Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

[Steady Eddie]

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999


Abstract

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.

Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'.

...

Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal)
theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social
Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6
Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps,
and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary
reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social
Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

[RonO]

Dueling similar publications:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U6WMXyYDyLQJ:www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Word Document:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc.

This guy's beef is with the Catholic Church and how they persecuted
other Christians, so it is likely as biased as Eddie's stupidity.

QUOTE:
For two or three centuries, many Protestants have given figures
concerning the total number of people killed directly or indirectly by
the Papacy during the Middle Ages. The numbers given include 50
million, 68 million, 100 million, 120 million, and 150 million. Roman
Catholics typically give much smaller numbers.
END QUOTE:

The death toll was likely much higher than Eddie's example, but you are
talking about centuries of having that power over others. This guy
doesn't count the Crusades because it wasn't Christians killing Christians.

Are we going to bring up Christian Neo Nazis and the Klan? Humans can be
stupid Eddie. It is a fact of human existence.

What Eddie actually needs is some science to back up his alternative.
Why doesn't he put up the science that tells him that the Bible is wrong
about when the sun and moon were created? Then he can try and explain
the rest of it that doesn't match up with reality.

What you really need is science as good as what you claim isn't good
enough. Since you don't have any, what is your beef?

What do you get in the switch scam from the ID perps?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Is this your opinion as well?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Steady Eddie]

This is not an opinion; it's simple documented fact.
Why, do you disagree with any of the facts cited?

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 21:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>This is not an opinion; it's simple documented fact.
>Why, do you disagree with any of the facts cited?

What do you think is the one "fact" your cut-and-paste illustrates?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Aside from snarky one liners are Steady, Glenn, or Otangelo capable of
independent thought of their own? Say what you may about Ray, but he at
least puts at least several unique sentences together in a seemingly
meaningful way. His thoughts are indeed unique.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even if that is accurate, what is the significance of it? Do you
think, for example, that the Internet is evil because some people use
it to attack religion ?

[ori...@fake.com]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

Another cut and paste job from the laughing cavalier.

Now, Eddie, what do you conclude from the citation?

I want to help you, because you've shown in the past a remarkable
inability to develop the substance of any of your citations. An empty
'laugh out loud' is hardly adequate.

I'm going to give you a parallel to your quote.

"J.Bloggs and co. is a firm that specialises in kitchen utensils and
in particular kitchen knives. John Smith stabbed his wife to death
using a Bloggs knife."

Now Eddie, try to control your laughing out loud for a little while,
and ask yourself how much blame can be laid at the door of J.Bloggs
for John Smith's actions?

Now I know from my knowledge of your contributions here that it will
be very difficult for you to try to think about the parallel, let
alone respond, but go on, risk a headache!

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

It is my burden to embolden the weak-minded to a higher level of
cognitive endeavor.

[Burkhard]

Steady Eddie wrote:
> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>
> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>
> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.

Right. And farmers knew about this for how many millennia before Darwin?

<snip>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Good luck with that.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:31:20 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Of course, in the process of inbreeding successive generations of
cattle to fix preferred features, they also created creatures as dumb
as rocks, a poor example of the benefits of eugenics IMO.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:21:56 -0400, *Hemidactylus*

They call me a cockeyed optimist.

[Burkhard]

Indeed. And that's the thing: The ToE tells you that over time, the
environment makes sure the proper traits (relative for this environment)
are preserved anyway - no meddling, panning or goal directed agency
needed, or, as your point shows, indeed welcome.

Eugenics, and the Nazis in particular, believed of course precisely that
NS was not enough, and the their master race had to be intelligently
designed through goal driven, teleological action.

[Steady Eddie]

Why did Darwinism in Germany lead to mass slaughter, and Darwinism in the UK and USA did not?

"It is by now an acadernic commonplace to observe that national socialism was a crude social Darwinism.
This "Rumpelstiltskin effect" assumes that by naming something one has explained it and has it under
control. It is not so simple. True, Nazism was a form of social Darwinism. That correct assertion, however,
explains little, as there is no reason inherent in Darwin's thought that required as a logical consequence
the extermination of millions of human beings. Darwin's ideas have been appIied (misappIied?) in a variety
of ways. All manner of liberal thinkers have appropriated Darwin to find, at last, a scientific foundation for
the liberal beIief in progress, democratic egalitarian socialism, and an altruistic ethic of human soIidarity.
Marx himself viewed Darwin's work as confirmation by the naturaI sciences of his own views, and even
Mao Tse-tung regarded Darwin, as presented by the German Darwinists, as the foundation of Chinese
scientific sociaIism (Mehnert 1977). How did Darwinism in Germany become the foundation for national
socialism?

"It is instructive to recall the full tit1e of Darwin's revolutionary work of 1859: On the Origin of Species by
means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. There are, thus,
two basic ideas: the idea of evolution and the idea of selection. Darwinism seems to combine within one
theory an idea of an overall pattern or cohesion in the evolution or development of allife forms with an
idea, that all species "have evolved through a natural selection of vanous, offspring through a competitive
struggle for life. Fitness, then, results from the chance interrelationships among vast numbers of
possibilities wherein some are selected ; and some rejected on the basis of an ability for surviving, and
reproducing in a given environment at a given time.

"It is obvious that any teleological or transcendent-dualistic notions are an unscientific intrusion into
Darwin's account of life on earth. Nevertheless, the liberal social Darwinism of the English focused on
evolution to the neglect of selection. For men like Herbert Spencer, there was, via the organic analogy, an
almost automatic evolution in a progressive direction. The basic competition among individuals became a
virtual guarantee of inevitable progress in ethics, politics, and civilization in general. It is, of course, now
widely recognized that this "Darwinism" of English liberal, rational capitalism and individualism was an
ideology in search of scientific legitimacy rather than science supporting an ideology. German social
Darwinism, while even a greater misappropriation of science than English and American social Darwinism,
was, curiously enough, more faithful to the fullness of Darwin' s scientific views.

