Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
Seanpit
>From Darwin to Hitler
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
I might not have encountered it all, were it not for an email sent by
the author, or probably his publisher--for which I am grateful. I
checked 80 nearby libraries, public and university, before buying it
from Amazon. How any university could fail to procure this book defies
imagination. ...Or does it? Students should request their libraries
buy this book. It is an important contribution to the discussion.
In his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "...I discovered that many
German eugenicists wrote essays and passages in their books on how to
apply Darwinism to ethics. I had not initially intended eugenics to
play an important part in this study, but I could not avoid it..."
He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
became convinced that there were significant historical connections
between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
Later in his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "In order to rescue
Darwinian science from the taint of Nazism, however, some historians
assert that Hitler's views were pseudo-scientific or eccentric, or they
refer to his views of Darwinism as crude or vulgar." Mr. Weikart
quotes Brigitte Hamann on this: "Almost all of the theories Hitler
preferred have in common that they were not in agreement with academic
science but were the products of idiosyncratic thought processes of
private scholars who were full of contempt for established scientists,
who hardly ever accept them either, and for good reason."
Mr. Weikart takes issue with that argument: "On the contrary, however,
many recent studies about Nazi science, especially those relating to
biology, medical science, and eugenics, demonstrate that many
mainstream scientists, professors, and physicians--including those
identifying with the political Left--upheld views about Darwinism and
eugenics quite similar to Hitler's."
"In philosophical terms," Weikart writes, "Darwinism was a necessary,
but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or
illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism,
historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away."
Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
the cover of war."
Weikart then goes on to demonstrate that Hitler's philosophy was more
shaped by Darwinism than by naturalism, a view that flies in the face
of much popular thinking. Mr. Weikart writes: "I would assert that
without Darwinism, materialism would still have increased during the
late nineteenth century, but it would have been far less persuasive and
thus would have gained fewer adherents than it actually did."
The point of this short article is not to provide lengthy quotes from
Mr. Weikart's book (though that might seem the case), nor is even
intended to be a review of the work (I will leave that to others). I
want only to draw attention to the book, and to highly recommend it;
especially Chapter Six, which is entitled: "The Science of Racial
Inequality." In it Mr. Weikart writes: "While racism might have
intensified in the late nineteenth century as a justification for
European imperialism with our without Darwinism, it is clear that
Darwinism played a key role in the rhetoric of racism."
Other especially good chapters include: "The Specter of Inferiority,"
"Controlling Reproduction," and "Racial Struggle and Extermination."
...All pointing to a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany;
sometimes not a direct connection, but a connection nonetheless.
Weikart concludes: "Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics
permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the
necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really
morally praiseworthy. Darwinism--or at least some naturalistic
interpretations of Darwinism--succeeded in turning morality on its
head."
Richard Smol
Seanpit wrote:
> He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
> became convinced that there were significant historical connections
> between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
> road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
> the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
Hitler was a devout Catholic. He was thoroughly convinced he carried
out God's will. Antisemitism has its root in religion, not science.
RS
Robert J. Kolker
However he perverted the concept of fit speciments surviving and
prevailing to his political needs. The Commies, the Capitalists and the
Nazis managed to co-opt Darwinian princples in a wrong-headed way.
The Commies also co-opted Lamarckian principles to, just to show how
muddled they were.
One cannot blame the inventor of fire for all the cases of criminal arson.
Bob Kolker
CreateThis
> I can't accept that I'm descended from apes, so I must try to
> discredit reality in any way I can, even by desperately repeating
> absurd lies that have already been told over and over again.
Sean, you're an ape just like the rest of us. The only difference is
that you're a child ape who hasn't grown up enough to accept that. If
you ever do grow up you'll probably get over it - that's something to
look forward to.
Your parents should have told you this.
CT
Bobby D. Bryant
>>From Darwin to Hitler
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
> Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
> result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
> life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
> did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
> the cover of war."
Yeah, cause no one else devalued human life during WWII, did they.
Also, the use of nuclear fission to kill people during WWII demonstrates
that physics is evil, and therefore we shouldn't believe it either.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mike Dworetsky
news:1138465997....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I think I understand. Germany wa s aland of sweetness and light, pre 1859.
Anti-Semitism was absent in Germany before 1859, but suddently sprang into
existence and became increasingly virulent as a result of publication of
Darwin's theory. Alles Klar.
What you know about Nazism could fit in a thimble, Sean. Or even on the
head of a pin.
It's called a pretext, Sean. Dress up your virulent hatreds in
pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Anti-semitism and other racial hatred
practiced by the Nazis had nothing at all to do with Darwin.
I suppose by your reasoning Martin Luther was a Darwinist?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Robert J. Kolker
> practiced by the Nazis had nothing at all to do with Darwin.
>
> I suppose by your reasoning Martin Luther was a Darwinist?
Martin Luether did go upstream to spawn and he did have progeny. Being a
sufferer of ulcerative colitis which is, in part, heritable his children
grew up to be Protestant Fundy assholes.
Bob Kolker
Dan Luke
"Seanpit" wrote:
[snip David Ford-like flapdoodle]
Once again, Sean demonstrates that he is nothing more than a common
usenet loon--as if any more evidence was needed.
He gets far more polite attention here than he deserves.
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
gregwrld
Hitler's anti-Semitism, like the notion that Jews promoted
Communism.
You never really addressed this point, Sean: why didn't the
TOE have the same genocidal effect anywhere else?
Richard Forrest
So a fellow of the Discovery Institute writes a book linking Hitler to
Darwin.
Even if it were true that Hitler built his ideas on Darwinian theory
(which he clearly did not if one has any understanding of theory), I'm
sure you will agree with me that this does not have the slightest
implication for the validity of Darwin's theory.
After all, if theories can be invalidated by associating them with evil
dictators, this pretty well destroys most theories in chemistry,
physics and every other branch of science.
RF
Grandbank
Seanpit wrote:
> >From Darwin to Hitler
>
>
> "In philosophical terms," Weikart writes, "Darwinism was a necessary,
> but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or
> illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism,
> historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away."
>
connection between a set of scientific observations and a political
ideology is "illogical" still tars the scientific observations with the
illogical behaviour of the politicians?
> Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
> result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
> life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
> did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
> the cover of war."
>
Gosh, I thought history was littered with dictators that used idiotic
pretexts for acting out their personal pathologies and the pathologies
of their followers. Consider Pol Pot. What was his rationale for a
slaughter that, on a percentage of population, was worse than Hitler's?
Pot was educated in Paris, I believe. Can we blame his genocide on
the French? And where do civilizations like Rome fit in here? The
Spanish conquest of The Americas? How did they do it without Darwin?
> Weikart then goes on to demonstrate ... (snip)
No, he goes on to *claim*. There is a difference. At least outside the
religious world there is.
(snip)
>
> In it Mr. Weikart writes: "While racism might have
> intensified in the late nineteenth century as a justification for
> European imperialism with our without Darwinism, it is clear that
> Darwinism played a key role in the rhetoric of racism."
>
Well at last! The key to anti-evolutionary thought: the inability to
differentiate between rhetoric and reality!
KP
raven1
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
>became convinced that there were significant historical connections
>between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
>road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
>the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
>expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
Sean, you do realize that any philosophical implications that people
choose to derive from a scientific theory are completely irrelevant to
the truth or falsity of said theory, right?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Glenn
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1138465997....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/interview/Weikart.html
[...]
