scientific theory, is based on physical evidence.

The validity of the science has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW IT'S APPLIED!!!!

This thread and the one I started last night have totally confirmed my believe that anti-evolutionism is a wacky cult similar to geocentrism.

I just hope you realize your argument commits a category error and MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!

K54

seer
08-21-2014, 08:45 AM
There are some of us who believe that ALL religious beliefs are fraudulent, whether that was an evolutionary development or not. But many people do NOT commit atrocities, and actually oppose them. Didn't those people also evolve? And perhaps even moreso?

And what is your point?

seer
08-21-2014, 08:48 AM
Evolutionary, like any scientific theory, is based on physical evidence.

The validity of the science has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW IT'S APPLIED!!!!

This thread and the one I started last night have totally confirmed my believe that anti-evolutionism is a wacky cult similar to geocentrism.

I just hope you realize your argument commits a category error and MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!

K54

I disagree, worldviews have consequences. If we are the accidental by products of natural forces then ontologically we are different than beings created in the image of God.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 08:48 AM
There are some of us who believe that ALL religious beliefs are fraudulent, whether that was an evolutionary development or not. But many people do NOT commit atrocities, and actually oppose them. Didn't those people also evolve? And perhaps even moreso?

Good point! Contrary evidence to seer's claim would be altruistic atheists.

Anyway, the category error committed by the anti-evolutionists in this thread shows the both the abject paucity AND intellectual dishonesty of their arguments.

K54

klaus54
08-21-2014, 08:50 AM
I disagree, worldviews have consequences. If we are the accidental by products of natural forces then ontologically we are different than beings created in the image of God.

Scientific theories are NOT WORLDVIEWS, you nitwit! The validity of scientific theories ARE NOT BASED ON HOW THEY ARE APPLIED TO CULTURE!!

Geesh...

K54

Roy
08-21-2014, 08:57 AM
I disagree, worldviews have consequences. If we are the accidental by products of natural forces then ontologically we are different than beings created in the image of God.Worldviews do not necessarily match reality. A consequence of a faulty worldview cannot necessarily be considered to be a consequence of actual history as opposed to social constructs.

Roy

Jorge
08-21-2014, 09:01 AM
:no:
He said in his own works that it was more accurate than natural selection.

The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to mans power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.

Source. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F387&viewtype=text)

At least get your facts straight.

Do you realize that telling these people to "get your facts straight" is, to them, insulting?

Jorge

seer
08-21-2014, 09:13 AM
Is that your actual belief, or merely what you think others believe?

Roy

Well I have been told time and time again by materialists that free will is an illusion. If that is the case then we are all only doing what the evolutionary process created us to do - good or evil - it is all natural. Like Dawkins said - "DNA just is and we dance to its music..."

seer
08-21-2014, 09:16 AM
Scientific theories are NOT WORLDVIEWS, you nitwit! The validity of scientific theories ARE NOT BASED ON HOW THEY ARE APPLIED TO CULTURE!!

Geesh...

K54

No klaus, but they play into worldviews, give ammunition for said views. The evolutionary theory has been used to justify atheism, to bolster atheism - and that is a fact.

phank
08-21-2014, 09:27 AM
Wrong phrase. We're dealing with "survival of the fittest". I'm asking for evidence that Darwin ever "loathed" said term. Especially since he added it to later editions of his own works as "more accurate". Question, does a term cease to be more accurate because a few misuse it?Clearly, the misuse is inaccurate. When misuse becomes the norm, all value in the phrase has been lost.


Wallace, and many others, have very good reasons for believing that mankind's capabilities are far beyond that of natural selection and mutation to reach.But what those who learn have learned is, among other things, that the Will To Believe trumps all conceivable evidence. Put the Will To Believe aside, and evolutionary processes as currently understood fully explain all we see and all we are. Whether we like it or not, whether we are capable of accepting it or not.


Historical science can certainly address whether something happening is beyond the forces of nature alone to cause. Unlike you I don't accept "methodological naturalism". IMO it's merely metaphysical naturalism in disguise.And which scientific theories are you aware of that would be improved in some way by inserting magical untestable woo? So far, science has never needed that hypothesis! If one were to approach the empirical world armed with metaphysical naturalism (the philosophical conviction that natural forces explain all that exist and all that can exist), one could arrive at every scientific theory ever derived, in complete detail, without missing a beat. It seems pretty obvious that gods contribute nothing explanatory to science, except insofar as they explain why people reject science when they find it incongenial.


I think that ALL science hits that roadblock eventually,Although science as we know it has been producing valid and useful and accurate results for centuries now, and shows no sign of ever hitting any roadblocks.


although I wouldn't say it renders them useless. I see so many things that do not fit within a naturalistic paradigm, and from many fields too.Indeed? What might these be, outside the world of psychological dysfunction?


Also, historically you are wrong. There is no "natural" explanation that fits the events of Jesus and His resurrection. Although that would be a thread entirely of it's own.But there is a "natural" explanation - that it never happened. But the Will To Believe hand-waves that aside.


Note the underlined though, evolution hits all of it. Especially the failed predictions part. Tell that to the tens of thousands of scientists, all of them far more educated in these matters than you are, who have usefully dedicated their lives to these matters and do not see these failures. Could it possibly that these "failures" are matters of policy rather than fact?

Roy
08-21-2014, 10:10 AM
Is that your actual belief, or merely what you think others believe?Well I have been told time and time again by materialists that free will is an illusion. If that is the case then we are all only doing what the evolutionary process created us to do - good or evil - it is all natural. Like Dawkins said - "DNA just is and we dance to its music..."So it's not your actual belief, but just another of your interminable straw-men.

You ignore others when they correct you regarding their views, and you won't even present, let alone defend, your own.

You are a complete waste of time.

Roy

P.S. The question of free will is independent of the question of common descent.

seer
08-21-2014, 10:19 AM
So it's not your actual belief, but just another of your interminable straw-men.

You ignore others when they correct you regarding their views, and you won't even present, let alone defend, your own.

You are a complete waste of time.

Roy

Ok, so free will is not an illusion? So you are at odds with much of recent science?


Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics...

...But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

http://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html

whag
08-21-2014, 10:20 AM
No klaus, but they play into worldviews, give ammunition for said views. The evolutionary theory has been used to justify atheism, to bolster atheism - and that is a fact.

That's largely a counter-reaction to theologians putting too much stock in a literal creation. A literal creation turned out to be wrong, so they suffered the consequences of that backlash.

seer
08-21-2014, 10:26 AM
That's largely a counter-reaction to theologians putting too much stock in a literal creation. A literal creation turned out to be wrong, so they suffered the consequences of that backlash.

Oh stop, that is just nonsense.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 10:28 AM
Do you realize that telling these people to "get your facts straight" is, to them, insulting?

Jorge

Hey Mr. Projectionist, Do you realize that telling YOU to "get your facts straight" is, to YOU, insulting?

K54

P.S. You WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH THIS NONSENSE!

Roy
08-21-2014, 10:28 AM
Ok, so free will is not an illusion? So you are at odds with much of recent science?Which part of "You are a complete waste of time." did you fail to understand?

Roy

klaus54
08-21-2014, 10:31 AM
Which part of "You are a complete waste of time." did you fail to understand?

Roy

I'm totally flummoxed by Jorge's and seer's complete lack of understanding of this most simple of issues.

K54

seer
08-21-2014, 10:35 AM
Which part of "You are a complete waste of time." did you fail to understand?

Roy

No answer... OK...

seer
08-21-2014, 10:36 AM
I'm totally flummoxed by Jorge's and seer's complete lack of understanding of this most simple of issues.

K54

What lack of understanding, can you be specific?

whag
08-21-2014, 10:37 AM
Oh stop, that is just nonsense.

Didn't theologians believe in a literal creation until evolution said otherwise? You'd expect a counterreaction like atheists saying evolution proves the bible isn't supposed to be a literal record of events. That's impossible given why we now know.

The more you act ignorant, the more you'll get that reaction. You perpetuate that reaction by remaining ignorant about who you are. At the very least, you should accept the epistemelogical fact that you are an evolved animal. That's a crucial reality to process if you're going to be a mature Christian.

seer
08-21-2014, 10:51 AM
The more you act ignorant, the more you'll get that reaction. You perpetuate that reaction by remaining ignorant about who you are. At the very least, you should accept the epistemelogical fact that you are an evolved animal. That's a crucial reality to process if you're going to be a mature Christian.

Really? An an evolved animal? Like the chimpanzees that slaughter each other - yes all perfectly natural and keeping with the evolutionary process.

tabibito
08-21-2014, 10:53 AM
Didn't theologians believe in a literal creation until evolution said otherwise? You'd expect a counterreaction like atheists saying evolution proves the bible isn't supposed to be a literal record of events. That's impossible given why we now know.

The more you act ignorant, the more you'll get that reaction. You perpetuate that reaction by remaining ignorant about who you are. At the very least, you should accept the epistemelogical fact that you are an evolved animal. That's a crucial reality to process if you're going to be a mature Christian.

Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God's creation is always subject to God's sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth.