"The core idea of Darwinism was not evolution, but selection. Evolution is a completely neutral word which
describes the resu1ts of selection. Selection, to which values are irrelevant, results in evolution. English
social Darwinism, as it were, had it backwards. Darwin's insight was rather that "success" or the
"preservation of favoured races" is the result of biological "fitness" in the living conditions of a given time
and place; there is no equation of survival and progress in Darwin. The Germans, who focused on selection
and the "struggle," or Kampf as it was translated, were closer to the radical insight of Darwin's efforts. "

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Stein2.htm

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

True to form, Eddie fails to engage in discussing the substance of
his citation.

He uses his citations like the victim of a vampire uses a religious
symbol, to ward off what he regards as evil, and if the first one
doesn't work, he tries another.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if he actually started to discuss the
substance of his citations. But I won't hold my breath.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Ernest Major]

Will you take your Nazi apologia elsewhere.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

When did you stop beating your wife?

>
> "It is by now an acadernic commonplace

Not really. Some people who know as little about history as they do
about biology repeat it, but that makes it neither common place, even
less true,

to observe that national socialism was a crude social Darwinism.
> This "Rumpelstiltskin effect" assumes that by naming something one has explained it and has it under
> control. It is not so simple. True, Nazism was a form of social Darwinism. That correct assertion, however,
> explains little, as there is no reason inherent in Darwin's thought that required as a logical consequence
> the extermination of millions of human beings. Darwin's ideas have been appIied (misappIied?) in a variety
> of ways. All manner of liberal thinkers have appropriated Darwin to find, at last, a scientific foundation for
> the liberal beIief in progress,

a goal directed process, which really does not fit into evolutinary biology

democratic egalitarian socialism, and an altruistic ethic of human
soIidarity.
> Marx himself viewed Darwin's work as confirmation by the naturaI sciences of his own views, and even
> Mao Tse-tung regarded Darwin, as presented by the German Darwinists, as the foundation of Chinese
> scientific sociaIism (Mehnert 1977). How did Darwinism in Germany become the foundation for national
> socialism?

How indeed, since if you were to apply it to any theory of economy, free
market capitalism is the one that shares the most similarities. And for
good historical reasons of course, after all Darwin first studied in
Edinburgh where Smith and his theory dominated intellectual life, and
thus unsurprisingly cites him a few times in his books.

Statist schoosl of economy, including socialism and fascism, think that
there is a need for intelligent design of the economy, by a central
planner. Free market models by contrast argue that from a multitude of
uncoordinated interactions, order emerges spontaneously. No need for a
central planner or intelligent designer, just the invisible hand of the
market, a.k.a. natural selection: if a product is not bought, the
company gets extinct (bankrupt), and to remain competitive, it has to
refine its products more and more (adapt) to changing environmental
conditions (fashions). Each actor only acts on their limited interest
(cf "selfish gene") and nonetheless, the result is optimization for
everybody, where products get better and better over time,and resource
allocation more and more efficient.

The exact opposite of course to both the older mercantilism that Smith
attacked, and to the later statist models from both left and right which
are based like Nazism on central (forward) planning

>
> "It is instructive to recall the full tit1e of Darwin's revolutionary work of 1859: On the Origin of Species by
> means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. There are, thus,
> two basic ideas: the idea of evolution and the idea of selection.

Eh, no? One is a part of the other, that does nto make them two ideas

Darwinism seems to combine within one
> theory an idea of an overall pattern or cohesion in the evolution or development of allife forms with an
> idea, that all species "have evolved through a natural selection of vanous, offspring through a competitive
> struggle for life. Fitness, then, results from the chance interrelationships among vast numbers of
> possibilities wherein some are selected ; and some rejected on the basis of an ability for surviving, and
> reproducing in a given environment at a given time.

OK so far

>
> "It is obvious that any teleological or transcendent-dualistic notions are an unscientific intrusion into
> Darwin's account of life on earth. Nevertheless, the liberal social Darwinism of the English focused on
> evolution to the neglect of selection.

since this would be a self contradiction, as per the above, the more
obvious solution is that what he calls here "evolution" is simply not
evolution as Darwin described it, but has its roots in the mid 18th
century romanticist idea of society as a living organism, which became a
mainstay of conservative thought in response to the French revolution.
Nothing to to with Darwin, and considerably older.

For men like Herbert Spencer, there was, via the organic analogy, an
> almost automatic evolution in a progressive direction. The basic competition among individuals became a
> virtual guarantee of inevitable progress in ethics, politics, and civilization in general. It is, of course, now
> widely recognized that this "Darwinism" of English liberal, rational capitalism and individualism was an
> ideology in search of scientific legitimacy rather than science supporting an ideology. German social
> Darwinism, while even a greater misappropriation of science than English and American social Darwinism,
> was, curiously enough, more faithful to the fullness of Darwin' s scientific views.
>
> "The core idea of Darwinism was not evolution, but selection.

as nonsensical as saying "The core idea of physics are not forces, but
gravity"

Evolution is a completely neutral word which
> describes the resu1ts of selection. Selection, to which values are irrelevant, results in evolution. English
> social Darwinism, as it were, had it backwards. Darwin's insight was rather that "success" or the
> "preservation of favoured races" is the result of biological "fitness" in the living conditions of a given time
> and place; there is no equation of survival and progress in Darwin. The Germans, who focused on selection
> and the "struggle," or Kampf as it was translated, were closer to the radical insight of Darwin's efforts. "

This is exceedingly odd. The previous paragraphs simply suffer fro
ahistorical equivocations, in this one the second part directly
contradicts the first
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Stein2.htm
>

[Steady Eddie]

Truth a little painful?

