Social Darwinism and World War I

[oxmixmudd]

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.

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]

(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]

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?

Eugenics Quarterly.jpg

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]

(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!

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.

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

Jorge

[Jorge]

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!

Jorge

[Jorge]

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]

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.

Tsar_Nicholas_II_&_King_George_V.JPG

[Method]

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]

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)
I wonder why that may be?

Jorge

[Method]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Source: Merriam-Webster.com

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

© Copyright Original Source

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]

"Sense" = "meaning" [of the word, i.e., "Darwinism"]

OK, what do YOU mean by it?