Augustine argues that the first Genesis Creation account (1:1–2:3) cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be set alongside the second Genesis Creation account (2:4–25), as well as every other statement about the Creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6–9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God's creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation.

Further, he argues that a close reading of Genesis 2:4 has the following meaning: "When day was made, God made heaven and earth and every green thing of the field." This leads him to conclude that the six days of Creation are not chronological. Rather, they are a way of categorizing God's work of creation. God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day.




The early churches had influential members who argued that Genesis was not a strict chronological or literal account, as the records of Augustine of Hippo's analyses (which he never quite settled despite 4 attempts) show. Had Augustine been privy to later scientific knowledge, I think he would have had more success in making proper determinations.
It is also a matter of record that influential members of the early churches were undecided about whether the Earth might be spherical.
I have tried without success to determine why the concepts disappeared from view.

Roy
08-21-2014, 11:11 AM
No answer... OK...Hypocrite.

Roy

seer
08-21-2014, 11:13 AM
Hypocrite.

Roy

How unoriginal and petty...

Jorge
08-21-2014, 11:14 AM
No klaus, but they play into worldviews, give ammunition for said views. The evolutionary theory has been used to justify atheism, to bolster atheism - and that is a fact.

WARNING: you're speaking Advanced Calculus to a
person that has not yet mastered adding fractions.

Best of "luck" on your efforts. :whistle:

Jorge

Roy
08-21-2014, 11:15 AM
HypocriteHow unoriginal and petty...But true.

Roy

whag
08-21-2014, 11:16 AM
Really? An an evolved animal? Like the chimpanzees that slaughter each other - yes all perfectly natural and keeping with the evolutionary process.

Yes, you are a mammal. We have the fossils and genomic evidence to show that.

It is true that tanzanean chimps are the only species besides humans to conduct war raids, I concur. That should actually give you pause for thought.

I think God's fern sign was wasted on you. Clearly, you'd go apostate if you found out that Genesis wasn't literal. Get over it, already, because you're shaming yourself with this lame argument.

Roy
08-21-2014, 11:18 AM
Yes, you are a mammal. We have the fossils and genomic evidence to show that.

It is true that tanzanean chimps are the only species besides humans to conduct war raids, I concur. IIRC some species of ants do too.

Roy

seer
08-21-2014, 11:18 AM
But true.

Roy

Ok Roy, I'll bite - how exactly am I hypocritical. Be specific.

Jorge
08-21-2014, 11:22 AM
I'm totally flummoxed by Jorge's and seer's complete lack of understanding of this most simple of issues.

K54

Figuratively speaking, the above 'jab' by Santa Klaus reminded me
of the clown that after watching a lecture by Einstein remarked,
"That stupid old guy doesn't know anything about math - he even writes his eight's sideways!" :lol:

Jorge

seer
08-21-2014, 11:23 AM
Yes, you are a mammal. We have the fossils and genomic evidence to show that.

It is true that tanzanean chimps are the only species besides humans to conduct war raids, I concur. That should actually give you pause for thought.

So you agree that slaughtering each other is completely natural and keeping with the evolutionary process. No blame - we are just doing what the process created us to do.

Richard Dawkins:
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

Roy
08-21-2014, 11:28 AM
Ok Roy, I'll bite - how exactly am I hypocritical. Be specific.You comment on the lack of reply to your own points while making no reply to the points made by others.

You ask endless loaded questions regarding the views of others while refusing to discuss or even disclose your own.

You claim agreement where there is none, and even where there is explicit dissent.

Roy

Jorge
08-21-2014, 11:35 AM
Didn't theologians believe in a literal creation until evolution said otherwise? You'd expect a counterreaction like atheists saying evolution proves the bible isn't supposed to be a literal record of events. That's impossible given why we now know.

Not even wrong. Anyone that does know the score - truly knows plus honest enough to accept it - is compelled to reject the Evolutionary account and, by default, accept the Biblical Creation account.
Only two kinds of people would disagree: (1) the ignorant or, (2) the dishonest. Which are you?


The more you act ignorant, the more you'll get that reaction. You perpetuate that reaction by remaining ignorant about who you are. At the very least, you should accept the epistemelogical fact that you are an evolved animal. That's a crucial reality to process if you're going to be a mature Christian.

Hehe ... so, in order to be a "mature Christian" we must "accept the fact that we are an evolved animal". WOW! I can respond so many things towards such preposterous "Christian" theology that I sit here paralyzed, overwhelmed by the dizzying prospects. :dizzy:

Jorge

tabibito
08-21-2014, 11:55 AM
I accept the Biblical account quite readily, but I don't accept that the YEC version of the Biblical account is valid.

Augustine was on the right track - the creation, in the only concept that was available to him, was a seed. Everything was there in potential but not in realis. In short, evolution is substantially correct.

seer
08-21-2014, 12:09 PM
You comment on the lack of reply to your own points while making no reply to the points made by others.

You ask endless loaded questions regarding the views of others while refusing to discuss or even disclose your own.

You claim agreement where there is none, and even where there is explicit dissent.

Roy

Nope, you asked:


Is that your actual belief, or merely what you think others believe?

Of course it is not what I believe. I already asked the question: It comes down the the question: what is man? The accidental by product of natural forces? Or are we creatures with objective and inherent worth, created in the image of God.

I would assume that you knew my answer since I am a Christian. Then you claimed that religious frauds were responsible for killing in the name of God. And I made the point that they were only doing what the evolutionary process created them to do, and :
Well I have been told time and time again by materialists that free will is an illusion. If that is the case then we are all only doing what the evolutionary process created us to do - good or evil - it is all natural. Like Dawkins said - "DNA just is and we dance to its music..."

Then you said that was a straw-man argument, which it isn't. If free will is an illusion then it follows that we are only acting in the way that the process created us to act. I don't see how any of this is hypocritical.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 12:28 PM
What lack of understanding, can you be specific?

Arggh....!!!!

That the misapplication of a scientific theory to accomplish nefarious cultural actions DOES NOT NEGATE THE SCIENCE!!!

What could be simpler???

K54

seer
08-21-2014, 12:45 PM
Arggh....!!!!

That the misapplication of a scientific theory to accomplish nefarious cultural actions DOES NOT NEGATE THE SCIENCE!!!

What could be simpler???

K54

I didn't say it negated science. Only that the theory of evolution has been use to support atheism, and that we are no more than evolved animals.

Roy
08-21-2014, 12:52 PM
I don't see how any of this is hypocritical.Then get the mods to change your monicker to non-seer.

Roy

whag
08-21-2014, 12:58 PM
So you agree that slaughtering each other is completely natural and keeping with the evolutionary process. No blame - we are just doing what the process created us to do.


For the sake of argument, I grant you the hideous position that evolution bids species to destroy other species. Now the problem for you is that evolution is actually true. You have a problem with God because that's precisely the method he used to create you.

We have the fossils and genomic evidence to show this. You ignore that evidence because you are a fundamentalist.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 12:59 PM
I didn't say it negated science. Only that the theory of evolution has been use to support atheism, and that we are no more than evolved animals.

I said it can't be used to negate THE science IN QUESTION, namely THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

And no theist who also accepts the SCIENCE of evolution would we say are "NO MORE" than evolved animals.

Yet ANOTHER category error!

And leaving out the definite article in your comment changed my meaning.

I'm not as stupid as a I look.

K54

whag
08-21-2014, 01:03 PM
IIRC some species of ants do too.

Roy

I forgot. They do like to stir crap, don't they?


Speaking of which, one of the scariest short stories ever is "Leiningen versus the Ants" about a plantation owner who goes to war with an invading army of ants.

seer
08-21-2014, 01:10 PM
For the sake of argument, I grant you the hideous position that evolution bids species to destroy other species. Now the problem for you is that evolution is actually true. You have a problem with God because that's precisely the method he used to create you.

We have the fossils and genomic evidence to show this. You ignore that evidence because you are a fundamentalist.

Yet, like I said there is something amiss with human beings. God created us to love Him and our fellow man. When we don't we violate the purpose that we were created for. If God doesn't exist then when we murder our fellow man we are only doing what is natural, what the process created us to do.

Jorge
08-21-2014, 01:58 PM
I accept the Biblical account quite readily, but I don't accept that the YEC version of the Biblical account is valid.

In my experience that is one of the most common statements made against Biblical Creationism. What you et al. fail to grasp is that what you call the "YEC version of the Biblical Account" is the only version that faithfully and consistently follows a sound historical-grammatical exegesis-hermeneutic (SHGEH).

The operative word is only. Every other (non-YEC) version must necessarily distort Scripture in some way, i.e., deviate from the SHGEH version. Now, if you're okay with that then fine, be on your way.


Augustine was on the right track - the creation, in the only concept that was available to him, was a seed. Everything was there in potential but not in realis. In short, evolution is substantially correct.

Scripture cannot be taken in compartmentalized form. The Bible is an all-or-nothing Revelation. One of the most common strategies of those that wish to dismiss God's creation account is to detach Genesis from the rest of Scripture. Heck, some people openly "dismiss" Genesis 1 through 11 as being anything but accurate history; i.e., they put it into myth, allegory, poetry or some other similar, non-factual category.