[Bill Rogers]

Not sure what you mean. Even if it were the case that a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution were a major motivator for Hitler, what does that have to do with the accuracy of the theory? Is the theory of relativity incorrect because people used it to build nuclear weapons? Wait, that's not even a good parallel, because building the bomb at least required correctly understanding the theory. A better analogy would be if some tyrant justified mass murder by saying "Einstein proved everything is relative, so mass murder is only wrong relative to some, but not all, contexts." And then you tried to argue that the theory of relativity was incorrect because it had been used to justify mass murder.

And, as far as eugenics goes, Hitler could (and did) find justification for eugenics in the Spartan practice of infanticide of apparently weak newborns. No need for misunderstood Darwinism at all. And if he'd read Plato, he could have tried to justify his Aryan breeding program from the Republic.

But you've answered no other arguments in this thread. So my guess is that you think that finding some text that puts Hitler and Darwin in the same paragraph and cutting and pasting it here disproves the theory of evolution.

[August Rode]

Tell me something, Ed... do you think that an idea should be held responsible for misinterpretations or misapplications of that idea?

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Will you take your Nazi apologia elsewhere.
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>Truth a little painful?

IDiots often conflate Truth with propaganda.
--

[jillery]

Since Steadly bothered not to actually make a point, one is forced to
assume he actually has a point, and then guess what that point might
be. Still, if one further assumes that his point here has some
relevance to his previous posts where he mentions Hitler, it would be
more consistent if his point here is not about the veracity of ToE,
but instead that Social Darwinism is a logical extension of ToE.
--

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:88dc3884-177c-4694...@googlegroups.com...

"Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world."
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13230.xml

[August Rode]

In your own words, Glenn, what do you think the paragraph you just quoted is saying?

[eridanus]

that one was very good.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
For some reason, the tactic of feigning stupidity when faced with a direct contradiction of your views
seems oh so popular with the Darwinists on this NG.

Reminds me of the reaction of Charlie, Jonny Depp'a character in Charlie and the Chocolate factory when
contradicted:

"MUMBLER! I can't understand you!"

[Steady Eddie]

Nice point:
OF COURSE social Darwinism is a logical extension of ToE.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 08:07:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by August Rode
<aug....@gmail.com>:

Optimist.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:28:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

Unfortunately, I've actually seen that argument used for
exactly that purpose, as "cultural relativism".

> And then you tried to argue that the theory of relativity was incorrect because it had been used to justify mass murder.
>
>And, as far as eugenics goes, Hitler could (and did) find justification for eugenics in the Spartan practice of infanticide of apparently weak newborns. No need for misunderstood Darwinism at all. And if he'd read Plato, he could have tried to justify his Aryan breeding program from the Republic.
>
>But you've answered no other arguments in this thread. So my guess is that you think that finding some text that puts Hitler and Darwin in the same paragraph and cutting and pasting it here disproves the theory of evolution.

Seems so...

[August Rode]

I'm not feigning stupidity, Ed. I would *never* dream of trespassing on your bailiwick.

What I've noticed about people like you and Glenn is that you'll quote something that superficially looks like it supports some position that you hold but doesn't actually do so. It's as though you can't see past the words to the underlying meaning and the best way of uncovering this is to understand what it is that *you* think the quote means. Sadly, you don't generally know what the quote means and at some level, you *know* that you don't know which is likely why you will *never* express something that you've quoted *in your own words*.

To illustrate, sometimes the quote above is used as justification that Darwin believed that European civilizations *ought* to wipe out "less civilized" societies. However, the quote never says that. Darwin's words are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not remotely clear to me that people like you and Glenn understand that. Hence, I asked.

> Reminds me of the reaction of Charlie, Jonny Depp'a character in Charlie and the Chocolate factory when
> contradicted:
>
> "MUMBLER! I can't understand you!"

Thank you for that insight into your mentality.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

"The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.

"The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).

Ray

[Steady Eddie]

Maybe you should put that in your own words for August.
He's not too quick on the uptake.

[Steady Eddie]

Okay, let's break this down into little pieces that you might be able to understand.

August, what did Darwin mean when he said:

"Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit."

Can you put that in your own words?

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, you should notice that the quotation you have provided is not relevant to the point Burkhard was making. But to notice that you have to actually think about arguments, rather than just trying to find text you can copy and paste that links Darwinism, science, and Hitler.

[J. J. Lodder]

Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

[snip garbage]

Ah, Easter, time for the usual round of excuses and blame shifting.

The Holocaust is -the- christian crime.
Hitler (a Roman Catholic) merely put into practice
what popes had been preaching for 1800 years,
and protestants, following Luther, for 400 years.

Anti-semitism was (and in places still is)
deeply ingrained in all christian societies.
Even if tolerated Jews were second-rate citizens at best,

Jan

[Bill Rogers]

Can you explain in your own words why what Darwin said matters to the correctness of the theory of evolution?

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ef6fb349-74f6-4d95...@googlegroups.com...

I doubt he thinks it is a direct contradiction of his views, but rather that he can't make it read the way he wants it to, so he'd rather attack what he thinks my opinion is.

[August Rode]

Did you miss where I'd already commented on the paragraph that contains this sentence above? Is there a particular reason why you'd like me to comment on this sentence stripped of its context?

[Burkhard]

so suddenly Hitler IS telling the truth, and in a public speech to boot?
Consistency never has been your forte, has it?

[jillery]

Once again you show your lack of reading comprehension. For one to
ask another what they think doesn't imply the asker shows stupidity,
either feigned or real. To the contrary, you are the final authority
on what you think.

And when you don't say what you think, it's reasonable to ask you what
you think.

And when you refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable to conclude
that you have no idea what you think.

And when you repeatedly refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable
to come to that conclusion as soon as possible.

--

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a1b4605b-764d-4990...@googlegroups.com...

"The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.
Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted."

https://books.google.com/books?id=eTfRotZTXI0C&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=Man,+like+every+other+animal,+has+no+doubt&source=bl&ots=rZ39JUW_X8&sig=AB6K4SOfdcF4rELA8rG-a_3iKQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjws8b0mOTLAhWIm5QKHYG5CaYQ6AEILTAF#v=onepage&q=Man%2C%20like%20every%20other%20animal%2C%20has%20no%20doubt&f=false

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0d1fb00-9485-41be...@googlegroups.com...

