Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, talk.atheism
From: dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:00:32 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Jul 6 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOS...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message <news:10ein2amn821h12@corp.supernews.com>... The ARN text I presented "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407050332.5d5fee21@posting.google.com... "Steven J." <sjt1957NOS...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message <news:10egld42b1vupe7@corp.supernews.com>... > > > In your original post, you asked what contribution to the Holocaust were > > > made by four specific people: Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Nietzche (the > > > last not, generally, being considered a major theorist on either the > > > pathways or mechanisms of descent with modification). Here, though, your > > > source is discussing "Darwinism," and "many leading Darwinian biologists and > > > social thinkers." > > Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel could be described as "Darwinian > Ah. I would have assumed that your source meant for "Darwinian" to modify <http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b089.htm> doesn't mention Huxley, Haeckel, or Nietzsche. > > > Now, the point has already been raised (surprising seldom in this thread, That was easy. Well, perhaps too easy. > > > though) that the social consequences of a scientific theory are not what > > > makes it a correct or incorrect theory. You have not, so far as I can tell, > > > addressed this point: if Darwin *did* contribute to the Holocaust, > > Which he did. > Ah. Well, of course, your very confident assertion settles the matter for > The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi [SJ]"everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi ideology" > ideology counts for nothing against the facts that [a] the Nazis from time > to time interspersed Darwinian phrases among the Christian, nationalist, and > socialist phrases in their diatribes, and [b] the fact that you've found a > book that manages to blame the Holocaust on "Darwinism." Does this [SJ]"everything" include Darwin's _Descent of Man_? Do you think Nazi ideology would have approved of Charles Darwin's Darwin, Charles. 1871. _The Descent of Man, and Selection in The great break in the organic chain between man and his With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to > > > would Ah, well. For me, it is the journey and not so much the destination > > > that make common descent or natural selection false? > > No. > > [SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory" > I found, here, a long list of URLs to earlier posts of yours, no doubt that makes for enjoyment. Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection > I do not consider natural selection to be falsified Are you aware of any lines of evidence _for_ Darwin's theory of > because you could dredge up a quote or ten by Eldredge on the need to revise > the modern synthesis to include puntuated equilibrium, or because you > consider this person or that to "doubt" the modern synthesis. natural selection that you find particularly persuasive? If so, would you mind briefly describing 3 of those better lines of evidence? You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||