"By Jayson Whitehead" (the interviewer)
"By the turn of the century, declarations like Kossman's were a common
part of any German intellectual's vernacular. Delivered dramatically,
they often took on characteristics similar to those of the biologist
Arnold Dodel. "The new world view actually rests on the theory of
evolution," he wrote in 1904. "On it we have to construct a new
ethics.. All values will be revalued." Ernst Haeckel was the most
renowned German Darwinist (many of his books went through several
reprintings) and perhaps its most passionate defender. Stressing that
natural selection be applied to humans, he argued for its extension to
all areas of life. He and fellow social Darwinists vehemently opposed
any belief system that advocated the existence of a soul, instead
holding that man had no free will; biology dictated everything, even
morals."
[...]
Steven J.
Seanpit wrote:
> >From Darwin to Hitler
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
>
> I might not have encountered it all, were it not for an email sent by
> the author, or probably his publisher--for which I am grateful. I
> checked 80 nearby libraries, public and university, before buying it
> from Amazon. How any university could fail to procure this book defies
> imagination. ...Or does it? Students should request their libraries
> buy this book. It is an important contribution to the discussion.
>
this article.
>
> In his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "...I discovered that many
> German eugenicists wrote essays and passages in their books on how to
> apply Darwinism to ethics. I had not initially intended eugenics to
> play an important part in this study, but I could not avoid it..."
>
of how "Darwinism" led to Nazism? That seems rather a disingenuous
claim.
>
> He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
> became convinced that there were significant historical connections
> between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
> road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
> the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
>
decline in "fitness" of human beings removed from their ancestral
selective regime. Indeed, a more rigorous application of his own ideas
to the situation might have disabused him of that worry: "fitness"
refers to whatever makes one more likely to leave descendants under
present conditions, not past conditions. There is no global standard
of "fitness" and no particular goal of evolution or natural selection
towards which a eugenics program could work. Eugenics doesn't actually
follow from evolutionary theory.
>
> Later in his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "In order to rescue
> Darwinian science from the taint of Nazism, however, some historians
> assert that Hitler's views were pseudo-scientific or eccentric, or they
> refer to his views of Darwinism as crude or vulgar." Mr. Weikart
> quotes Brigitte Hamann on this: "Almost all of the theories Hitler
> preferred have in common that they were not in agreement with academic
> science but were the products of idiosyncratic thought processes of
> private scholars who were full of contempt for established scientists,
> who hardly ever accept them either, and for good reason."
>
> Mr. Weikart takes issue with that argument: "On the contrary, however,
> many recent studies about Nazi science, especially those relating to
> biology, medical science, and eugenics, demonstrate that many
> mainstream scientists, professors, and physicians--including those
> identifying with the political Left--upheld views about Darwinism and
> eugenics quite similar to Hitler's."
>
also.
>
> "In philosophical terms," Weikart writes, "Darwinism was a necessary,
> but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or
> illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism,
> historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away."
>
based on the idea that variation exists in every group and population
(this is what natural and artificial selection alike work on), and that
there are no "essential" features shared by all members of one group
and no members of another. Darwin himself was explicit on this point:
there was probably no trait possessed by all members of one "race" and
no members of other "races," on which one could hang a claim of racial
superiority. The connection between this idea, and the idea that one
"race" was uniformly unworthy of existence and ought to be
exterminated, is very illogical indeed.
We had, some months back, a link posted to a Nazi high school textbook
which spoke of natural selection in glowing, highly colored terms as a
means of preserving the purity of a species or group, but which ignored
entirely the "Darwinist" view of natural selection as a means of
changing species. In short, the Nazis seemed to have, or at least
wished to encourage, a pre-Darwinian, almost creationist view of this
concept.
>
> Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
> result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
> life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
> did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
> the cover of war."
>
> Weikart then goes on to demonstrate that Hitler's philosophy was more
> shaped by Darwinism than by naturalism, a view that flies in the face
> of much popular thinking. Mr. Weikart writes: "I would assert that
> without Darwinism, materialism would still have increased during the
> late nineteenth century, but it would have been far less persuasive and
> thus would have gained fewer adherents than it actually did."
>
Well, Mr. Weikart can assert whatever he likes, I suppose.
>
> The point of this short article is not to provide lengthy quotes from
> Mr. Weikart's book (though that might seem the case), nor is even
> intended to be a review of the work (I will leave that to others). I
> want only to draw attention to the book, and to highly recommend it;
> especially Chapter Six, which is entitled: "The Science of Racial
> Inequality." In it Mr. Weikart writes: "While racism might have
> intensified in the late nineteenth century as a justification for
> European imperialism with our without Darwinism, it is clear that
> Darwinism played a key role in the rhetoric of racism."
>
> Other especially good chapters include: "The Specter of Inferiority,"
> "Controlling Reproduction," and "Racial Struggle and Extermination."
> ...All pointing to a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany;
> sometimes not a direct connection, but a connection nonetheless.
>
> Weikart concludes: "Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
> but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics
> permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the
> necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
> collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really
> morally praiseworthy. Darwinism--or at least some naturalistic
> interpretations of Darwinism--succeeded in turning morality on its
> head."
>
>
> http://www.goodschools.com/Weikart.htm
-- Steven J.
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:drg7or$1u3$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Glenn
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:drg7rq$hmk$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
1859.
Wakboth
Seanpit kirjoitti:
> >From Darwin to Hitler
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
[snip]
Please stop stealing David Ford's shtick, Sean.
-- Wakboth
Glenn
"Grandbank" <phe...@nanaimo.ark.com> wrote in message
news:1138470219.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob D
Seanpit wrote:
n nonetheless.
>
> Weikart concludes: "Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
> but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics
> permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the
> necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
> collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really
> morally praiseworthy. Darwinism--or at least some naturalistic
> interpretations of Darwinism--succeeded in turning morality on its
> head."
I bet the guy/gal that discovered fire must be feeling REALLY guilty
for all those who have ever died through arson.
It's not truth that kills, it's ignorance.
mc...@sunset.net
Jan 28, 11:43 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: "Richard Smol" <jazz...@dds.nl> - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Jan 2006 08:43:59 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 28 2006 11:43 am
Subject: Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
RS
Interesting. But Hitler got his ideas about the white race from
Haeckel's monism.
JM
Glenn
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1138473266....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
snip
> We had, some months back, a link posted to a Nazi high school
textbook
> which spoke of natural selection in glowing, highly colored terms as
a
> means of preserving the purity of a species or group, but which
ignored
> entirely the "Darwinist" view of natural selection as a means of
> changing species. In short, the Nazis seemed to have, or at least
> wished to encourage, a pre-Darwinian, almost creationist view of
this
> concept.
> >
Interesting. Artificial selection practiced on one's own species is
not natural selection. So it's not a dog eat dog world?
Glenn
"Bob D" <ju....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:1138475267....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
sometime. Go outside and watch the birds. Watch the humans on tv.
Grandbank
Glenn wrote:
>
> You have the book?
>
No. But I have Darwin's.
KP
Alexander
Seanpit wrote:
> >From Darwin to Hitler
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
Not really that new Sean - 2004 as it happens. At least that's what my
copy is saying.