Can you explain in Darwin's words why the Darwin quotes in this thread matters to the correctness of Darwin's theory of evolution?

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 27 March 2016 07:33:00 UTC-6, Burkhard wrote:
> Steady Eddie wrote:
> > Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
> >
> > by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
> >
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
> >
> > Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.
>
> Right. And farmers knew about this for how many millennia before Darwin?
>
> <snip>

' ... modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton's ideas on eugenics--and it was he who created the term "eugenics"--were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.'

Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bc1jfbtii95mdst6u...@4ax.com...

It is reasonable to think you are a loon for using that logic.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f5bb668e-29a6-49ee...@googlegroups.com...

LOL!

[Bill Rogers]

Yeah, if it happened before the 19th century it was pre-modern eugenics. So what?

[Bill Rogers]

No. Because they don't.

[Burkhard]

and for the reason I gave, totally unconvincing. Farmers knew about
selective breeding, and every drill sergeant since the Spartans about
the selective effect of boot camps - per aspera da astra, and all that.

[jillery]

Once again you show your incredible lack of reading comprehension. Or
perhaps you just conveniently ignored the relevant distinction: what
do YOU think Darwin means when he said...

>"Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit."
>
>Can you put that in your own words?

Well, can you?
--

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>
> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>

> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'.
>
> ...
>
> Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal)
> theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social
> Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6
> Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps,
> and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary
> reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social
> Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10
>
> https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

That's a favorite of evolution deniers/haters.

The real problem is that all of the major economic/political systems of
the early 20th century have a "social darwinist" flavor. The laissez faire
capitalism of the US (Adam Smith and the invisible hand) is an example,
Naziism is an example, and the Soviet version of Lamarckian evolution promulgated by Lysenko.

Big deal. Evolution is not a political theory, it is the theory of the
origin of species in biology, nothing more.

The Lysenkoists were barking up the wrong tree with the notion that organisms
would acquire traits. The Soviets killed their farming industry with lysenkoism,
but it was popular because it fit with the Soviet ideal of being able to
create the perfect worker society. That forcing people to live in the deprivation of the Marxist ideal of no private ownership, and "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs", the species would change into the perfect Marxist humans.

The laissez faire capitalists could not foresee that there is a place for
big government, government regulation, and an active public sector interaction
with the economy.

And finally the Nazis were wrong, because population fitness is measured by
the diversity of the population, and that fitness would be the genetic
diversity of the individuals within the species. Instead of a monoculture
inbred "master race" it would be a pack of mongrels that would be the ideal.
Had the Nazis understood population genetics and its relation to evolution,
they would have been having children with the Jews and Gypsies, and would
have been promoting the intermarriage of the races. The would have been looking
for cultural diversity. It would have been a rainbow coalition, not an
attempt to create a blue-eyed blond "master race" which, in reality is less
fit.

-John
a

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:59:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>I doubt he thinks it is a direct contradiction of his views, but rather that he can't make it read the way he wants it to, so he'd rather attack what he thinks my opinion is.

That is a logical consequence and likely outcome of refusing to state
your opinion explicitly.
--

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>OF COURSE social Darwinism is a logical extension of ToE.

Saying it's so over and over doesn't make it so. Refusing to actually
make a case suggests you're just blowing smoke.
--

[jillery]

That's actually an excellent suggestion, even though my impression is
you think you're being snarky.

[RAM]

Below a professional review of Evans book (The Third Reich in Power: 1933-1939):

Begin Quote

The story of the German people -- Evans's real subject -- does not lend itself to drama as easily as the story of Hitler and his henchmen, especially when hundreds of dry scholarly tomes stand between the historian and his cast of characters. He enlivens his narrative by drawing on diaries like that of Luise Solmitz of Hamburg, whose enthusiasm for the new order was dampened by the growing discrimination her family faced because her husband was, by official definition, a Jew. Along with other wavering Nazis, she remained faithful to the cause by assuring herself all would be well if only Hitler knew of the abuses perpetrated in his name.

In contrast to many other writers, Evans does not pretend that these vignettes can unlock the secrets of the Third Reich. But when he turns to the larger areas of politics, economics and ideology, his book becomes more demanding. In order to understand the lives of people grappling with forces beyond their control, we are asked to comprehend what they could not.

Evans is better at sustaining a dramatic narrative in the last sections, which return to the most familiar events of the period. First comes the growing persecution of Germany's Jews, culminating in orchestrated nationwide violence on the "night of broken glass" in 1938. Evans vividly portrays the exhilaration of hard-core Nazis at this event, as well as the shock felt by many bystanders, who could not imagine that much worse was soon to come. He places Nazi anti-Semitism in the context of the Reich's broader ambitions for racial purity, which justified the persecution of homosexuals, the disabled and Gypsies, among others. But he argues that no twisted logic of pseudoscientific eugenics can explain the Nazis' obsession with the Jews.

The final chapter turns to the unfolding plans for war, as the Nazis dismantled what was left of the World War I peace settlement, and Europe proved unable to unite against them. Here Hitler comes to center stage, bullying his sometimes reluctant generals, berating and deceiving foreign leaders, and pushing aside his more seasoned diplomats in favor of the suave but fanatical Joachim von Ribbentrop.

For most of the book, however, the Leader (Evans prefers to translate and thus demystify German words like "Führer") remains in the background, which is precisely where he lurked in the minds and lives of most Germans. Evans avoids the weakness of too many histories of the Third Reich, which become virtual biographies of Hitler, with ordinary Germans appearing either as victims of Himmler's terror or as mindless vessels of Goebbels's propaganda. Instead, he presents a story with few heroes and too many colorless villains -- a fuller and truer picture of the Third Reich, but a less gripping one than Shirer's.