Plain and simple: if, as you say, "Evolution is substantially correct" then you must be prepared to take God's Special Revelation to mankind (a.k.a. the Bible) and toss it into the nearest wastebasket along with yesterday's garbage. You had better learn more about what it is you're saying before you say it.

Jorge

Roy
08-21-2014, 02:26 PM
Scripture cannot be taken in compartmentalized form. The Bible is an all-or-nothing Revelation. Poppycock. You can't even agree which books it consists of.

Roy

tabibito
08-21-2014, 02:29 PM
In my experience that is one of the most common statements made against Biblical Creationism. What you et al. fail to grasp is that what you call the "YEC version of the Biblical Account" is the only version that faithfully and consistently follows a sound historical-grammatical exegesis-hermeneutic

Genesis 1 shows 6 days - Genesis 2 shows one day. The accounts in Genesis 1 show that "there was evening and there was morning, day ~.
Evening to morning is a 12 hour spread - it can't have been a 24 hour day. It can't have been a daylight day, because evening to morning is night. The whole leaves only "era" as the valid meaning for day - even without the conflict in the Genesis 1 / Genesis 2 accounts.
Other problems also exist - and the conflicts were identified more than 1500 years ago - long before evolution became a problem for literal interpretation. YEC is a dead horse.

shunyadragon
08-21-2014, 02:55 PM
Yet, like I said there is something amiss with human beings. God created us to love Him and our fellow man. When we don't we violate the purpose that we were created for. If God doesn't exist then when we murder our fellow man we are only doing what is natural, what the process created us to do.

If something is amiss with human beings, is God responsible? Did God create us to murder and by the way slaughter each in large numbers?

whag
08-21-2014, 03:35 PM
Yet, like I said there is something amiss with human beings. God created us to love Him and our fellow man. When we don't we violate the purpose that we were created for. If God doesn't exist then when we murder our fellow man we are only doing what is natural, what the process created us to do.

The process isn't governed by intention. It didn't intend for us to do anything because it's merely an impersonal process.

Besides, evolution produces beauty, cooperation, and altruism, too. Those things arose naturally, as well. By your logic, evolution bids us to be cooperative and help each other, which hardly bodes well for your argument that we should naturally be warring with each other if evolution is true. All you're doing is setting yourself up for disappointment by perpetuating a false dichotomy. Just because Dawkins perpetutates a false dichotomy doesn't give you, a Christian, permission to commit the same sin.

God didn't give you a miraculous sign of his existence so you could continue to flush your brain down the toilet by reading fundamentalist creationist crap. Open your mind. If God exists, He gave you permission to use your brain. Ask tabibito. He accepts the truth.

whag
08-21-2014, 03:44 PM
If something is amiss with human beings, is God responsible? Did God create us to murder and by the way slaughter each in large numbers?

Seer has spent page after page describing teleology as dysteleology--evolution is entirely brutal and synonymous with war, he says.
How's that for being on a collision course with your belief system?

I wonder who'll help the poor guy when it finally dawns on him that evolution isn't a conspiracy theory.

Truthseeker
08-21-2014, 07:05 PM
How did your consciousness originate and when? Did it evolve? Your reactions to evil acts, or at least those acts that you see as evil--did that originate and evolve, too?

klaus54
08-21-2014, 07:35 PM
How did your consciousness originate and when? Did it evolve? Your reactions to evil acts, or at least those acts that you see as evil--did that originate and evolve, too?

Whose consciousness? Mine?

I'm not sure what you mean. It's obvious that consciousness is a brain function -- neurons and synapses.

Does someone need to research brain evolution?

Many mammals have cultural interactions the govern behavior in the group. Pack animals certainly have a behavioral hierarchy. Chimps punish those who exhibit selfish motive such as not alerting the group when a lookout finds food. Cultures evolve too -- even non-human cultures.

I don't know what you're getting at and what it has to do with the OP. You might want to start your own thread.

K54

whag
08-21-2014, 08:01 PM
How did your consciousness originate and when? Did it evolve? Your reactions to evil acts, or at least those acts that you see as evil--did that originate and evolve, too?

Consciousness probably originated when human beings painted in caves, 50,000 years ago, conceivably well before.

Not sure what you mean by "my reaction to evil acts." The way you phrased it, I see no reason why my reaction to war is much different than the frightened chimp's reaction. Are you saying reactions can't originate and evolve?

Truthseeker
08-21-2014, 08:18 PM
Whose consciousness? Mine?I meant no particular person.



It obviously that consciousness a brain function -- neurons and synapses.Heh. "Obviously?" How do I know you are not just speculating? Obviously our computers including supercomputers aren't conscious, are they?


I think my questions are as relevant as some of the posts here.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 08:24 PM
I meant no particular person.


Heh. "Obviously?" How do I know you are not just speculating? Obviously our computers including supercomputers aren't conscious, are they?


I think my questions are as relevant as some of the posts here.

Yes, obvious on both points, and nix on your final sentence. Your question is totally irrelevant to THIS thread.

Kill the frontal cortex, and there goes consciousness.

Methinks thou dost make another category error -- conflating the "soul" or "spirit" with neuron activity. That's why your question is irrelevant.

Me also thinks thou shouldest start a new thread -- perhaps in a theological section of TWeb.

K54

phank
08-22-2014, 04:33 AM
Consciousness probably originated when human beings painted in caves, 50,000 years ago, conceivably well before. What do you mean by consciousness. Are you going to tell me that our pets are not conscious? Cats, dogs, rats, birds and others all have distinct personalities, they all show intelligence, and some of them solve complex puzzles that would challenge you and me.

seer
08-22-2014, 04:43 AM
If something is amiss with human beings, is God responsible? Did God create us to murder and by the way slaughter each in large numbers?

Of course not.

seer
08-22-2014, 05:10 AM
What do you mean by consciousness. Are you going to tell me that our pets are not conscious? Cats, dogs, rats, birds and others all have distinct personalities, they all show intelligence, and some of them solve complex puzzles that would challenge you and me.

Consciousness would be related to self-awareness. So far, using the mirror test, we only know of a hand fill of species that are self-aware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Here is an interesting take from Sam Harris:


The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.


http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

Kristian Joensen
08-22-2014, 05:48 AM
So Jorge, when you are going to provide the Social Darwinism -> Word War I connection you mention in the thread title?

klaus54
08-22-2014, 06:29 AM
So Jorge, when you are going to provide the Social Darwinism -> Word War I connection you mention in the thread title?

Exactly.

WWI resulted from a miasma of nonsense, mostly having to do the arrogance of the anachronistic and dying imperial system propped up by the old Divine Right of Kings. Add to this France smarting over their embarrassment of the German-French War and a desire for revenge, the British fear of the German naval build-up, the stupidity of the Tsar in not assessing the effects of mobilization of his huge army in support of his policy of Pan-Slavism, the arrogance of the Kaiser, the jealousy over colonial fifedoms, the hatred of Serbs for their Austrian oppressors, ...

Any others?

I don't see Social Darwinism in there at all. And if even if it were a partial cause, then BIG DEAL -- misapplication of a scientific theory does not negate the science.

K54

whag
08-25-2014, 12:50 PM
What do you mean by consciousness. Are you going to tell me that our pets are not conscious? Cats, dogs, rats, birds and others all have distinct personalities, they all show intelligence, and some of them solve complex puzzles that would challenge you and me.

This is true. I was responding to Truthseeker's question regarding the origin and evolved history of intelligence. He seems to think these things can't evolve, and I have no idea why. Of course intelligence evolved.

Truthseeker
08-25-2014, 04:14 PM
This is true. I was responding to Truthseeker's question regarding the origin and evolved history of intelligence. He seems to think these things can't evolve, and I have no idea why. Of course intelligence evolved.Consciousness, not intelligence.

shunyadragon
08-25-2014, 04:18 PM
Consciousness, not intelligence.

How do you distinctly separate the two? What specific criteria do you use to determine whether an animal has consciousness?

Many higher mammals are known to dream. I believe this is a sign of consciousness.

klaus54
08-25-2014, 04:25 PM
"Consciousness" in TS's lexicon might mean "self-awareness" (mirror test?) or perhaps some degree of morality agency.

Given his style, it might take a few posts to draw out the answer.

His reply:


Consciousness, not intelligence.


certainly is confusing (but not surprising.)

I mean, doesn't intelligence require consciousness?

K54

Truthseeker
08-25-2014, 05:30 PM
Albert Einstein as a young boy, maybe 14 years old, may be as fully conscious as he was in 1905, the Annus Mirabilis year.

klaus54
08-25-2014, 05:45 PM
Albert Einstein as a young boy, maybe 14 years old, may be as fully conscious as he was in 1905, the Annus Mirabilis year.

See what I meant, Folks?

K54

Jorge
08-26-2014, 03:37 AM
So Jorge, when you are going to provide the Social Darwinism -> Word War I connection you mention in the thread title?

Did you watch the 14-minute video? If you did, then you must belong to the
pitiful group that needs things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out in order to grasp it.