For interested observers you can find a short bio here;
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=37
... and yes he is a fellow of DI
>
> I might not have encountered it all, were it not for an email sent by
> the author, or probably his publisher--for which I am grateful. I
> checked 80 nearby libraries, public and university, before buying it
> from Amazon. How any university could fail to procure this book defies
> imagination. ...Or does it? Students should request their libraries
> buy this book. It is an important contribution to the discussion.
Hardly. It doesn't say anything new that historians aren't already
aware of and his conclusions are distinclt (ahem) shall we say ...
biased.
When historians attempt sociology it's usually an indication they have
an agenda. The books conclusion goes into great detail how all this
nastiness would never have happened if Christian morals had been
followed. Completely overlooking the role Christianity itself played
in the reinforcement of racism and anti-semitism prior to Darwin and
indeed Hitler.
Why were Jews so vilified throughout Europe Sean? Why so many pogroms
and killings of the Jewish people throughout European history? The lie
of their being worthy of killing didn't start with Darwin.
Weikart commits the grossest of academic errors when he makes these
claims - eugenics and social Darwinism were an excuse built upon
pre-existing social prejudices, hatreds and fears.
>
> Other especially good chapters include: "The Specter of Inferiority,"
> "Controlling Reproduction," and "Racial Struggle and Extermination."
> ...All pointing to a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany;
> sometimes not a direct connection, but a connection nonetheless.
There's a connection between me and my Danish great great great
grandfather as well. It doesn't mean I speak Danish or know anyone
living there.
>
> Weikart concludes: "Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
> but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics
> permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the
> necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
> collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really
> morally praiseworthy. Darwinism--or at least some naturalistic
> interpretations of Darwinism--succeeded in turning morality on its
> head."
>
A much better book is 'The Occult Roots of Nazism' by Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke (again if you ignore the faux sociological commentary
in the conlusion, otherwise it's an excellent historical account of
Nazi origins). Also the chapter on Nazism in Glover's 'Humanity' a
look at philisophical issues of the 20th century. He also explains
Nietzsche a lot better than Weikart's 2 dimensional depiction as well.
TomS
<48cnt15sfpi9vphof...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
>
>On 28 Jan 2006 08:33:17 -0800, "Seanpit"
><seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>>He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
>>became convinced that there were significant historical connections
>>between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
>>road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
>>the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
>>expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
>
>Sean, you do realize that any philosophical implications that people
>choose to derive from a scientific theory are completely irrelevant to
>the truth or falsity of said theory, right?
I have a question about people who:
* Claim that there is a connection between some of evolutionary
biology and some of these social/political movements.
* Claim that they, themselves, accept those parts of evolutionary
biology.
My question is how they can live with themselves.
Those "parts of evolutionary biology" being what they call
"micro"evolution - in particular, evolution withing human"kind".
Many of them do insist that they accept the action of evolution
as it applies within a "kind". And, as is obvious, anybody making
some kind of social/political statement would only be concerned
with what relates to people. Who is there that could draw any
lessons from the natural origins of pattern of the vertebrate
eye, or any other "macro"evolutionary event?
Obviously, those who led - and followed - those social/
political movements were really just applying some kind of
folk-lore about "blood lines" or common knowledge of the practice
of animal and plant breeders for thousands of years, and had no
concern at all about "macro"evolution.
But our contemporary anti-evolutionists have, oh so often, told
us that they accept just that kind of folk-lore and knowledge. If
they were to pause and reflect for a moment, one would think that
they would be very worried about the consequences - for them - of
these two sorts of claims.
I believe, in answer to my own question, that this is just
another one of the inconsistencies in the anti-evolutionary
movement. Inconsistencies are not anything that gives them pause.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Chris Thompson
And Tilly's soldiers brandished copies of On the Origin of Species as
they massacred the people of Magdeburg.
Oh wait- that was 200 years before Darwin, wasn't it.
Chris
Jerry Sparks
associating them with evil dictators, this pretty well destroys most
theories in chemistry, physics and every other branch of science."
I agree Richard. In addition, guilt by association is a ploy that
religious proponents should readily shy away from given the role that
religion has played in such atrocities as the "Inquisition" and the
"Crusades" amongst countless others. If being connected to corruption
makes a concept corrupt unto itself then Christianity wears a bright
scarlet letter. Such cowardly efforts to demean evolutionary theory
show how desperate Seanpit has become in the face of the evidence.
Chris Thompson
news:glennsheldon-JtPCf.20$v83....@news.uswest.net:
The usual definition of artificial selection is selection dictated by
humans, so no, selection on humans guided by humans is artificial.
> So it's not a dog eat dog world?
No, it's YEAR of the dog.
Chris
Chris Thompson
"Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1138474329.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hehe.
Chris Thompson
news:glennsheldon-SYOCf.17$v83....@news.uswest.net:
Cogent as ever I see.
Go play in the mud, Glenn.
Chris
Glenn
"Chris Thompson" <ctho...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns975998E251F6ct...@207.69.189.191...
mindless blabber, by mindlessly blabbering.
Glenn
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > You have the book?
> >
>
> No. But I have Darwin's.
>
Restored:
"Weikart then goes on to demonstrate that Hitler's philosophy was more
shaped by Darwinism than by naturalism, a view that flies in the face
of much popular thinking. Mr. Weikart writes: "I would assert that
without Darwinism, materialism would still have increased during the
late nineteenth century, but it would have been far less persuasive
and
thus would have gained fewer adherents than it actually did."
"The point of this short article is not to provide lengthy quotes from
Mr. Weikart's book (though that might seem the case), nor is even
intended to be a review of the work (I will leave that to others). I
want only to draw attention to the book, and to highly recommend it;
especially Chapter Six, which is entitled: "The Science of Racial
Inequality." In it Mr. Weikart writes: "While racism might have
Glenn
"Jerry Sparks" <ejsp...@tvscable.com> wrote in message
news:1138478636.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
is inferior to any other, and no killing allowed. I suppose you will
be one of the very few posters on t.o. that has ever admitted
Christianity played no part in the Holocaust, and antisemitism did not
originate with Christianity.
Joe Cooper
intelligentsia, who were to a large degree imbued with racism and
Spencerian Darwinism.
This attitude went back to WW I. William Jennings Bryan antipathy,
although unjust, to Darwinism has much of its vitriol based on his
reading of one book called "Headquarter Nights" by Vernon Kellogg
(1917), recounting his experiences, before the US entered the war, in
listening to discussions among Germanies highest miliary officcers
while he was part of the Belgian relief effort.
(Vernon Kellogg wrote a major textbood "Evolution and Animal Life" and
was a professor at Stanford. The textbook was coauthored by David Starr
Jordan, president of Stanford and ichythyologist.
The other book, other than "Headquarteres Nights" which influenced
Bryans campaign against the theory of evolution was "The Science of
Power", by Benjamin Kidd (1918)
According to Gould, Steven Jay, in "Bully for Brontosaurus" (1991) in
the chapter "William Jenning Bryan's Last Campaign",
"Bryan conflated a perverse interpretation of the thing (the thing
being evolution) itself and affirmed his worst fears about the
polluting powers of evolution."
Steven Jay Gould goes on to discuss why this interpretation "remains
deeply and appallingly wrong for three basic reasons"
I am attempting to show that Hitler's attitudes was rooted in the
military and possibly the intelligentsia of Germany (also, to a lesser
extent in other countries of the period} rather than a direct
derivation from Darwin.