End Quote (by Brian Ladd reviewer and the author of "The Ghosts of Berlin" and "The Companion Guide to Berlin.")

RAM

[August Rode]

What's wrong with the logic, Glenn? Be specific. Here's a free clue for
you... there is something wrong with it but I doubt you could identify
it. For what it's worth, I think the conclusions are correct. You and Ed
have no idea what you think if you don't read it somewhere else first.
You then quote from external materials things that look superficially
good but which you never validate and categorically fail to understand.
You then avoid discussing those materials, making it appear that you
don't understand what you're talking about. You do this time and time
and time again.

If I want to know what you think, who should I ask? If you won't tell me
what you think, what conclusion ought I to draw from that?

[August Rode]

I can't guess what goes on in your mind unless you explicitly tell me.
If that's what you mean, then you're correct. If you mean anything else,
then it would be worth your remembering that your uptake is seriously
crippled.

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3379b972-1efc-496d...@googlegroups.com...

You speak for Darwin on this, do you?

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ndcdmt$f2g$1...@dont-email.me...

Any one you wish.

[Davej]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:08:04 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
> ...the Nazi Race Holocaust


Yeah, exterminate those nasty Jews who killed innocent baby Jebus!

[Steady Eddie]

LOL! You are ignorant of both Darwinism and history.

[Steady Eddie]

We are not stating our opinion - we are stating the "opinion" of experts in the field.
Our opinion is of no more value than yours in a factual discussion.

[Bill Rogers]

I thought it pretty clear that I was speaking for myself. You know, when you said "So can you explain in Darwin's words..." and I said "No."

[Glenn]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:31065e3e-780d-45de...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:31:20 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >>> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>> >>>
>> >>> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Abstract
>> >>>
>> >>> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.
>> >>
>> >> Right. And farmers knew about this for how many millennia before Darwin?
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course, in the process of inbreeding successive generations of
>> > cattle to fix preferred features, they also created creatures as dumb
>> > as rocks, a poor example of the benefits of eugenics IMO.
>> > --
>>
>> Indeed. And that's the thing: The ToE tells you that over time, the
>> environment makes sure the proper traits (relative for this environment)
>> are preserved anyway - no meddling, panning or goal directed agency
>> needed, or, as your point shows, indeed welcome.
>>
>> Eugenics, and the Nazis in particular, believed of course precisely that
>> NS was not enough, and the their master race had to be intelligently
>> designed through goal driven, teleological action.
>

> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> "The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).
>

That Nazi beliefs come from Hitler does not make social Darwinism science.

"The paper considers the position of the historian Richard J. Evans, who has rejected interpretations of social Darwinism as scientific and medical discourse."
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1456288

[Steady Eddie]

Glenn's opinion, and mine, are irrelevant to the question of Darwinism's involvement in the Nazi holocaust.
And so are your attempts to bully us with your ad-hominem ad-nausea.

[Steady Eddie]

This thread is not about what goes on in my mind - it's about the historical record of the Nazi pogrom's
reliance on Darwinism.

You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.

I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
Just humorous.

[Steady Eddie]

Hey, doorknob, get a clue;
This thread is not about the correctness of Darwinism, but its effects.

[August Rode]

It's about *your* interpretation of your sources.

I asked you a question elsewhere that you never answered. I'll ask it again:

Do you think that an idea should be held
responsible for all misinterpretations or
misapplications of that idea?

> You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.

Here's a fact. Eugenics is a misapplication of natural selection.
Natural selection is *not* prescriptive but eugenics is.

> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.

Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
else over the internet.

> Just humorous.

[wdm...@verizon.net]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-4, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>
> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>

> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'.
>
> ...
>
> Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal)
> theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social
> Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6
> Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps,
> and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary
> reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social
> Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10
>
> https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

Hitler espoused Christianity as the basis for his claims;

People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler's henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .

Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler's "evil" have eliminated Hitler's god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


So Hitler misused evolution and Christianity. This has zero relevance for the validity of either.

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aaa5b760-6342-471f...@googlegroups.com...

So "they" is your words, that you didn't say?

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ndcouk$cmh$1...@dont-email.me...

That's your unsupported opinion, not a fact, and irrelevant to whether the Nazi's were influenced by Darwinism. You probably didn't even think about referring to what Darwin considered natural selection.

>
>> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
>
> Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
> else over the internet.
>

Is that right, fact boy?

>> Just humorous.
>

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 28 March 2016 16:02:56 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:59:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I doubt he thinks it is a direct contradiction of his views, but rather that he can't make it read the way he wants it to, so he'd rather attack what he thinks my opinion is.
>>
>>
>> That is a logical consequence and likely outcome of refusing to state
>> your opinion explicitly.
>

>We are not stating our opinion - we are stating the "opinion" of experts in the field.
>Our opinion is of no more value than yours in a factual discussion.

BZZT! What you and Glenn are doing is to cut-and-paste snippets of
opinions of other persons, which may or may not accurately reflect
their actual opinions. IF they did, and IF this was about THEIR
opinions, then your statement above might be true.

But this isn't about THEIR opinions. Read for comprehension Glenn's
statement; "...what he thinks my opinion is." THEIR opinions are
relevant here IF AND ONLY IF they relate to Glenn's opinion.

It's reasonable to assume Glenn thinks those snippets are relevant,
else he wouldn't cut-and-paste them. But no one else can say one way
or the other, because no one knows what Glenn's opinion is, because,
as you admit above, he hasn't stated it. Apparently even Glenn
doesn't know what Glenn's opinion is.

And since you mention it, this topic isn't about facts, like the
boiling point of water at STP. Instead it's about opinions, and
opinions of opinions, and how and which facts support them.

And even IF the topic was about the facts of THEIR opinions, you and
Glenn haven't established your ability to even recognize THEIR
opinions. To the contrary, your behavior strongly suggests you and
Glenn have no idea what THEIR opinions are.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own
facts.