And FYI, it's not just Social Darwinism --> WWI. Social Darwinism may easily
be linked with WWII, the Eugenics Movement, euthanasia, abortion, and many
other social disorders that are taking this world to hell in a handbasket. All it
takes for a person to discover this is a bit of research, an IQ above that of the
average gerbil, critical thinking and some good, old-fashioned honesty. So what
do you say - you got those? Yes? Then go for it! Otherwise, I can't help you.

BTW, the "linking" that I was (am) speaking of is how the fundamental Darwinian
Principle known as "survival of the fittest" is used (past, present and future) to
justify wars and many other atrocities (some were listed above). As such,
linking SD with the aforementioned things is not the same as saying that
SD causes these things. Knowing how you people like to twist things around, I
thought it best to clarify this point.

Jorge

rwatts
08-26-2014, 03:54 AM
Did you watch the 14-minute video? If you did, then you must belong to the
pitiful group that needs things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out in order to grasp it.

And FYI, it's not just Social Darwinism --> WWI. Social Darwinism may easily
be linked with WWII, the Eugenics Movement, euthanasia, abortion, and many
other social disorders that are taking this world to hell in a handbasket. All it
takes for a person to discover this is a bit of research, an IQ above that of the
average gerbil, critical thinking and some good, old-fashioned honesty. So what
do you say - you got those? Yes? Then go for it! Otherwise, I can't help you.

BTW, the "linking" that I was (am) speaking of is how the fundamental Darwinian
Principle known as "survival of the fittest" is used (past, present and future) to
justify wars and many other atrocities (some were listed above). As such,
linking SD with the aforementioned things is not the same as saying that
SD causes these things. Knowing how you people like to twist things around, I
thought it best to clarify this point.

JorgeKiller Newton, and all the death, maiming and damage his ideas caused?

shunyadragon
08-26-2014, 04:51 AM
Albert Einstein as a young boy, maybe 14 years old, may be as fully conscious as he was in 1905, the Annus Mirabilis year.

huh?!?!?!

klaus54
08-26-2014, 05:13 AM
Did you watch the 14-minute video? If you did, then you must belong to the
pitiful group that needs things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out in order to grasp it.

And FYI, it's not just Social Darwinism --> WWI. Social Darwinism may easily
be linked with WWII, the Eugenics Movement, euthanasia, abortion, and many
other social disorders that are taking this world to hell in a handbasket. All it
takes for a person to discover this is a bit of research, an IQ above that of the
average gerbil, critical thinking and some good, old-fashioned honesty. So what
do you say - you got those? Yes? Then go for it! Otherwise, I can't help you.

BTW, the "linking" that I was (am) speaking of is how the fundamental Darwinian
Principle known as "survival of the fittest" is used (past, present and future) to
justify wars and many other atrocities (some were listed above). As such,
linking SD with the aforementioned things is not the same as saying that
SD causes these things. Knowing how you people like to twist things around, I
thought it best to clarify this point.

Jorge

How many times do you have to be told that Social Darwinism is not scientific evidence against the science of the scientific theory of evolution, including "Darwinism" through the Modern Synthesis through the current wildly consilient and rich unifying theory of biology.

Abusus usum non tollit.

I also gave a few of the real reasons for the Great War, all of which are aspects of human nature that existed millennia before Darwin, the Divine Right of Kings, e.g.

Your persistence in the grossest intellectual dishonesty will be pointed out when you barf it up.

K54

P.S. Hamite curse and racism -- chew on that.

Jorge
08-26-2014, 06:39 AM
How many times do you have to be told that Social Darwinism is not scientific evidence against the science of the scientific theory of evolution, including "Darwinism" through the Modern Synthesis through the current wildly consilient and rich unifying theory of biology.

Abusus usum non tollit.

I also gave a few of the real reasons for the Great War, all of which are aspects of human nature that existed millennia before Darwin, the Divine Right of Kings, e.g.

Your persistence in the grossest intellectual dishonesty will be pointed out when you barf it up.

K54

P.S. Hamite curse and racism -- chew on that.

STOP wasting my time and that of everyone else. You refuse to listen or learn anything that opposes your hidden Materialistic agenda which you incessantly promote under the guise of being "Christian". Your gig is up, Santa; you are exposed, you're out in the open stark naked; you've been 'made'.

Best thing for you to do is to pack up and slither your way out of here.

Jorge

klaus54
08-26-2014, 08:26 AM
STOP wasting my time and that of everyone else. You refuse to listen or learn anything that opposes your hidden Materialistic agenda which you incessantly promote under the guise of being "Christian". Your gig is up, Santa; you are exposed, you're out in the open stark naked; you've been 'made'.

Best thing for you to do is to pack up and slither your way out of here.

Jorge

I will keep calling you out on your cowardly intellectual dishonesty wherever and whenever it shows its ugly face -- which is in every one of your posts.

For the umpteenth time, a cultural misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

Pure and simple. Clear as a bell.

I adjure you to STOP MISLEADING THE READERS!!!

Although that is like asking a wet dog not to stink.

K54

P.S. Read a history book and learn the REAL reasons for the Great War.

Truthseeker
08-26-2014, 03:56 PM
Jorge, I wonder if you do understand what rationalization is and how often people rationalize?

Jorge
08-27-2014, 06:42 AM
I will keep calling you out on your cowardly intellectual dishonesty wherever and whenever it shows its ugly face -- which is in every one of your posts.

Yeah, right ... like we're supposed to take your word on this. :duh:
Especially given the fact of your blatant, continuous dishonesty.
Tell you what ... why don't you hold your breath while I make up my mind on this. :lmbo:



For the umpteenth time, a cultural misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

And for the umpteenth-squared time, the application of the Darwinian Principle as justification is LOGICAL, hardly a "cultural misapplication" as your Evo-Faith demands that you believe. And if you wish to continue believing that, that's fine. Just keep your sordid pagan beliefs out of other people's faces.



Pure and simple. Clear as a bell.

Just because it's "clear as a bell" does not make it true.



I adjure you to STOP MISLEADING THE READERS!!!

Although that is like asking a wet dog not to stink.

K54

Those last statements have earned you the Irony of the Decade Award. You have no peers, Santa Klaus. In fact, you may have surpassed Beagle Boy - something that I once thought was utterly impossible. Just goes to prove that we may all learn something new every day.



P.S. Read a history book and learn the REAL reasons for the Great War.

Don't be so freaking 'naive', Santa, on top of your well-known intellectual dishonesty.

Your gig is up, Santa; you are exposed, you're out in the open stark naked; you've been 'made'.

Best thing for you to do is to pack up and slither your way out of here.


Jorge

Jorge
08-27-2014, 06:44 AM
Jorge, I wonder if you do understand what rationalization is and how often people rationalize?

Are you serious? I mean, truly serious? Or perhaps you've been
exposed for too long to certain 'specimens' here on TWeb (?).

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
08-27-2014, 07:23 AM
Yeah, right ... like we're supposed to take your word on this. :duh:
Especially given the fact of your blatant, continuous dishonesty.

But the fact is people here don't take your word for things because of your blatant, continuous dishonesty. In case you hadn't noticed. :lol:

klaus54
08-27-2014, 07:47 AM
Are you serious? I mean, truly serious? Or perhaps you've been
exposed for too long to certain 'specimens' here on TWeb (?).

Jorge

No one needs my word. Your posts and my responses are here in public.

Misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

Try 1) the flawed human nature (that's the traditional Christian view) or 2) the Divine Right of Kings (I King 1).

Did you read up on the history of The Great War? Apparently not else you would know the real causes.

Even IF Social Darwinism had something to do with WWI, then 1) Social Darwinism is NOT evolutionary theory, 2) does NOT obviate the SCIENCE in any case.

I'll keep pointing this out until you admit your mistake or abandon the thread.

K54

klaus54
08-27-2014, 07:48 AM
I love Jorge's projection of "slither".

Perfect!

K54

Method
08-27-2014, 09:01 AM
And for the umpteenth-squared time, the application of the Darwinian Principle as justification is LOGICAL, hardly a "cultural misapplication" as your Evo-Faith demands that you believe. And if you wish to continue believing that, that's fine. Just keep your sordid pagan beliefs out of other people's faces.

The theory of evolution does not proscribe any action, so there is no "Darwinian Principle" to apply. It seems that you don't understand the Is/Ought problem or the Naturalistic Fallacy.

You might as well claim that throwing people off of tall buildings is applying the materialistic Newtonian principle. It makes as much sense.

Truthseeker
08-27-2014, 03:46 PM
I googled "Social Darwinism; and found out that
1) it's an umbrella term for a congeries of views and
2) some views, NOT all, are concerned with what is ethical.
Perhaps Jorge ought to give us a precise definition of what he means by "Social Darwinism" in this thread.

Truthseeker
08-27-2014, 03:50 PM
Jorge seems to be under the impression that an evil doctrine as a meme led to great evil, when it may be a little less than that--people who were already evil wielded whatever propaganda tricks they could find . . .

phank
08-27-2014, 06:56 PM
Jorge seems to be under the impression that an evil doctrine as a meme led to great evil, when it may be a little less than that--people who were already evil wielded whatever propaganda tricks they could find . . .And along these lines, it's discouraging how many evil people have used religion as the justification for their atrocities. We're watching it happen today with Boko Haram and ISIS and the Westboro Baptists.

klaus54
08-27-2014, 07:24 PM
And along these lines, it's discouraging how many evil people have used religion as the justification for their atrocities. We're watching it happen today with Boko Haram and ISIS and the Westboro Baptists.