This attitude of the black inferiority was deeply rooted in the same
period of creationism. The creationist movement of the time used its
influence to eject evolution from the school curriculem, but accepted
and encouraged the idea of black inferiority. Do you want quotes? And
it had the political power in much of the South.
While the creationist movement moved to eject evolutionism from
textbooks, it did nothing but encourage the injection of racism into
those same books.
Much of my comment above is accoring to my reading of Dr. Goulds
article. I apologize if I have not communicated his reading
accurateley.
I cannot fiind the article on the internet, otherwise I would post the
link.
Joe Cooper
Glenn
Doesn't mean that the "usual definition" is right or even logical,
however. What makes humans any less animals than dogs? Recall the
relevant aspects of Darwinism for your evidence.
>
> > So it's not a dog eat dog world?
>
> No, it's YEAR of the dog.
>
How appropriate.
Dan Luke
> Crazy people that can't read or reason shouldn't think they can, loon.
Haw-haw!
When has it ever stopped you, dweeb?
Desertphile
> Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
Please explain what the fuck "Darwinism" is. Thank you.
P.S. Christianity smooth the way for Nazi Ideology.
Desertphile
> Seanpit wrote:
> > road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
> > the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> > expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
Yeah, what ever the fuck "Darwinism" is, it was responsible for making
millions of Christians in Germany slaughter Jews, Russians, Gypsies,
homosexuals, and schizophrenics. Even more sinister, this "Darwinism"
thing also caused Christians throughout Europe during at least four
other time periods in history over the past 600 years to exterminate
every Jew they could get their blood-soaked hands upon.
> Hitler was a devout Catholic. He was thoroughly convinced he carried
> out God's will. Antisemitism has its root in religion, not science.
That is obvious to everyone except members of Hitler's cult.
> RS
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:glennsheldon-x7RCf.27$Ay6....@news.uswest.net...
Au Au Au, that's where the shoe hurts
Carsten
Ross Langerak
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1138465997....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
>
> the author, or probably his publisher--for which I am grateful. I
> checked 80 nearby libraries, public and university, before buying it
> from Amazon. How any university could fail to procure this book defies
> imagination. ...Or does it? Students should request their libraries
> buy this book. It is an important contribution to the discussion.
>
> In his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "...I discovered that many
> German eugenicists wrote essays and passages in their books on how to
> apply Darwinism to ethics. I had not initially intended eugenics to
> play an important part in this study, but I could not avoid it..."
>
> He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
> became convinced that there were significant historical connections
> between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
> the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
In order to salvage the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood,
creationists are often willing to accept microevolution: evolution within a
kind. This way, Noah only had to bring two of each "kind" aboard the ark.
After the flood, each kind evolved, through microevolution, into the various
species that make up that kind. The cat kind evolved into domestic cats and
lions and tigers and cheetahs. The dog kind evolved into dogs and wolves
and coyotes.
Hitler's goal was, apparently, to eliminate all races except the one, pure,
white, Aryan race. Since humans make up a kind, then Hitler's evolution of
the human race would be evolution of a kind, or microevolution. The
conclusion to be drawn from this is that the atrocities committed by Hitler
and the Nazi party are acceptable to creationists.
> Later in his Introduction, Mr. Weikart writes: "In order to rescue
> Darwinian science from the taint of Nazism, however, some historians
> assert that Hitler's views were pseudo-scientific or eccentric, or they
> refer to his views of Darwinism as crude or vulgar." Mr. Weikart
> quotes Brigitte Hamann on this: "Almost all of the theories Hitler
> preferred have in common that they were not in agreement with academic
> science but were the products of idiosyncratic thought processes of
> private scholars who were full of contempt for established scientists,
> who hardly ever accept them either, and for good reason."
>
> Mr. Weikart takes issue with that argument: "On the contrary, however,
> many recent studies about Nazi science, especially those relating to
> biology, medical science, and eugenics, demonstrate that many
> mainstream scientists, professors, and physicians--including those
> identifying with the political Left--upheld views about Darwinism and
> eugenics quite similar to Hitler's."
>
> "In philosophical terms," Weikart writes, "Darwinism was a necessary,
> but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or
> illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism,
> historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away."
>
> Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
> result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
> life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
> did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
> the cover of war."
>
> Weikart then goes on to demonstrate that Hitler's philosophy was more
> shaped by Darwinism than by naturalism, a view that flies in the face
> of much popular thinking. Mr. Weikart writes: "I would assert that
> without Darwinism, materialism would still have increased during the
> late nineteenth century, but it would have been far less persuasive and
> thus would have gained fewer adherents than it actually did."
>
> The point of this short article is not to provide lengthy quotes from
> Mr. Weikart's book (though that might seem the case), nor is even
> intended to be a review of the work (I will leave that to others). I
> want only to draw attention to the book, and to highly recommend it;
> especially Chapter Six, which is entitled: "The Science of Racial
> Inequality." In it Mr. Weikart writes: "While racism might have
> intensified in the late nineteenth century as a justification for
> European imperialism with our without Darwinism, it is clear that
> Darwinism played a key role in the rhetoric of racism."
>
> Other especially good chapters include: "The Specter of Inferiority,"
> "Controlling Reproduction," and "Racial Struggle and Extermination."
> ...All pointing to a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany;
> sometimes not a direct connection, but a connection nonetheless.
>
> Weikart concludes: "Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust,
> but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics
> permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the
> necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
> collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really
> morally praiseworthy. Darwinism--or at least some naturalistic
> interpretations of Darwinism--succeeded in turning morality on its
> head."
Don't white supremist groups use the Bible to justify their racism? The Ku
Klux Klan is a Christian group. The Aryan Nations is a Christian group.
Does this mean that Christians support racism? Does this mean that God does
not exist because some Christians support racism?
Either evolution happened or it didn't. Either God exists or he doesn't.
Neither evolution nor the existence of God are determined by whether or not
someone abused those concepts. If you reject evolution because someone has
abused the theory, then you must reject God because someone has abused his
scripture.
Robert J. Kolker
Martin Leuther had honorary membership #1 in the NSDAP.
Richard Wagner had honorary membership #2.
Bob Kolker
Desertphile
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, "Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> > Why is it, then, only in Germany did Darwinian devaluing of human life
> > result in Holocaust? "Nowhere did [Darwinian devaluation of human
> > life] reach the catastrophic level of Germany...since only in Germany
> > did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under
> > the cover of war."
> Yeah, cause no one else devalued human life during WWII, did they.
Yeah, and certainly the millions of German Christians who fought in
that war, and the hundreds of German Christians who loaded the victims
into the railcars, and the dozens of German Christians who loaded the
victims into the gas chamers and the ovens, would NEVER have done such
a think except for this "Darwinism" thing. Not to mention the fact or
all those other times in history, some 600 years ago to present, where
Christgians did the sale thing---- to such an extent that large
sections of Europe were completely wiped "clean" of Jews.
Hey, it's all because of this "Darwinism" stuff "Seanpit" mentions: it
turns Christians into ravening butchering hordes.
Grandbank
Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > You have the book?
> > >
> >
> > No. But I have Darwin's.
> >
> Then you don't know if or what the author goes on to demonstrate.
>
I certainly *can* know what he *doesn't* demonstrate.
In the same way that I can know that the websites "demonstrating"
geocentricity are wrong with out reading *them*. Familiarity with the
real world obviates the need to read the works of every crank that
comes along.