[jillery]

OTOH I find your attempts to avoid making your case downright
hysterical, in every sense of the word.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hey, doorknob, get a clue;
>This thread is not about the correctness of Darwinism, but its effects.

There's the problem; your OPINION of the effects of Darwinism doesn't
fit the FACTS.
--

[Glenn]

<wdm...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:2d17f613-35b2-4ad7...@googlegroups.com...

What Hitler used or misused has no relevance for the validity of anything, and Darwinism and Christianity are not analogs.

Get off that tired old argument that Hitler was a Christian and that Christianity was the basis for his claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

[Steady Eddie]

1922? Seriously?

What did Hitler REALLY think of religion?

Hitler's Table Talk is a series of informal, private conversations among Hitler and his closest associates, as recorded by Martin Bormann. The ex tempore remarks excerpted above are from July 1941 to June 1942, most late at night or in early morning:

"
What a happy inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the Party! On the 21st March, 1933, at Potsdam, the question was raised: with the Church, or without the Church? I conquered the State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds. On that day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at that period I'd made a pact with the Churches, I'd today be sharing the lot of The Duce. By nature The Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I'd have taken the path of revolution. I'd have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out -- reserving the right to apologize later: 'Excuse me, it was a mistake!' But the result would have been, they'd have been outside!
When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only Folk who are immunized against the disease."

...

"It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German Folk should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which -- particularly in conjunction with the German characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation -- as often as not turned them into religious maniacs."

...

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. THE DOGMA OF CHRISTIANITY GETS WORN AWAY BEFORE THE ADVANCES OF SCIENCE. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. ALL THAT'S LEFT IS TO PROVE THAT IN NATURE THERE IS NO FRONTIER BETWEEN THE ORGANIC AND THE INORGANIC. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE WILL BE CONVICTED OF ABSURDITY."

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4arjfb1h3qevi70ds...@4ax.com...

And the same to you, strongly.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:djrjfbdnu0a2lvip8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey, doorknob, get a clue;
>>This thread is not about the correctness of Darwinism, but its effects.
>
>
> There's the problem; your OPINION of the effects of Darwinism doesn't
> fit the FACTS.
> --

Your claim to facts is only your OPINION, strongly.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:27:47 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

So which of you two is the sockpuppet? Or are both you and Steadly
sockpuppets of another nic?

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:26:49 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Unlike you and Steadly, I claim no special privileges. So instead of
just trolling with some ambiguous gibberish like you do above, right
here would have been a good place for you to explicitly and clearly
state your objection against me AND back it up in a way that can be
verified by anybody reading your post. That you didn't strongly
suggests you're still blowing smoke out of your puckered sphincter,
strongly.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fp7kfblds06p8g8mm...@4ax.com...

You're boring.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bl7kfblil7p6jkhdg...@4ax.com...

You say I don't claim anything.

[Steady Eddie]

Now would be a good time for you to state what special privileges I claim...
just sayin'

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 08:37:34 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
><1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>>
>>by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>>
>>
>>Abstract
>>
>>Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>>
>>Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'.
>>
>>...
>>
>>Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal)
>>theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social
>>Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6
>>Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps,
>>and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary
>>reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social
>>Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10
>>
>>https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/
>

>Even if that is accurate, what is the significance of it? Do you
>think, for example, that the Internet is evil because some people use
>it to attack religion ?

No resposnse to this, Eddie? It seems to go to the heart of what you
are suggesting.

[Bill Rogers]

Well, it's hard to know what this thread is about, since you just cut and paste other people's thoughts. We're left guessing what sort of argument, if any, you might be trying to make. It looked like you were trying to suggest that one should not accept Darwinism on the grounds that Hitler had used a (greatly misunderstood) view of Darwinism to justify his program.

But, since you are *not* claiming that Darwinism is false because you have associated it with Hitler, then, no problem.

When you get done discussing the negative effects of Darwinism, you might go on to discuss the negative effects of other ideas and scientific theories, monotheism, gunpowder, internal combustion, special and general relativity, the idea that blood transfusion is so immoral that you should let a kid bleed out rather than give him a transfusion.

[August Rode]

Glenn, neither you nor Tweedledum have made an effort to answer the question I posed just above. I haven't asked you to do so yet but I'm doing so now. Please answer it.

> >> You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.
> >
> > Here's a fact. Eugenics is a misapplication of natural selection.
> > Natural selection is *not* prescriptive but eugenics is.
>
> That's your unsupported opinion, not a fact,

Wrong, Glenn. *All* scientific theories are explanatory frameworks and that makes them all descriptive. *None* of them are prescriptive. The theory of evolution tells us why populations of organisms change over time; it does *not* tell us that we ought to take active steps to direct the evolution of the human species in specific, arbitrary directions. The theory of gravity (assuming there is such a beast) explains why things fall; it doesn't suggest to us that we should toss our "undesirables" off of high buildings.

> and irrelevant to whether the Nazi's were influenced by Darwinism. You probably didn't even think about referring to what Darwin considered natural selection.

Would it make a difference to you if I did? Somehow I don't think so and I'm not keen to waste my time digging out references that you're just going to ignore. Give me some indication that you will pay attention to it and I'll reconsider.

> >> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
> >
> > Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
> > else over the internet.
> >
> Is that right, fact boy?

Why, yes. Yes, it is, Tweedledee.

> >> Just humorous.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7321eb4c-467e-4d6f...@googlegroups.com...

Seems I've ennobled you to some extent by not playing by your rules. I particularly like your pretend civility toward "Tweedlee". LOL.

>
>> >> You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.
>> >
>> > Here's a fact. Eugenics is a misapplication of natural selection.
>> > Natural selection is *not* prescriptive but eugenics is.
>>
>> That's your unsupported opinion, not a fact,
>
> Wrong, Glenn. *All* scientific theories are explanatory frameworks and that makes them all descriptive. *None* of them are prescriptive. The theory of evolution tells us why populations of organisms change over time; it does *not* tell us that we ought to take active steps to direct the evolution of the human species in specific, arbitrary directions. The theory of gravity (assuming there is such a beast) explains why things fall; it doesn't suggest to us that we should toss our "undesirables" off of high buildings.