Correct, alas.

What Jorge also ignores is that "ideological" and territorial wars -- major wars -- occurred long before Charles Darwin's scientific theory. I'm quite sure that creationists would attribute wars, hatred, and oppression to Man's sinful nature.

Why should creationists reject evolutionary theory on ideological grounds when competition - "red-in-tooth-and-claw" competition - is how "fallen" nature works. Isn't that what they'd expect?

It didn't take the science or the "ideology" of evolution for Nicholas, Wilhelm, George, Raymond, Victor, Mehmed, and Franz Josef, to participate in the bloodiest war up until that time.

K54

phank
08-28-2014, 07:13 AM
Correct, alas.

What Jorge also ignores is that "ideological" and territorial wars -- major wars -- occurred long before Charles Darwin's scientific theory. I'm quite sure that creationists would attribute wars, hatred, and oppression to Man's sinful nature.

Meditate here on the interminable war between the Blefescutions and the Lilliputians over which end of the egg to crack open. To emphasize how trivial this is, Swift made both peoples very tiny. Yet this matter was important enough for those people to die for, generation after generation.

Jorge
08-28-2014, 08:17 AM
The theory of evolution does not proscribe any action, so there is no "Darwinian Principle" to apply. It seems that you don't understand the Is/Ought problem or the Naturalistic Fallacy.

For the time being, I can 'excuse' you because perhaps you aren't familiar with my reasons and reasoning. As for your "... you don't understand ...", if only I had a dollar for every time that schtick gets tossed out I'd be able to balance the U.S. budget.


You might as well claim that throwing people off of tall buildings is applying the materialistic Newtonian principle. It makes as much sense.

Sheer nonsense! With the above I am forced to ask, are you also trying to run for the Straw Man Creator of the Year Award? If so then let me tell you, you're up against some fierce competition. The present reigning champ is Rogue06 but there are many that are a close second.

Jorge

Jorge
08-28-2014, 08:34 AM
I googled "Social Darwinism; and found out that
1) it's an umbrella term for a congeries of views and
2) some views, NOT all, are concerned with what is ethical.
Perhaps Jorge ought to give us a precise definition of what he means by "Social Darwinism" in this thread.

I would have thought it obvious from the posts and context. But then, you people often need things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out before you will even try to grasp the meaning. I don't want to go into a dissertation so just go with this ...

Think of "Social Darwinism" as the application of Darwinism ((including the original version and its many, many modified versions ("neo-Darwinism", Modern Synthesis, etc.) over the last 160+ years)) to essentially ever facet of human intellectual and social activity (such as politics, economics, ethics & morality, the arts, the sciences, philosophy, ... and so on). This 'application' employs the foundational Principles within Darwinism to explain and/or justify why certain things have happened (past), why they are the way they are (present), why certain things may happen (future), what things are allowable or not ... and so on. Darwinism is seen as an all-encompassing explanatory/justifying paradigm.

Got that? If you disagree then BE SPECIFIC -- no arm-waving generalizations.

Jorge

Kristian Joensen
08-28-2014, 08:46 AM
Did you watch the 14-minute video? If you did, then you must belong to the
pitiful group that needs things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out in order to grasp it.

And FYI, it's not just Social Darwinism --> WWI. Social Darwinism may easily
be linked with WWII, the Eugenics Movement, euthanasia, abortion, and many
other social disorders that are taking this world to hell in a handbasket. All it
takes for a person to discover this is a bit of research, an IQ above that of the
average gerbil, critical thinking and some good, old-fashioned honesty. So what
do you say - you got those? Yes? Then go for it! Otherwise, I can't help you.

BTW, the "linking" that I was (am) speaking of is how the fundamental Darwinian
Principle known as "survival of the fittest" is used (past, present and future) to
justify wars and many other atrocities (some were listed above). As such,
linking SD with the aforementioned things is not the same as saying that
SD causes these things. Knowing how you people like to twist things around, I
thought it best to clarify this point.

Jorge

Why would I watch a video entitled "From Darwin to Hitler" to find out about supposed connections between Social Darwinism and WWI? It may be logical to watch the video as part of an investigation between possible such links between Social Darwinism and WWII but Social Darwinism and WWI? That doesn't seem logical.

Method
08-28-2014, 09:13 AM
For the time being, I can 'excuse' you because perhaps you aren't familiar with my reasons and reasoning. As for your "... you don't understand ...", if only I had a dollar for every time that schtick gets tossed out I'd be able to balance the U.S. budget.

If I only had a dime for every time someone avoided the topic of the Is/Ought problem and the Naturalistic fallacy.



Sheer nonsense! With the above I am forced to ask, are you also trying to run for the Straw Man Creator of the Year Award? If so then let me tell you, you're up against some fierce competition. The present reigning champ is Rogue06 but there are many that are a close second.

Jorge

And once again, we have bluster to cover up the fact that you didn't respond to my post.

Jorge
08-28-2014, 01:23 PM
Why would I watch a video entitled "From Darwin to Hitler" to find out about supposed connections between Social Darwinism and WWI?

Was that meant to be a trick question? :huh:



It may be logical to watch the video as part of an investigation between possible such links between Social Darwinism and WWII but Social Darwinism and WWI? That doesn't seem logical.

Perhaps if you watch the video then maybe your confusion / questions may be answered. It most definitely isn't logical to sit there denying something when you don't even know what that something is.

Jorge

Jorge
08-28-2014, 01:28 PM
If I only had a dime for every time someone avoided the topic of the Is/Ought problem and the Naturalistic fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite (a bit) ... what is it that you think I'm "avoiding"?



And once again, we have bluster to cover up the fact that you didn't respond to my post.

I'm getting the this-guy-is-another-one-of-'them'-feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Uhmmm ... I didn't "respond" because there was nothing to "respond" to.
Let's see if next time you provide something of substance... :popcorn:

Jorge

Method
08-28-2014, 01:32 PM
Was that meant to be a trick question?

Here is a good idea. Why don't you make a youtube video called "From Democritus to Hiroshima" showing how Social Atomism led to the bombing of Hiroshima.


Perhaps if you watch the video then maybe your confusion / questions may be answered.

I think we are all confused as to how a description can be turned into a proscription. Care to explain that to us?

Method
08-28-2014, 01:35 PM
Okay, I'll bite (a bit) ... what is it that you think I'm "avoiding"?

The Is/Ought problem. We don't derive what we ought to do from descriptions of how things are.

Just because the less fit don't reproduce as often (the description) doesn't mean that we should stop them from reproducing (the ought).

"The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Just because Ebola tends to kill people does not mean that we should kill people who have Ebola, as another example of the Is/Ought problem.

klaus54
08-28-2014, 01:43 PM
...

It most definitely isn't logical to sit there denying something when you don't even know what that something is.

Jorge

Whammo!!! Jorge nails it!

K54

Truthseeker
08-28-2014, 04:10 PM
Jorge is like someone who decries what the serpent in Eden did, seemingly ignoring Eve and Adam's sin of disobeying God.

oxmixmudd
08-28-2014, 05:49 PM
That is very true, of course, for the simple fact that it would have been impossible to use Darwinism to justify wars before Darwinism ever existed. That doesn't change my OP. Watch ...

Most of us have heard Dawkins' famous quote that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist". Atheists existed before Darwinism - of course! But Atheists could not JUSTIFY themselves and their beliefs as well they could after Darwin. Do you see the analogy?

Wars and atrocities certainly existed before Darwinism. But with Darwinism people could now JUSTIFY the wars and atrocities using "scientific" Darwinian Principles and Darwinian-Speak. Wars now became "a natural order of the unending fight for survival of the fittest over the weakest ... a "good thing" since the resources are limited and the weak of the species must be eliminated so that the strong of the species may procreate". In short, there is now a "scientific" justification.




I have ... no comment on that. :huh:

Jorge

(better late than never I guess)

This is just silly Jorge. Wars are caused by the fallen human nature, because people are sinful beings. We use whatever is available to justify them, including faith in Christ in some instances.

And have you checked recently. Most of the wars in the later half of the 20th century are related to ethnic hatreds and religious prejudice.

You of all people should know better. Why in Romans 8 Paul talks about how Sin causes us to use even that which is GOOD to further our own evil!!! You can't use the fact somebody justified a war or actions in a war by ANY philosophy or concept as justification to declare that philosophy or concept 'bad'.


Jim

shunyadragon
08-28-2014, 07:36 PM
(better late than never I guess)

This is just silly Jorge. Wars are caused by the fallen human nature, because people are sinful beings. We use whatever is available to justify them, including faith in Christ in some instances.

And have you checked recently. Most of the wars in the later half of the 20th century are related to ethnic hatreds and religious prejudice.

You of all people should know better. Why in Romans 8 Paul talks about how Sin causes us to use even that which is GOOD to further our own evil!!! You can't use the fact somebody justified a war or actions in a war by ANY philosophy or concept as justification to declare that philosophy or concept 'bad'.