KP
Chris Thompson
news:glennsheldon-YfRCf.29$Ay6....@news.uswest.net:
You totally misunderstand this, Glenn. It is not the target of selection
that matters, it is the source. Humans seem to be the only species that
can perpetrate deliberate, knowing selection pressure on other species.
We've done that with members of every Phylum on the planet. Of course
humans are animals, but that's not the issue.
Definitions are neither right nor wrong. They simply are. They might be
useful or not depending on the situation but since we decide what words
mean, a definition cannot be wrong. It can be illogical of course, but
we can decide that also. In this case, though, given that we're the only
species that can exert knowing selection pressure on another species, I
find it highly logical to differentiate human-based selection from
selection stemming from other sources.
>>
>> > So it's not a dog eat dog world?
>>
>> No, it's YEAR of the dog.
>>
> How appropriate.
Happy New Year.
Chris
John Harshman
Indeed it didn't. There are recorded persecutions of jews in Alexandria
before Christianity. The Greeks didn't like them. Christian persecution
of jews is just one more example of the intolerance of majorities for
minorities, hardly unique in the world, and hardly a central tenet of
Christianity.
One correction, though. While Christianity played no part in the
Holocaust, a tradition of antisemitism in Europe, supported by appeal to
Christian notions, certainly did. Perhaps it's a fine distinction, but I
think a real one. Similarly, evolutionary biology played no role, but a
garbled appeal to evolutionary ideas did.
Desertphile
(Massive trim)
> I suppose by your reasoning Martin Luther was a Darwinist?
The Creationist John Morris once told me, with a straight face, that
evolutionary theory was taught by "Satan" in the Garden of Eden, and he
quoted from his paper god to "prove" it to me. I thanked him for his
time and backed out the door of the church so I wouldn't have to turn
my back on him (anyone who could believe what he does MUST be
dangerous).
Ergo, if this belief of Rev. Morris is common among Creationists, it
would not at all surprise me to see "Seanpit" here agree that Martin
Luther embraced evolutionary theory.
John Harshman
Nothing. Humans are exactly as much animals as dogs are.
> Recall the
> relevant aspects of Darwinism for your evidence.
The only relevant aspect I could think of would be common descent.
Humans and dogs are descended from a common ancestor. Do you want me to
present evidence for that? If so, then we are (if I recall) going to
have to agree on some idea of homology.
>>>So it's not a dog eat dog world?
>>
>>No, it's YEAR of the dog.
>
> How appropriate.
How did dogs enter into this discussion anyway?
Desertphile
> So a fellow of the Discovery Institute writes a book linking Hitler to
> Darwin.
The paranoid schizophrenic who made up Scientology (L.R. Hubbard) wrote
a book linking Hitler to psychiatrists from outer space. (No, really.)
Here we see the book "Seanpit" mentioned to be just as fact-based and
rational as Hubbard's.
["Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler" was written by Hubbard under
three different names, at least one of which, "Thomas Roder," was taken
from an actual person.]
Glenn
"Joe Cooper" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1138483188....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, please. Not assertions.
It appears you would liken the Nazi movement to a creationist
movement, and minimize or exclude any Darwinian thought. Here is some:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871darwin.html
"Charles Darwin (1809-1882), an English biologist was one of a number
of scientists considering theories of evolution. He published On the
Origin of Species, in 1859 and set forth his theory that animals
evolved through variation and natural selection of those most fit to
survive in particular environments. In The Descent of Man (1871) he
applied his theory directly to the question of human beings. Far from
standing aside from the social, racial and religious consequences of
his theories, Darwin, as we see below, jumped right into the fray."
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/
http://www.goodschools.com/descentreview.pdf
Glenn
"Dan Luke" <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote in message
news:11tnp2i...@news.supernews.com...
hearts content, loon.
Stuart
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> 2. Richard Smol
> Jan 28, 11:43 am show options
>
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> From: "Richard Smol" <jazz...@dds.nl> - Find messages by this author
> Date: 28 Jan 2006 08:43:59 -0800
> Local: Sat, Jan 28 2006 11:43 am
> Subject: Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
>
>
> Seanpit wrote:
> > He continues, "...the more I read by and about Hitler, the more I
> > became convinced that there were significant historical connections
> > between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology. ...No matter how crooked the
> > road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
> > the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> > expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
>
>
> out God's will. Antisemitism has its root in religion, not science.
>
>
>
> Interesting. But Hitler got his ideas about the white race from
Interesting but Hitler got his ideas, almost verbatim, from the rants
of Martin Luther.
Try Reading "The Jews and Their Lies".
Or do you blame that on Darwin too?
Stuart
> Haeckel's monism.
>
> JM
Glenn
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138484953.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Stuart
Seanpit wrote:
> >From Darwin to Hitler
>
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
> An interesting new book by Richard Weikart
Sean, which states had anti-miscegnation laws? And how many of them or
what we call the "Bible Belt" ?
It does bring to mind, that creationists and Holocaust deniars have a
lot in common. Both have the capacity to deny the obvious.
Stuart
Stuart
Desertphile wrote:
> Richard Smol wrote:
>
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed
> > > the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> > > expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
>
> Yeah, what ever the fuck "Darwinism" is, it was responsible for making
> millions of Christians in Germany slaughter Jews, Russians, Gypsies,
> homosexuals, and schizophrenics. Even more sinister, this "Darwinism"
> thing also caused Christians throughout Europe during at least four
> other time periods in history over the past 600 years to exterminate
> every Jew they could get their blood-soaked hands upon.
>
It sounds to me like the latest Christian Apologetic attempting to
excuse Christianity for its role during the Holocaust.
Stuart
Glenn
Hitler, and helped the Jews. European Christians did not do everything
they could in the last 600 years to exterminate every Jew. Religious
antisemitism has its roots in religion, but racism is not unique to
religion. Take your little atheist hat and shove it where the sun
don't shine. Hitler was no more a "devout Catholic" than you are the
Pope, but he probably was a bigger liar than you, although that would
be because he was smarter than the average loon.
Glenn
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:43dbe89b$0$188$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
concept of Christianity applied? Then we can make comparisons to
Darwin's "theories".
Stuart
Glenn wrote:
> "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138485334....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Richard Smol wrote:
> >
> > > Seanpit wrote:
> > > > road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics
> smoothed
> > > > the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi stress on
> > > > expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination."
> >
> > Yeah, what ever the fuck "Darwinism" is, it was responsible for
> making
> > millions of Christians in Germany slaughter Jews, Russians, Gypsies,
> > homosexuals, and schizophrenics. Even more sinister, this
> "Darwinism"
> > thing also caused Christians throughout Europe during at least four
> > other time periods in history over the past 600 years to exterminate
> > every Jew they could get their blood-soaked hands upon.
> >
> > > Hitler was a devout Catholic. He was thoroughly convinced he
> carried
> > > out God's will. Antisemitism has its root in religion, not
> science.
> >
> > That is obvious to everyone except members of Hitler's cult.
> >
> Don't speak for everyone, loon. Christians all over the world defeated
> Hitler, and helped the Jews.
Gimme a break. LOL.
Its true that Christians in the US put a stop to slavery. However, that
doesn't absolve them from blame for slavery.
European Christians did not do everything
> they could in the last 600 years to exterminate every Jew.