Let's see...If it is a fact that eugenics is a misapplication, and there are no applications of scientific theories, then is your fact a missaplication of a statement of fact? You may have noticed that I have not claimed natural selection is prescriptive, since I have not provided an opinion in my own words, in your own words.

>
>> and irrelevant to whether the Nazi's were influenced by Darwinism. You probably didn't even think about referring to what Darwin considered natural selection.
>
> Would it make a difference to you if I did? Somehow I don't think so and I'm not keen to waste my time digging out references that you're just going to ignore. Give me some indication that you will pay attention to it and I'll reconsider.

That is funny. Did you miss my reference to Darwin talking about certain people not marrying? I believe he used the same word you use,
"ought". Perhaps you were hoping I really don't understand what I quote.

>
>> >> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
>> >
>> > Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
>> > else over the internet.
>> >
>> Is that right, fact boy?
>
> Why, yes. Yes, it is, Tweedledee.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

Revaluate what you consider claiming are facts.

[August Rode]

Is this your way of refusing to answer my question?

> >> >> You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.
> >> >
> >> > Here's a fact. Eugenics is a misapplication of natural selection.
> >> > Natural selection is *not* prescriptive but eugenics is.
> >>
> >> That's your unsupported opinion, not a fact,
> >
> > Wrong, Glenn. *All* scientific theories are explanatory frameworks and that makes them all descriptive. *None* of them are prescriptive. The theory of evolution tells us why populations of organisms change over time; it does *not* tell us that we ought to take active steps to direct the evolution of the human species in specific, arbitrary directions. The theory of gravity (assuming there is such a beast) explains why things fall; it doesn't suggest to us that we should toss our "undesirables" off of high buildings.
>
> Let's see...If it is a fact that eugenics is a misapplication, and there are no applications of scientific theories, then is your fact a missaplication of a statement of fact? You may have noticed that I have not claimed natural selection is prescriptive, since I have not provided an opinion in my own words, in your own words.

And when you finally do provide an opinion of your own, perhaps then I'll start taking you seriously.

> >> and irrelevant to whether the Nazi's were influenced by Darwinism. You probably didn't even think about referring to what Darwin considered natural selection.
> >
> > Would it make a difference to you if I did? Somehow I don't think so and I'm not keen to waste my time digging out references that you're just going to ignore. Give me some indication that you will pay attention to it and I'll reconsider.
>
> That is funny. Did you miss my reference to Darwin talking about certain people not marrying? I believe he used the same word you use,
> "ought". Perhaps you were hoping I really don't understand what I quote.
> >
> >> >> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
> >> >
> >> > Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
> >> > else over the internet.
> >> >
> >> Is that right, fact boy?
> >
> > Why, yes. Yes, it is, Tweedledee.
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
>
> Revaluate what you consider claiming are facts.

On this, I have definitely made an error. Thank you for pointing that out. Cyberbullying is a real thing. However, having said that, if you look at the definition of cyberbullying at the link that you provided, you'll find that that is *not* what I've been doing. Cyberbullying requires an intention to harm and I have none toward Tweedledum.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:44:20 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Now would be a good time for you to state what special privileges I claim...
>just sayin'

Nope. The special privileges you claim have nothing to do with
Glenn's objections against me or his refusal to back them up.

Apparently you think aping my words make you sound clever. It
doesn't. Here's a clue for you; the clever bit is in comprehending
what the words mean.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:22:44 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>You say I don't claim anything.

Wrong again. You make lots of claims, both explicit and implicit.

[barry...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-4, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>
> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>

> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'.
>
> ...
>
> Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal)
> theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social
> Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6
> Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps,
> and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary
> reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social
> Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10
>
> https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

It's not so much that "Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies," it's that the Nazis distorted the work of Darwin for their own ends. Evolution is the change in allele frequency (inheritable traits) in a population over generations, and the theory of evolution is how we explain this observation via mechanisms such as natural selection and genetic drift. What does any of this have to do with the Nazis? Nothing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:38:59 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bc1jfbtii95mdst6u...@4ax.com...

<snip>

>> ...For one to
>> ask another what they think doesn't imply the asker shows stupidity,
>> either feigned or real. To the contrary, you are the final authority
>> on what you think.
>>
>> And when you don't say what you think, it's reasonable to ask you what
>> you think.
>>
>> And when you refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable to conclude
>> that you have no idea what you think.
>>
>> And when you repeatedly refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable
>> to come to that conclusion as soon as possible.

>It is reasonable to think you are a loon for using that logic.

Exactly how is that logic "loony"? Be specific.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:00:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
><1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>OF COURSE social Darwinism is a logical extension of ToE.

>Saying it's so over and over doesn't make it so. Refusing to actually
>make a case suggests you're just blowing smoke.

It *is* an *expectable* extension; people tend to be
illogical about cherished beliefs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, 28 March 2016 16:02:56 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:59:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I doubt he thinks it is a direct contradiction of his views, but rather that he can't make it read the way he wants it to, so he'd rather attack what he thinks my opinion is.
>>
>>
>> That is a logical consequence and likely outcome of refusing to state
>> your opinion explicitly.

>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

>We are not stating our opinion - we are stating the "opinion" of experts in the field.
>Our opinion is of no more value than yours in a factual discussion.