Jim

It is good to hear your here again even if it is only occasionally.

Jorge
08-29-2014, 10:51 AM
Here is a good idea. Why don't you make a youtube video called "From Democritus to Hiroshima" showing how Social Atomism led to the bombing of Hiroshima.

With the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.



I think we are all confused as to how a description can be turned into a proscription. Care to explain that to us?

If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
it's that last part that is tripping you up.

Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?

1887

You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

Jorge

Jorge
08-29-2014, 11:06 AM
(better late than never I guess)

This is just silly Jorge. Wars are caused by the fallen human nature, because people are sinful beings. We use whatever is available to justify them, including faith in Christ in some instances.

And have you checked recently. Most of the wars in the later half of the 20th century are related to ethnic hatreds and religious prejudice.

You of all people should know better. Why in Romans 8 Paul talks about how Sin causes us to use even that which is GOOD to further our own evil!!! You can't use the fact somebody justified a war or actions in a war by ANY philosophy or concept as justification to declare that philosophy or concept 'bad'.


Jim

I had been having an 'average' day for me ... it just turned south! :sad:

You already know what I think of your position and views, O-Mudd, so why not spare me the frustration of being terrorized by them?

As if that weren't enough, your reading skills have actually deteriorated from the last time you haunted this place.

I NEVER SAID what you insinuate above. You come in at post # 165 and begin doing - what else? - making accusations that totally misrepresent what I have been actually saying. Again, as if that weren't enough you 'sermonize' me on what Scripture says when you and your "brethren" distort and trash the Bible as you see fit in order to uphold the 'Holy Evolutionary Paradigm'. I mean, that has to rank way up there on Planet Irony. :no:

A favor: crawl back under whatever rock you had been hiding. :glare:

Jorge

Jorge
08-29-2014, 11:09 AM
Jorge is like someone who decries what the serpent in Eden did, seemingly ignoring Eve and Adam's sin of disobeying God.

A few more posts like this and I may start doing what I have
never done in my entire life - start drinking some 'hard' stuff! :ale:

Jorge

Jorge
08-29-2014, 11:13 AM
The Is/Ought problem. We don't derive what we ought to do from descriptions of how things are.

Just because the less fit don't reproduce as often (the description) doesn't mean that we should stop them from reproducing (the ought).

"The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Just because Ebola tends to kill people does not mean that we should kill people who have Ebola, as another example of the Is/Ought problem.

I'm not impressed. All you've described is a specific generalization of multiple logical fallacies in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I could write much more but why bother.

In any event, what does your "Is/Ought" have to do with the price of tea in China?

Jorge

klaus54
08-29-2014, 12:05 PM
I'm not impressed. All you've described is a specific generalization of multiple logical fallacies in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I could write much more but why bother.

In any event, what does your "Is/Ought" have to do with the price of tea in China?

Jorge

1) It's not "his".

2) The application of "is/ought" should be obvious to you and to anyone with a functional Frontal Lobe. Unless, of course, you're being a mendacious purveyor of intellectual dishonesty.

Abus usum non tollit, Baby!

K54

P.S. Just a reminder to do a couple hours' Googling on the causes of The Great War.

I'll bet Nicki and Georgie never even heard of Social Darwinism.

1888

Method
08-29-2014, 01:28 PM
I'm not impressed. All you've described is a specific generalization of multiple logical fallacies in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I could write much more but why bother.

In any event, what does your "Is/Ought" have to do with the price of tea in China?

Jorge

Pearls before swine . . .

If you can't address my argument, just say so.

Jorge
08-29-2014, 01:38 PM
Pearls before swine . . .

If you can't address my argument, just say so.

What part of THERE IS NOTHING TO ADDRESS are you not grasping?

I must confess, however, to often times not being able to follow the (warped, obscure) thinking of Evolutionists so maybe if you make your point more lucid I may be able to 'get it'.

P.S. I see that you et al. are "ignoring" post # 168. (more like running away) :hehe:
I wonder why that may be? :huh: :lmbo:

Jorge

Method
08-29-2014, 01:51 PM
What part of THERE IS NOTHING TO ADDRESS are you not grasping?

There is the Is/Ought problem to address, which you still refuse to do.

We don't derive our morality from the way nature works. We don't kill people who have Ebola because Ebola kills people. For the same reason, we don't prevent people from trying to have children if they are less fit just because less fit individuals tend to have fewer children.

Do I need to explain this further?

Truthseeker
08-29-2014, 05:26 PM
I went back and reread the OP. I don't disagree that people have abused the ToE to justify a species of morality or ethics. One mistake you made was to write "scientific"--it should be "pseudo-scientific" instead. Another mistake by you: I think some readers of this thread are evolutionists, yet they are NOT Darwinist in the sense of Darwinism.

phank
08-29-2014, 06:47 PM
I went back and reread the OP. I don't disagree that people have abused the ToE to justify a species of morality or ethics. One mistake you made was to write "scientific"--it should be "pseudo-scientific" instead. Another mistake by you: I think some readers of this thread are evolutionists, yet they are NOT Darwinist in the sense of Darwinism.

What do you mean by "the sense of Darwinism"? Is this like believing in gravity, but not in "the sense of Newtonism"?

Truthseeker
08-29-2014, 07:11 PM
What do you mean by "the sense of Darwinism"? Is this like believing in gravity, but not in "the sense of Newtonism"?
"Sense" = "meaning" [of the word, i.e., "Darwinism"]

klaus54
08-29-2014, 07:12 PM
What do you mean by "the sense of Darwinism"? Is this like believing in gravity, but not in "the sense of Newtonism"?

Good analogy.

"Darwinism" is usually used today as a pejorative by anti-evolutionists, whereas a fairly accurate definition is

a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors


I.e., the original theory of Charles Darwin's based on the novel evidence he collected and consilient with existing knowledge of nature. CD had no knowledge of "particulate inheritance" nor of the vast database resulting from the field of molecular genetics as well as the great leap in volume of paleontological data.

Of course, this doesn't stop anti-evolutionists from using the "D-word" to cover the entire modern theory nor its putative faulty cultural applications.

K54

phank
08-29-2014, 08:32 PM
"Sense" = "meaning" [of the word, i.e., "Darwinism"]

OK, what do YOU mean by it?

klaus54
08-29-2014, 08:45 PM
OK, what do YOU mean by it?

Phank,

It's Jiffy Pop time!

:lol:

K54

rwatts
08-29-2014, 11:41 PM
With the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_artillery_projectile.htm]”[/url]




If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
it's that last part that is tripping you up.

Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?

1887

You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

Jorge

The Science of Ballistics: Mathematics Serving the Dark Side (http://www.augustana.ualberta.ca/~hackw/mp480/exhibit/ballisticsMP480.pdf)



Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.


Jorge
08-30-2014, 07:18 AM
The Science of Ballistics: Mathematics Serving the Dark Side (http://www.augustana.ualberta.ca/~hackw/mp480/exhibit/ballisticsMP480.pdf)



Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.


Have you been 'sipping too much of the brew', Roland?

Jorge

Jorge
08-30-2014, 07:50 AM
I went back and reread the OP.

That's good but unfortunately (from what you subsequently wrote) it didn't help.


I don't disagree that people have abused the ToE to justify a species of morality or ethics.

That's your first mistake. People "abuse" and "misrepresent" just about anything so that's not the point. The real point is that a LOGICAL RESULT of the foundational Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest" justifies the atrocities of wars, genocide, euthanasia, abortion, etc ... etc. If you are unable to see that then I don't know what to say - it's just basic logic.


One mistake you made was to write "scientific"--it should be "pseudo-scientific" instead.

That's your second mistake. No, I did not err as you claim. Just examine the history and what a huge number of PhD biologists (past and present) have said. Are you saying that they are all mistaken?



Another mistake by you: I think some readers of this thread are evolutionists, yet they are NOT Darwinist in the sense of Darwinism.

That would be your third strike. What exists today -- call it Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, Evolution Theory, or any other name that suits your fancy -- is all "Darwinism" in the sense that it is founded squarely upon the foundational Darwinian Principal of descent with modification and the survival of privileged/favored species. Heck, it's there in black and white in the 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". It is THAT foundational Principle that serves as direct, logical and scientific justification for the previously-listed atrocities. Evolution is "science" - isn't that what is promoted everywhere?

Now, if you're one of those 'historical revisionists' and/or one of those that lives in denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence then accept my apologies and be on your way.

If, on the other hand, you are an honest man then reflect on this and see how many things that are going on today are explained by this nefarious reality.

Jorge

Jorge
08-30-2014, 07:55 AM
1890

You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

Jorge

Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

rogue06
08-30-2014, 08:01 AM
With the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.




If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
it's that last part that is tripping you up.

Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?

1887

You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

Jorge
Since you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.

In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:


"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."


This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."

Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:


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.


IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.

Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,


"you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."


Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.

Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics (http://calms.umc.org/2008/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=1175).

Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.

Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.

klaus54
08-30-2014, 08:16 AM
Thanks, Rogue!

If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

K54

Jorge
08-30-2014, 08:53 AM
Since you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.

In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:


"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."


