"Steven J." <sjt1957NOS...
@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message <news:firstname.lastname@example.org
"david ford" <dfo...
@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:email@example.com
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOS...
@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message <news:firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > 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
> > biologists," while Nietzsche could be described as a "social thinker."
> Ah. I would have assumed that your source meant for "Darwinian" to modify
> "social thinkers" as well as "biologists," but you seem not to understand
> that text in this way.
The ARN text I presented
doesn't mention Huxley, Haeckel, or Nietzsche.
> > > Now, the point has already been raised (surprising seldom in this thread,
> > > 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
That was easy. Well, perhaps too easy.
> The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi
> 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."
[SJ]"everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi ideology"
Does this [SJ]"everything" include Darwin's _Descent of Man_?
Do you think Nazi ideology would have approved of Charles Darwin's
[CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the Caucasian"--
[CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the
world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or Australian," as in
Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]"man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"?
Darwin, Charles. 1871. _The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to Sex_ (1981 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1871
edition), volume one, Chapter VI "Affinities and Genealogy,"
subsection "On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man," the last 3
paragraphs of the subsection, on 200-201:
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may
have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he
probably inhabited a hot country; and this would have been
favourable for a frugiferous [fruit eating] diet, on which,
judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing
how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarhine
stock; but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as
the Eocene period; for the higher apes had diverged from
the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period, as
shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also
quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high
or low in the scale, may under favourable circumstances be
modified: we know, however, that some have retained the
same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what
we see going on under domestication, we learn that within
the same period some of the co-descendants of the same
species may be not at all changed, some a little, and some
greatly changed. Thus it may have been with man, who has
undergone a great amount of modification in certain
characters in comparison with the higher apes.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his
nearest allies [i.e. "the gorilla and chimpanzee"-199],
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, convinced by general reasons, believe
in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly
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 Lemuridie-- between the elephant and in a more
striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or
Echidna, and other mammals. But all 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 civilised races of man will almost
certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,^16 will no doubt
be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state,
as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low
as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or
Australian and the gorilla.
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to
connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay
much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. Lyell's
discussion,^17 in which he shews that in all the vertebrate
classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an
extremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be
forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to
afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like
creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.
> > > would
> > > that make common descent or natural selection false?
> > No.
> > [SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory"
> > The theory of natural selection has been falsified. Ref:
> > Synthetic Euphoria URLs
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291601.455e9ae%40posti...
> I found, here, a long list of URLs to earlier posts of yours, no doubt
> regaling the reader with assorted mined quotes. Nothing really seemed, on
> the basis of your descriptions of these quote-mining expeditions, to be
> worth actually reading.
Ah, well. For me, it is the journey and not so much the destination
that makes for enjoyment.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> I do not consider natural selection to be falsified
> 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.
Are you aware of any lines of evidence _for_ Darwin's theory of
natural selection that you find particularly persuasive? If so, would
you mind briefly describing 3 of those better lines of evidence?