Thats true. They waited till 1939 to try the things they didn't do in
the previous 600 years.
Religious
> antisemitism has its roots in religion, but racism is not unique to
> religion.
Are there any other religions that had a problem with skin color-based
racism?
Stuart
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>>From Darwin to Hitler
>
>
> "In philosophical terms," Weikart writes, "Darwinism was a necessary,
> but not a sufficient, cause for Nazi ideology. But however logical or
> illogical the connections are between Darwinism and Nazism,
> historically the connections are there and they cannot be wished away."
>
Yes, it is becoming clear that the Darwinist-liberal-atheist agendum is
to destroy Christianity in America so that we can revive Nazism.
Glenn
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9ORCf.7136$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:microevolution
Can't be due to natural selection, see Chris Thompson's post:
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yes, it is becoming clear that the Darwinist-liberal-atheist agendum is
> to destroy Christianity in America so that we can revive Nazism.
Are we being witty?
Bob Kolker
>
Glenn
"Grandbank" <phe...@nanaimo.ark.com> wrote in message
news:1138485903....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-YFSCf.45$Ay6....@news.uswest.net...
To creationists, any evolution within a kind is microevolution. They are
willing to accept microevolution. Weikart is suggesting that evolution is
wrong because the Nazis used it to justify genocide. Whether by natural or
artificial means, the Nazi plan would result in evolution within a kind:
microevolution. So either the creationists must admit that abuse of
evolution does not falsify evolution, or they must give up their attempt to
salvage the story of Noah's Ark through microevolution.
Desertphile
> > Seanpit wrote:
> Child.
Must I assume you do not know the answer?
Desertphile
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > Interesting. But Hitler got his ideas about the white race from
> Interesting but Hitler got his ideas, almost verbatim, from the rants
> of Martin Luther.
>
> Try Reading "The Jews and Their Lies".
It takes a very strong stomach, or a very Christian mind, to read.
Everything Hitler praised and supported (and instituted) Luther praised
and supported (and tried to institute) before him.
> Or do you blame that on Darwin too?
Creationists blame Darwin for every human evil.
> Stuart
Jeffrey Turner
> "Jerry Sparks" <ejsp...@tvscable.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard Forrest wrote: "After all, if theories can be invalidated by
>>associating them with evil dictators, this pretty well destroys most
>>theories in chemistry, physics and every other branch of science."
>>
>>I agree Richard. In addition, guilt by association is a ploy that
>>religious proponents should readily shy away from given the role
>
> that
>
>>religion has played in such atrocities as the "Inquisition" and the
>>"Crusades" amongst countless others. If being connected to
>
> corruption
>
>>makes a concept corrupt unto itself then Christianity wears a bright
>>scarlet letter. Such cowardly efforts to demean evolutionary theory
>>show how desperate Seanpit has become in the face of the evidence.
>
> Ok, the "theory" of Christianity is to love your neighbor, that no one
> is inferior to any other, and no killing allowed. I suppose you will
> be one of the very few posters on t.o. that has ever admitted
> Christianity played no part in the Holocaust, and antisemitism did not
> originate with Christianity.
What's that leave, a half-dozen Christians on the planet? No
wonder you're a persecuted minority. But what are you doing
building mega-churches?
--Jeff
--
"A nation that continues year after year to
spend more money on military defense than on
programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Glenn
Is "seem to" part of evolutionary theory? Species do put selective
pressure on other species. And who says the issue does not concern
humans being animals, in the same "boat" as all other species?
>
> Definitions are neither right nor wrong. They simply are. They might
be
> useful or not depending on the situation but since we decide what
words
> mean, a definition cannot be wrong. It can be illogical of course,
but
> we can decide that also. In this case, though, given that we're the
only
> species that can exert knowing selection pressure on another
species, I
> find it highly logical to differentiate human-based selection from
> selection stemming from other sources.
>
So you want to differentiate reasons selection occurs. Fine, you just
go for it, but don't use a "usual definition" as your support.
"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 asnow between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla"
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
Desertphile
> "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138485334....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Yeah, what ever the fuck "Darwinism" is, it was responsible for making
> > millions of Christians in Germany slaughter Jews, Russians, Gypsies,
> > homosexuals, and schizophrenics. Even more sinister, this "Darwinism"
> > thing also caused Christians throughout Europe during at least four
> > other time periods in history over the past 600 years to exterminate
> > every Jew they could get their blood-soaked hands upon.
> Don't speak for everyone, loon.
LOL! I touched a raw nerve, eh? Too factual for your comfort. LOL!
> Christians all over the world defeated
> Hitler, and helped the Jews.
Yes, I know. Those Christians (Allies) defeated other Christians
(Axis). What's yer point?
Desertphile
> Glenn wrote:
> > "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138485334....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Don't speak for everyone, loon. Christians all over the world defeated
> > Hitler, and helped the Jews.
"Glenn" here appears to be a few shingles short of a roof.
> Gimme a break. LOL.
>
> Its true that Christians in the US put a stop to slavery. However, that
> doesn't absolve them from blame for slavery.
Exactly. Christians fought during the American Civil War to defend
slavery; other Christians fought those Christians to end slavery. It
was also Christians who fought to suppress the slave trade, and
Christians who enslaved the slaves and bought and sold those slaves.
The same holds true for the German and Italian Christians who fought
the American, British, Australian, and other countries Christians
during World War One and World War Two. And all these Christians killed
each other because Darwin wrote a book about how nature fuctions.
Glenn
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138487909....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think you are in the wrong room.
>However, that
> doesn't absolve them from blame for slavery.
>
No it doesn't. Neither does guilt by association arguments absolve
you.
>
> European Christians did not do everything
> > they could in the last 600 years to exterminate every Jew.
>
> Thats true. They waited till 1939 to try the things they didn't do
in
> the previous 600 years.
>
So you're just another idiot atheist.
> Religious
> > antisemitism has its roots in religion, but racism is not unique
to
> > religion.
>
> Are there any other religions that had a problem with skin
color-based
> racism?
>
Darwinism did, not Christianity.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Creationists blame Darwin for every human evil.
Funny. I blame Luether for many evils, among which is anti-semitism.
Luether hated Jews plain and simple. Why? Because they would not buy his
brand of bullshit. That is the same reason why Mohammed the Goat Herder
turned on the Arabian Jews. They would not accept him as a greater
prophet than Moses.
The refusual of Jews to buy the new religion (call it stubborness, if
you prefer) has been at the root of much anti-semitism in Europe and the
Middle East.
Bob Kolker
Grandbank
Glenn wrote:
> >
> You'll fit right in here.
If by that you mean that you will be unable to address the actual
content of my posts, you are correct.
KP
Googler
>
> Hitler was a devout Catholic.
Do you have any evidence for this statement ?
The only evidence that we have of Hitler's early thinking ( mostly from
his speeches and from Mein Kampf) show a definite anti-Catholic
viewpoint.
Hitler actually did all he could to eliminate any Catholic influence
in the Nazi party, and to marginalize the Church in Germany once he
gained power. He was convinced that a major reason for the failure of
his 'beer-hall putsch' was that he tried to start it in Bavaria, where
German Catholicism was strongest.
For example, one of the first laws passed by the Nazi-controlled
Bundestag dissolved the Catholic Youth organization.
> He was thoroughly convinced he carried
> out God's will.
So what? The man was a sociopath.