This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."

Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:


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.


IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.

Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,


"you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."


Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.

Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics (http://calms.umc.org/2008/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=1175).

Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.

Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.

If you're as smart as you believe yourself to be, you certainly don't want to be quoting Darwin on issues related to Eugenics. In many places Darwin was quite explicit about his firm, deep-rooted beliefs that there were superior races and even superior sub-groups within races. For instance, he openly expressed his belief of the superiority of males over females.

BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha :lmbo:

Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.

Jorge

Jorge
08-30-2014, 08:55 AM
Thanks, Rogue!

If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

K54

It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs. :lmbo:

Jorge

klaus54
08-30-2014, 09:09 AM
If you're as smart as you believe yourself to be, you certainly don't want to be quoting Darwin on issues related to Eugenics. In many places Darwin was quite explicit about his firm, deep-rooted beliefs that there were superior races and even superior sub-groups within races. For instance, he openly expressed his belief of the superiority of males over females.

BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha :lmbo:

Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.

Jorge

Rogue just did and demolished your puerile and intellectually dishonest argument.

Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??

K54

klaus54
08-30-2014, 09:11 AM
It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs. :lmbo:

Jorge

The Black Knight refuses to admit defeat.

K54

1891

rogue06
08-30-2014, 09:21 AM
Darwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.

Try again.

Jorge
08-30-2014, 09:25 AM
Thanks, Rogue!

If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

K54

It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs. :lmbo:

"“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.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


Jorge

klaus54
08-30-2014, 09:42 AM
t would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

Jorge



Rogue just did and demolished your puerile and intellectually dishonest argument.

Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??

K54

Pre-Darwin "Christian" Europeans had pretty much wiped out "savage races" without any reference to the theory of evolution.

Anyway, you with ossified brain -- the putative misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

Abusus usum non tollit.

How many matches do we need to light for ya?

K54

P.S.

"“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.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


Here I disagree with Chuck (without considering the context of your quote mine.)

Actually one could argue that this putative attempt at "extermination" has created an even more savage group of "races" -- and a LOT more populous.

Jorge
08-30-2014, 09:47 AM
Darwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.

Try again.

Arguing with ignorance is not a true debate, it is an educating exercise. :shrug:

From my presentation dating back to 2009:

"Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species.


"... since he [man] attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more appropriately called, sub-species." Ibid.

Darwin believed that the different human races reflect divergence, not commonality, and so he wrote:
"Some of these, for instance the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species”. Ibid.


“So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.” Ibid.

Henceforth keep in mind that, for Darwin, ‘lower race’ was equivalent to a ‘sub-species’.


“Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius."
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 19.


“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. We may also infer … that if men are capable of decided eminence over women in many subjects, the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Ibid

“It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Ibid


Now, if you want more education then sign up for the course like everyone else. :smile:

In short: a wise man would not wish to be associated with Darwin - he was a P - I - G !!!

“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.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


Jorge

klaus54
08-30-2014, 10:01 AM
Jorge,

1) What did Chuck mean by "races"?

2) The prevalent European attitude at Chuck's time and before was that Europeans were "superior".

This superiority complex hadn't a damned thing to do with the theory of evoluton. (~~cough~~ Hamite curse ~~cough~~)

3) For 2^(Gogolplex)th time -- the putative misappropriation of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

Do you finally get it?

No?

I didn't think so.

Are your pre-teen Sunday School students learning their lesson? Giving them a quiz tomorrow?

K54

rogue06
08-30-2014, 10:51 AM
It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs. :lmbo:

"“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.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


Jorge

I'll get into this in detail when I get home and not on this #@%&# laptop :grin:

rwatts
08-30-2014, 12:26 PM
Have you been 'sipping too much of the brew', Roland?

Jorge

I note your deafening silence Jorge:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3202-Social-Darwinism-and-World-War-I&p=93944&viewfull=1#post93944

All you offered was an attempt at insult, then you left.

But you didn't bother to count the word "Newton" in that paper on the "dark side" did you Jorge. You don't want to know how many people have been killed and maimed thanks to the use of his theories, because, according to you, Newton in the preeminent creation scientist.

rogue06
08-30-2014, 02:12 PM
Race, as used by Darwin and 19th century naturalists, refers to distinct populations within specific species, and generally not to human races. Like his contemporaries Darwin tended to uses words like "race," "sub-species," "variety," and similar expressions in an interchangeable manner when discussing animals and plants.

For instance, on page 33 of the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (OOS) you can even see an instance where he does exactly this a couple times in the same sentence:


"When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species."


And AFAICT, even today biologists still use terms like "racial variant" when discussing different populations within species.

As an aside this demonstrates that the "races" mentioned by Darwin in the subtitle of the "OOS" were not human races.

That Darwin wasn't referring to different human races in the title is evident by the fact that the "OOS" hardly ever even refers to humans at all and does not get into human evolution. IIRC, the first use in the "OOS" refers to the term races is to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants" mentioned above.

The "races" Darwin mentions here were things like assorted pig and pigeon breeds, cabbage and types of mollusks meaning that the charge of racism based solely on the title is absurd.

In fact when it comes to humans, in "The Descent of Man," Chapter 7, Darwin refers to them as the "so-called races of man" on several occasions including the opening sentence.

As noted, it is in the "The Descent of Man" that Darwin writes of the various races of man stating that:


Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.


First, again note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species (or, as we see by the interchangeability of the word, race) descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from racists like Louis Agassiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz) who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that "Negroes" were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

Second, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another.

Third, again as noted above, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

"So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage.

Fourth, notice in the above quote from "The Descent of Man" how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." The point being that Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial saying that there were wider differences within a race than between them.

Later, modern genetic studies have confirmed Darwin's misgivings having demonstrated that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries.

Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification.

Finally, in reference to your quote about savage races in post 193, Darwin was merely employing the standard lexicon of his time. It was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. Further, it should be noted that in a few cases the tribes encountered were incredibly savage. A few were cannibals for instance.

Moreover, he was referring to cultures not genetic differences as he noted that all societies, both great and small, have arisen from "savages" and "barbarians."

And once again note that Darwin repeatedly referred to the "so-called races of men" because he didn't accept such boundaries though he would use them because it was common practice. Much like today after science has used genetics to expose that such classifications are entirely arbitrary and bogus -- although we still continue to use them.

rogue06
08-30-2014, 02:43 PM
"“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.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.
I want to deal more with this quote since it is so often misused by evolution deniers to paint a false picture

The fact of the matter is that Darwin never promoted the extermination of anyone since such a thing is diametrically opposed to everything he stood for. In fact, during his travels on the HMS Beagle Darwin witnessed attempts to exterminate indigenous populations most notably in Argentina where he describes the perpetrators as "villainous," "banditti-like" and "inhuman" and asked "Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?"

Moreover, history has repeatedly taught us that technologically advanced societies either exterminate or assimilate more primitive cultures. That is an unfortunate fact that Darwin was pointing out.

That this is the case can be seen by taking a look at the quote in context:


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 Lemuridae 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 civilized 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.”


This is extracted from a relatively technical argument concerning the reality of species wrt to humans and whether or not there still should be distinct species. Darwin was ultimately concluding the answer is no and is basically contending here that there is no simple unbroken line of intermediary forms since breaks are formed by extinction.

And it appears that after 140 years since publishing Descent Darwin seems to be correct at least in his assessment that the “anthropomorphous apes” are indeed being driven into extinction as their numbers dwindle as do their habitats. It appears that they will, at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, be no longer around.

His experience with Tasmania while sailing aboard the Beagle after that island’s so-called Black War which exterminated the aboriginal population of Tasmania[1] certainly justified his concerns that the same thing would happen to other native peoples at the hands of the "civilized races."

Further, atrocities like the forcible deportation of Native American tribes, resulting in the Trail of Tears was also taking place about this time and the forced Long Walk of the Navajo had taken place just a few years before "The Descent of Man" was published while Argentina’s Conquest of the Desert was just gearing up. There were other similar genocidal conflicts like the ethnic cleansing of the Circassians by the Russians not to mention smaller but just as vicious slaughter of native populations in the Pacific and Africa.

No, Darwin had many reasons to fear that natives will end up getting exterminated by the "civilized races." Further, as we can see he wasn't entirely wrong. I don’t think anyone can deny that even today we can still see more technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either destroying or replacing the less advanced ones.

As an aside, Darwin was also merely echoing a common view of both humanitarians and apologists for imperial expansion that was already many decades old that primitive people were inevitably doomed at the hands of the “civilized races.” Going back to the genocide committed against the native Tasmanians it was casually described by Edward Curr as having ended “as all such matters have ended in other parts of the world, by the extermination of the weaker race."

OK, now that we established the context and some background, perhaps it should next be noted that Darwin was not in any way urging anyone to commit genocide. In fact, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) the implied claim made by those misquoting him here that he wanted anyone exterminated.

Instead, he was merely noting what appeared to him to be an obvious fact, based as noted above in no small part on the atrocities being committed in the name of conquest whether it was for European imperialism and colonial conquest or American "Manifest Destiny."