What "experts", in what field? Be specific, preferably with
cites to the relevant literature; that's how facts enter the
discussion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:12:18 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
><r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:31065e3e-780d-45de...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>> jillery wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:31:20 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >

>>> >> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> >>> Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
>>> >>>
>>> >>> by Dr. Jerry Bergman on November 1, 1999
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Abstract
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.
>>> >>

>>> >> Right. And farmers knew about this for how many millennia before Darwin?
>>> >>
>>> >> <snip>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Of course, in the process of inbreeding successive generations of
>>> > cattle to fix preferred features, they also created creatures as dumb
>>> > as rocks, a poor example of the benefits of eugenics IMO.
>>> > --
>>>
>>> Indeed. And that's the thing: The ToE tells you that over time, the
>>> environment makes sure the proper traits (relative for this environment)
>>> are preserved anyway - no meddling, panning or goal directed agency
>>> needed, or, as your point shows, indeed welcome.
>>>
>>> Eugenics, and the Nazis in particular, believed of course precisely that
>>> NS was not enough, and the their master race had to be intelligently
>>> designed through goal driven, teleological action.
>>
>> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>>
>> "The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).
>>

>That Nazi beliefs come from Hitler does not make social Darwinism science.

Agreed; nothing does.

>"The paper considers the position of the historian Richard J. Evans, who has rejected interpretations of social Darwinism as scientific and medical discourse."
>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1456288

Correct; this point, that "Social Darwinism" as practiced by
the Nazis or anyone else is a perversion of Darwin's work,
has been made repeatedly. So what's your point?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:25:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, 28 March 2016 17:22:57 UTC-6, August Rode wrote:
>> On 3/28/2016 3:07 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > On Monday, 28 March 2016 13:02:58 UTC-6, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >> Ray
>> >
>> > Maybe you should put that in your own words for August.
>> > He's not too quick on the uptake.
>>
>> I can't guess what goes on in your mind unless you explicitly tell me.
>> If that's what you mean, then you're correct. If you mean anything else,
>> then it would be worth your remembering that your uptake is seriously
>> crippled.
>
>This thread is not about what goes on in my mind - it's about the historical record of the Nazi pogrom's
>reliance on Darwinism.

That would be "misplaced, irrelevant and unscientific
reliance". Anyone can pervert anything for their own ends
(take a look at the Inquisition), but that doesn't make the
work wrong, or responsible for the misuse.

>You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.

Perhaps you should read the above and follow your own
advice.

>I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.

>Just humorous.

What "bullying"? Correcting your mistakes?

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:04:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:00:43 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>><1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>OF COURSE social Darwinism is a logical extension of ToE.
>
>>Saying it's so over and over doesn't make it so. Refusing to actually
>>make a case suggests you're just blowing smoke.
>
>It *is* an *expectable* extension; people tend to be
>illogical about cherished beliefs.

I wouldn't describe ToE as any kind of belief, cherished or otherwise.
Instead, I say ToE is to Social Darwinism as Christianity is to
Anti-Semitism. What's expected is that people will use all kinds of
of rationalizations to justfiy their prejudices.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ceaf83f1-9869-48df...@googlegroups.com...

Nope.

>
>> >> >> You should really try growing up and facing the facts; perhaps even bringing facts to bear on the topic.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's a fact. Eugenics is a misapplication of natural selection.
>> >> > Natural selection is *not* prescriptive but eugenics is.
>> >>
>> >> That's your unsupported opinion, not a fact,
>> >
>> > Wrong, Glenn. *All* scientific theories are explanatory frameworks and that makes them all descriptive. *None* of them are prescriptive. The theory of evolution tells us why populations of organisms change over time; it does *not* tell us that we ought to take active steps to direct the evolution of the human species in specific, arbitrary directions. The theory of gravity (assuming there is such a beast) explains why things fall; it doesn't suggest to us that we should toss our "undesirables" off of high buildings.
>>
>> Let's see...If it is a fact that eugenics is a misapplication, and there are no applications of scientific theories, then is your fact a missaplication of a statement of fact? You may have noticed that I have not claimed natural selection is prescriptive, since I have not provided an opinion in my own words, in your own words.
>
> And when you finally do provide an opinion of your own, perhaps then I'll start taking you seriously.

Is that your way of refusing to answer a question? LOL.

>
>> >> and irrelevant to whether the Nazi's were influenced by Darwinism. You probably didn't even think about referring to what Darwin considered natural selection.
>> >
>> > Would it make a difference to you if I did? Somehow I don't think so and I'm not keen to waste my time digging out references that you're just going to ignore. Give me some indication that you will pay attention to it and I'll reconsider.
>>
>> That is funny. Did you miss my reference to Darwin talking about certain people not marrying? I believe he used the same word you > >> use,"ought". Perhaps you were hoping I really don't understand what I quote.

Oopsy. No answer.

>> >
>> >> >> I don't find your attempts at bullying intimidating.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nor should you as I'm not trying to bully you: one cannot bully someone
>> >> > else over the internet.
>> >> >
>> >> Is that right, fact boy?
>> >
>> > Why, yes. Yes, it is, Tweedledee.
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
>>
>> Revaluate what you consider claiming are facts.
>
> On this, I have definitely made an error. Thank you for pointing that out. Cyberbullying is a real thing. However, having said that, if you look at the definition of cyberbullying at the link that you provided, you'll find that that is *not* what I've been doing. Cyberbullying requires an intention to harm and I have none toward Tweedledum.
>

Perhaps when you stop playing stupid games I'll take you seriously. Or not.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:o9dlfb5mq9jolb2n4...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:22:44 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You say I don't claim anything.
>
>
> Wrong again. You make lots of claims, both explicit and implicit.
> --

Head in the sand?

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:hlglfbhqr3310np73...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:38:59 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bc1jfbtii95mdst6u...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>> ...For one to
>>> ask another what they think doesn't imply the asker shows stupidity,
>>> either feigned or real. To the contrary, you are the final authority
>>> on what you think.
>>>
>>> And when you don't say what you think, it's reasonable to ask you what
>>> you think.
>>>
>>> And when you refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable to conclude
>>> that you have no idea what you think.
>>>
>>> And when you repeatedly refuse to say what you think, it's reasonable
>>> to come to that conclusion as soon as possible.
>
>>It is reasonable to think you are a loon for using that logic.
>
> Exactly how is that logic "loony"? Be specific.
> --

I will. You're dishonest and stupid.