He was also convinced that there was scientific proof of such a thing
as an "Aryan" race, and scientific prrof that its members was superior
to other human beings.
> Antisemitism has its root in religion, not science.
What does that mean in English, please.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Exactly. Christians fought during the American Civil War to defend
> slavery; other Christians fought those Christians to end slavery. It
> was also Christians who fought to suppress the slave trade, and
> Christians who enslaved the slaves and bought and sold those slaves.
Most of the Christians who faught for the Union fought to preserve the
Union and to undo the Secession. They wanted to put the country back
together the way it was. Ending slavery was a low priority item with the
majority of people who fought on the Union side.
At the time of the Civil War, the North was as racist as the South.
Bob Kolker
Googler
Desertphile wrote:
>
> Creationists blame Darwin for every human evil.
>
Maybe they do.
But it is also a fact that bigots like yourself blame Christianity
for every human evil.
So maybe anti-Christian bigots and creationists are more like each
other than either would like to admit.
Glenn
I doubt that. Creationists don't believe as evolutionists do that
humans are a product of mindless evolution.
>They are
> willing to accept microevolution. Weikart is suggesting that
evolution is
> wrong because the Nazis used it to justify genocide.
No, you are suggesting that Weikart is suggesting that evolution is
wrong. You confuse Darwinism with evolution.
>Whether by natural or
> artificial means, the Nazi plan would result in evolution within a
kind:
> microevolution. So either the creationists must admit that abuse of
> evolution does not falsify evolution, or they must give up their
attempt to
> salvage the story of Noah's Ark through microevolution.
>
Your conclusion is based on false precepts with respect to
creationists, but not to evolutionists. You need to take a long boat
ride.
Glenn
Glenn
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:11to15v...@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138485334....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Yeah, what ever the fuck "Darwinism" is, it was responsible for
making
> > > millions of Christians in Germany slaughter Jews, Russians,
Gypsies,
> > > homosexuals, and schizophrenics. Even more sinister, this
"Darwinism"
> > > thing also caused Christians throughout Europe during at least
four
> > > other time periods in history over the past 600 years to
exterminate
> > > every Jew they could get their blood-soaked hands upon.
>
> > Don't speak for everyone, loon.
>
> LOL! I touched a raw nerve, eh? Too factual for your comfort. LOL!
Calling a loon a loon means the loon touched a raw nerve? Loon.
>
> > Christians all over the world defeated
> > Hitler, and helped the Jews.
>
> Yes, I know. Those Christians (Allies) defeated other Christians
> (Axis). What's yer point?
>
That you have none, and are a loon.
Glenn
"Christians" when the truth should be staring them in the face. Kind
of reminds me of one of the main subjects in this thread...
Joe Cooper
movement, and minimize or exclude any Darwinian thought. "
I do not believe I said creationism is a harbinger to the Nazi
movement.
I said that the creationist movement of the 1920s was very racist and
did little to counteract the racism of the 1920's America. Most of the
southern fundamentalist church was segregated, with preachers and
creationist propagandists praising this racism. The creatioinist
movement of today has to deal with its own past at the same time it
deals with the misuse of Spencerian Darwinism.
Joe Cooper
If you read my post, what I said was that Hitler's Aryanism could be
related to the social Darwinism of the military elite of WWI.
Joe Cooper
John Harshman
> "Joe Cooper" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1138483188....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Many of the members of the Nazi party were members of the
>>intelligentsia, who were to a large degree imbued with racism and
>>Spencerian Darwinism.
>>
>>This attitude went back to WW I. William Jennings Bryan antipathy,
>>although unjust, to Darwinism has much of its vitriol based on his
>>reading of one book called "Headquarter Nights" by Vernon Kellogg
>>(1917), recounting his experiences, before the US entered the war,
>
> in
>
>>listening to discussions among Germanies highest miliary officcers
>>while he was part of the Belgian relief effort.
>>
>>(Vernon Kellogg wrote a major textbood "Evolution and Animal Life"
>
> and
>
>>was a professor at Stanford. The textbook was coauthored by David
>
> Starr
>
>>Jordan, president of Stanford and ichythyologist.
>>
>>The other book, other than "Headquarteres Nights" which influenced
>>Bryans campaign against the theory of evolution was "The Science of
>>Power", by Benjamin Kidd (1918)
>>
>>According to Gould, Steven Jay, in "Bully for Brontosaurus" (1991)
>
> in
>
>>the chapter "William Jenning Bryan's Last Campaign",
>>
>>"Bryan conflated a perverse interpretation of the thing (the thing
>>being evolution) itself and affirmed his worst fears about the
>>polluting powers of evolution."
>>
>>
>>
>>Steven Jay Gould goes on to discuss why this interpretation "remains
>>deeply and appallingly wrong for three basic reasons"
>>
>>I am attempting to show that Hitler's attitudes was rooted in the
>>military and possibly the intelligentsia of Germany (also, to a
>
> lesser
>
>>extent in other countries of the period} rather than a direct
>>derivation from Darwin.
>>
>>This attitude of the black inferiority was deeply rooted in the same
>>period of creationism. The creationist movement of the time used
>
> its
>
>>influence to eject evolution from the school curriculem, but
>
> accepted
>
>>and encouraged the idea of black inferiority. Do you want quotes?
>
>
> Yes, please. Not assertions.
>
> It appears you would liken the Nazi movement to a creationist
> movement, and minimize or exclude any Darwinian thought. Here is some:
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871darwin.html
> "Charles Darwin (1809-1882), an English biologist was one of a number
> of scientists considering theories of evolution. He published On the
> Origin of Species, in 1859 and set forth his theory that animals
> evolved through variation and natural selection of those most fit to
> survive in particular environments. In The Descent of Man (1871) he
> applied his theory directly to the question of human beings. Far from
> standing aside from the social, racial and religious consequences of
> his theories, Darwin, as we see below, jumped right into the fray."
Did you read the rest of the page? Nothing there about "race".
[snip]
wf...@comcast.net
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>>From Darwin to Hitler
>
>
gee. before darwin was born, creationsists had:
murdered 2,000,000 blacks
enslaved 10,000,000 blacks
caused the bloodiest war in american history
expelled jews from every country in western europe
caused pogroms in many countries against jews
taught that jews were racially inferior
prohibitied intermarrying between jews and xtians
prohibited intermarrying between blacks and whites
for a thousand years before darwin was born, creationists hunted jews,
murdered them, persecuted them
yet creationists deny this ever happened.
Chris Thompson
news:glennsheldon-AyTCf.51$Ay6....@news.uswest.net:
Don't be asinine. If you have some sort of issue with that phrase, spit
it out. Your word games don't fly anymore.
> Species do put selective
> pressure on other species. And who says the issue does not concern
> humans being animals, in the same "boat" as all other species?
Did you deliberately ignore what I wrote? Why don't you talk about
"deliberate, knowing selection"?
>> Definitions are neither right nor wrong. They simply are. They might
> be
>> useful or not depending on the situation but since we decide what
> words
>> mean, a definition cannot be wrong. It can be illogical of course,
> but
>> we can decide that also. In this case, though, given that we're the
> only
>> species that can exert knowing selection pressure on another
> species, I
>> find it highly logical to differentiate human-based selection from
>> selection stemming from other sources.
>>
> So you want to differentiate reasons selection occurs. Fine, you just
> go for it, but don't use a "usual definition" as your support.