Darwin constantly listed what he thought were facts about the prospects of any given race, culture or society, but this was in no way an endorsement of what he thought should happen. In fact, and to the contrary he clearly states that to act in a way so as to eliminate an "inferior" would result in doing enormous damage to our better natures:


"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, if so urged by 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 a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"


Further, his comments near the conclusion of that work that...


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, etc, 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."


...show that while such oppression comes to the human race as a force of nature, other forces like morality, religion, and the capacity for reason are still far more important in determining how we treat each other.

To continue to assert that Darwin was urging the extermination of others here is at the very least committing the naturalistic fallacy of confusing statements of "what is" with those about "what ought to be." The way things are does not imply that’s how they ought to be. That’s akin to arguing that if someone broke their leg then it should stay broken. Again “is” does not mean “ought.”

I guess the overall point being that evolution is descriptive. It is ignorant to think that evolution prescribes or proscribes the use of brute strength to resolve every problem that comes up whether in nature, society or whatever.

IOW, evolution describes, not prescribe. It merely attempts to tells how things are, not how they should be.










1. Writing about the war, Darwin noted that the Tasmanians were the group that was better fit to the natural environment, and hence superior to the Europeans, evolutionarily speaking.

A common YEC claim is that Darwin’s work was used to justify the slaughter of Tasmanian natives (AnswersinGenesis had a little cartoon/comic depicting a teacher showing the remains of an indigenous Tasmanian person in a museum saying they were slaughtered because evolutionists wanted to collect their skins and skulls). That genocidal campaign began in 1805 and had essentially ended in 1831. IOW, a genocidal massacre which allegedly was inspired by the ToE began 4 years before Darwin was even born and ended the same year Darwin boarded the Beagle – prior to his formulating the ToE and nearly 30 years before he published it.

Jorge
08-30-2014, 02:50 PM
Race, as used by Darwin and 19th century naturalists, refers to distinct populations within specific species, and generally not to human races. Like his contemporaries Darwin tended to uses words like "race," "sub-species," "variety," and similar expressions in an interchangeable manner when discussing animals and plants.

For instance, on page 33 of the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (OOS) you can even see an instance where he does exactly this a couple times in the same sentence:


"When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species."


And AFAICT, even today biologists still use terms like "racial variant" when discussing different populations within species.

As an aside this demonstrates that the "races" mentioned by Darwin in the subtitle of the "OOS" were not human races.

That Darwin wasn't referring to different human races in the title is evident by the fact that the "OOS" hardly ever even refers to humans at all and does not get into human evolution. IIRC, the first use in the "OOS" refers to the term races is to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants" mentioned above.

The "races" Darwin mentions here were things like assorted pig and pigeon breeds, cabbage and types of mollusks meaning that the charge of racism based solely on the title is absurd.

In fact when it comes to humans, in "The Descent of Man," Chapter 7, Darwin refers to them as the "so-called races of man" on several occasions including the opening sentence.

As noted, it is in the "The Descent of Man" that Darwin writes of the various races of man stating that:


Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.


First, again note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species (or, as we see by the interchangeability of the word, race) descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from racists like Louis Agassiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz) who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that "Negroes" were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

Second, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another.

Third, again as noted above, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

"So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage.

Fourth, notice in the above quote from "The Descent of Man" how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." The point being that Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial saying that there were wider differences within a race than between them.

Later, modern genetic studies have confirmed Darwin's misgivings having demonstrated that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries.

Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification.

Finally, in reference to your quote about savage races in post 193, Darwin was merely employing the standard lexicon of his time. It was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. Further, it should be noted that in a few cases the tribes encountered were incredibly savage. A few were cannibals for instance.

Moreover, he was referring to cultures not genetic differences as he noted that all societies, both great and small, have arisen from "savages" and "barbarians."

And once again note that Darwin repeatedly referred to the "so-called races of men" because he didn't accept such boundaries though he would use them because it was common practice. Much like today after science has used genetics to expose that such classifications are entirely arbitrary and bogus -- although we still continue to use them.


WOW!!! Speechless!!! :dizzy:

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected. :shrug:

Jorge

rogue06
08-30-2014, 02:54 PM
WOW!!! Speechless!!! :dizzy:

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin. Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the Faith.

Jorge
It's called historical accuracy.

klaus54
08-30-2014, 04:30 PM
WOW!!! Speechless!!! :dizzy:

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected. :shrug:

Jorge

You SHOULD be speechless after Rogue's thorough thrashing of your Darwin-bashing strategy.

This post more than any other demonstrates that you are not interested in truth.

Does anyone out there ascribe even a smidgen of credibility to this clown?

K54

Leonhard
08-30-2014, 05:25 PM
Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.

Hey seer, look closely at this post. You made at least three informal logical fallacies, but can you spot them and tell me what they are?

rogue06
08-30-2014, 05:44 PM
WOW!!! Speechless!!! :dizzy:

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected. :shrug:

Jorge
Avoid this?:



Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

What was there to avoid?

And read your quotes again. I either addressed them or they show that what he describes could better be termed "cultures." Darwin held that all of humanity constituted a single species that shared a common ancestor.

And despite cultural differences he notes that we all come from "barbarians" and "savages" -- just that some cultures have risen higher (and yes being a typical Victorian English gentleman he presumed that British culture was at the highest point).

For instance Darwin compares the intellect of the Brazilian slaves with Europeans, and notes that the slaves are mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of the Roman generals ("Voyage of the Beagle").

He wrote Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the commander of the Union's first battalion of freed slaves in the American Civil War, after reading his book "Army Life in a Black Regiment" (in which Higginson concluded that blacks weren't biologically inferior to whites) saying "I always thought well of the negroes" and how "delighted [he was] to have my vague impressions confirmed" concerning "their character and mental powers."

He wrote in a letter to John Stevens Henslow in 1834 that "I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Darwin's first encounter with a black person was when he spent 40 hours learning bird-stuffing from a freed Guyanese slave named John Edmonston, who had tales to tell of plantation life and the rain forest beyond. John became, in Darwin’s own words, an "intimate" and (in his autobiography) "a very pleasant and intelligent man." Visiting Americans during this time were generally appalled at the sight of blacks being treated as equals on British streets, but Darwin showed no sense of ignominy at being taught by a "full-blooded negro."

His interaction with Edmonston confirmed Darwin’s belief that white people and black people possessed the same essential humanity. In "The Descent of Man" he cited their friendship as evidence for the close similarity between the minds of men of all races.

Unlike many of his time Darwin celebrated the color of Tahitians: "To see a white man bathing by the side of a Tahitian, was like comparing a plant bleached by the gardener’s art, with one growing in the open fields."[1]

Finally, Darwin wrote "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters."

Oh wait. That last quote comes from Henry Morris, the "father of the modern creationist movement" and founder of the young-earth Institute for Creation Research. While Darwin can be excused for his prejudices, being a man of his times (although he was incredibly enlightened for his times), OTOH Morris was still making statements like the one above in the 1990s when there certainly was no excuse.






1. Contrast Darwin's attitude toward the Tahitians and friendship with Edmonston to the remarks made by Louis Agassiz, who the YEC organization Institute for Creation Research (ICR) declares is an example of a Bible-Believing Scientist of the Past (http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/) about being repulsed by being in the presence of a black person:


"It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type [genre] and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race ―to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact."

Truthseeker
08-30-2014, 06:25 PM
OK, what do YOU mean by it?You caught me making a careless use of "Darwinism." I do not want to try to fix that and wish people would just forget that post.

Truthseeker
08-30-2014, 07:24 PM
Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

JorgeYou are as specious as the writers for that rag.

Jorge
08-31-2014, 03:34 AM
You are as specious as the writers for that rag.

That "response" doesn't even make sense. :duh: :dizzy:

Jorge

klaus54
08-31-2014, 10:26 AM
That "response" doesn't even make sense. :duh: :dizzy:

Jorge

Look up "specious".

It fits your is/ought "arguments' to a "T".

K54

P.S. Paraphrase of a famous theological dilemma: Can Jorge create an argument so intellectually dishonest that even he can't win in his own mind?

It's one for the ages, and makes for a good campfire discussion.

Method
09-02-2014, 08:08 AM
Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

Can you please show me where in the theory of evolution where it commands that we should limit the breeding of those we deem less fit?

You might as well argue that Atomic theory was a valid justification for dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.

Method
09-02-2014, 08:13 AM
That would be your third strike. What exists today -- call it Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, Evolution Theory, or any other name that suits your fancy -- is all "Darwinism" in the sense that it is founded squarely upon the foundational Darwinian Principal of descent with modification and the survival of privileged/favored species. Heck, it's there in black and white in the 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". It is THAT foundational Principle that serves as direct, logical and scientific justification for the previously-listed atrocities. Evolution is "science" - isn't that what is promoted everywhere?

How do you justify an Ought with an Is?

Again, you are trying to justify the genocide of people who carry Ebola with the observation that people with Ebola die. That makes no sense. You can't derive a moral directive from how nature is currently operating. Our morality is defined by how we want the world to be in the future, not how it is at the moment. We don't throw fat people from tall buildings because heavier objects have more gravitational force according to the edicts of Social Newtonism.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that we ought to prevent those we deem less fit from having children. NOWHERE.