Too bad for you that that *is* the usual definition. Suck it up and
deal. Your attempts at picking out inconsequential phrases and trying to
twist reality to make them controversial is just stupid.
> "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 asnow between the negro or Australian
> and the gorilla"
>
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
blahblahblah
You do realize that what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with
what we're discussing?
Chris
Joe Cooper
bodies in the Civil War
Joe Cooper
wf...@comcast.net
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>European imperialism with our without Darwinism, it is clear that
>Darwinism played a key role in the rhetoric of racism."
kind of like a garden hose was responsible for hurricane katrina
before darwin was born, creationists had murdered 2,000,000 blacks and
enslaved 10,000,000 others
the bloodiest war in US history was fought to destroy creationist
enslavement of blacks.
Glenn
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:y0SCf.39803$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Then *anything* they do is natural, and normal.
>
> > Recall the
> > relevant aspects of Darwinism for your evidence.
>
> The only relevant aspect I could think of would be common descent.
> Humans and dogs are descended from a common ancestor. Do you want me
to
> present evidence for that? If so, then we are (if I recall) going to
> have to agree on some idea of homology.
You've either lost track, or are trolling. What is the difference
between artificial and natural selection?
>
> >>>So it's not a dog eat dog world?
> >>
> >>No, it's YEAR of the dog.
> >
> > How appropriate.
>
> How did dogs enter into this discussion anyway?
>
Dogs eating dogs is natural selection, John. The dogs that get eaten
will tend to leave less offspring than the dogs that are not eaten. Or
is that just a just-so story?
Joe Cooper
in the Union Army certainly knew that they were fighting slavery for
the sake of their families.
Joe Cooper
Joe Cooper
active in the various antislavery movements, felt that the black people
were inferior.
Joe cooper
Joe Cooper
to preserve slavery and disassociate itself from the American Baptist
convention, which was attempting to preclude preachers from owning
slaves.
joe Cooper
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Sparks" <ejsp...@tvscable.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138478636.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> Richard Forrest wrote: "After all, if theories can be invalidated
> >> by associating them with evil dictators, this pretty well
destroys
> >> most theories in chemistry, physics and every other branch of
> >> science."
> >>
> >> I agree Richard. In addition, guilt by association is a ploy that
> >> religious proponents should readily shy away from given the role
> >> that religion has played in such atrocities as the "Inquisition"
> >> and the "Crusades" amongst countless others. If being connected
to
> >> corruption makes a concept corrupt unto itself then Christianity
> >> wears a bright scarlet letter. Such cowardly efforts to demean
> >> evolutionary theory show how desperate Seanpit has become in the
> >> face of the evidence.
> >
> > Ok, the "theory" of Christianity is to love your neighbor, that no
one
> > is inferior to any other, and no killing allowed. I suppose you
will
> > be one of the very few posters on t.o. that has ever admitted
> > Christianity played no part in the Holocaust, and antisemitism did
not
> > originate with Christianity.
> >
Alexandria
> before Christianity. The Greeks didn't like them. Christian
persecution
> of jews is just one more example of the intolerance of majorities
for
> minorities, hardly unique in the world, and hardly a central tenet
of
> Christianity.
Not surprising to evolutionary theory. A mix of racial and religious
antisemitism, likely instilled in the young that have no concept of
why, and not unique in nature.
>
> One correction, though. While Christianity played no part in the
> Holocaust, a tradition of antisemitism in Europe, supported by
appeal to
> Christian notions, certainly did. Perhaps it's a fine distinction,
but I
> think a real one. Similarly, evolutionary biology played no role,
but a
> garbled appeal to evolutionary ideas did.
>
I wouln't argue with that, except perhaps with Christian "notion".
These "notions" are not unique to followers of religion, but even to
Darwin. He was a racist, and in my opinion, a loudmouth that based his
own ideas often on bad science, in areas he had no expertise in. I do
not believe he would have approved of the Holocaust, however.
Glenn
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1138495815.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
that any blame Darwin for *every* evil. It is neither a fact that
bigots like Desertphile blame Christianity for every human evil, it is
religion that they blame. I'd say bigots are quite worse than
Creationists.
Robert J. Kolker
> Richard Smol wrote:
> >
>
>>Hitler was a devout Catholic.
>
>
> Do you have any evidence for this statement ?
Take a look at this:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html
I assume that Hitler was Catholic if he said so. What reason would he
have for lying?
Bob Kolker
Joe Cooper
Great Books edition, and is one that I have intended to read for some
time.
I will start it in the near future, as soon as I finish SJ Goulds "The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory"
Joe Cooper
Robert J. Kolker
> Desertphile wrote:
> >
>
>>Creationists blame Darwin for every human evil.
>>
>
>
> Maybe they do.
>
> But it is also a fact that bigots like yourself blame Christianity
> for every human evil.
Human's have been evil since God invented dirt. Long before there was
Chrisitanity there was evil.
Bob Kolker
John Harshman
Natural, yes. "Normal" is of unclear meaning. But perhaps you are
searching for a word we can use to make value judgments, like "right" or
"moral". If so, then none of that follows. Humans are animals, but some
things they do are right, and some are wrong.
>>>Recall the
>>>relevant aspects of Darwinism for your evidence.
>>
>>The only relevant aspect I could think of would be common descent.
>>Humans and dogs are descended from a common ancestor. Do you want me
>
> to
>
>>present evidence for that? If so, then we are (if I recall) going to
>>have to agree on some idea of homology.
>
> You've either lost track, or are trolling. What is the difference
> between artificial and natural selection?
It's conventional. Artificial selection is defined as a case in which
the selective mechanism is humans, on purpose. If you think about it,
artificial selection is really a form of natural selection. But we make
the distinction anyway. The definition has been widened, in a
metaphorical way, to consider cases in which one animal performs
behavior that exerts selection on another, for the benefit of the first.
An example that comes to mind is that cowbirds sometimes come back and
destroy the nests of birds that eject cowbird eggs, thus exerting
selection in favor of accomodating the cowbird.
>>>>>So it's not a dog eat dog world?
>>>>
>>>>No, it's YEAR of the dog.
>>>
>>>How appropriate.
>>
>>How did dogs enter into this discussion anyway?
>
> Dogs eating dogs is natural selection, John. The dogs that get eaten
> will tend to leave less offspring than the dogs that are not eaten. Or
> is that just a just-so story?
I don't know if dogs actually eat other dogs. But if so, that's only one
aspect of natural selection. Selection can also result in cooperation,
even altruism. Are you making some kind of claim that natural selection
is evil? Are you further supposing that natural selection is some kind
of guide to morality?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> the bloodiest war in US history was fought to destroy creationist
> enslavement of blacks.
Most of those who faught for the Union, faught to restore the Union to
its prior condition. The target was the Secession, not slavery. When
Lincoln drafted the Emmancipation Proclamation he only decleared those
slaves in territories and states in rebellion as free. Lincoln never
freed a single black slave in a Union state. Not one.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
I be wonderin' why.
Bob Kolker
Joe Cooper
can perpetrate deliberate, knowing selection pressure on other species.
"
Is this true? I doubt it.
It would be an interesting topic sometime
Joe Cooper
Joe Cooper
Cherokees on the Trail of Tears at the beginning of the 19th century
traces its roots to the evils of evolution.
Joe Cooper
Joe Cooper
Joe Cooper