How/when did evolution become The Enemy?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

foxt...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 1:13:36 PM4/8/01
to
I can understand why observations of the solar system met such
resistance; it was the first time that Christian faith had been
challenged by the squelching weight of objective observation and logic,
instead of just other assorted faiths. Christianity didn't know how to
respond to such a challenge.

When other comparable discoveries of how the world works came along,
there was little objection to them even though they still sometimes
really shook up people's older concepts of the way things are and/or
left questions unanswered.

Nobody hollered about how the myriad of different substances couldn't
come from the simplicity of the atomic model because that would be too
much of an information increase, or that God didn't know how to make
things without always reverting back to the same limited set of parts.

Nobody screamed at Newton that his observations of objects' movements
were clearly false because they didn't account for the Hand of God
pushing everything around, or because there were some questions his
equations couldn't answer and some interactions he couldn't perfectly
predict.

Nobody called Mendeleëv a heratic or Satanist because his periodc
table limited God's imagination to simple categories and
ascending/descending numerical scales, or claimed that the table's
accurate prediction of the properties of a previously undiscovered
element didn't count because the element's discoverers had only managed
to "conveneiently find what they were looking for".

By the time Darwin came along, Christians worldwide had even accepted
the fact that the Earth was thousands, perhaps over a million, of times
older than they'd previously thought, even though that seems to conflict
with what we're now told the Bible says. It would seem that, after that
first little solar-system incident, Christianity had learned to face
facts about God's world when they were discovered.

Now look at evolution, an observed fact that gets persistently denied,
and natural selection, a ridiculously simple, inevitable law with
titanicly overwhelming evidence pointing to it, accused of being a wild,
unproven guess. It's a shame that discussion groups like this need to
even exist; young-earth Creationism and anti-evolutionism are as
scientifically dead as anything could be, right along with the
Earth-centered and flat-Earth models of the world and atomless models of
matter, but still there are these stragglers that just won't admit they
lost over a century ago. The internet and religious radio and TV
channels are inundated with nonsense and lies from people who act like
they're on drugs, trying to tell us the equivalent of "The sky isn't
blue, it's plaid."

Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
others give the same ones or not.)

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 1:48:36 PM4/8/01
to
foxt...@webtv.net wrote:

>Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>others give the same ones or not.)

It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
opposition to Christianity.

Nando

Aleister Crowley's Cat

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 2:09:45 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 13:48:36 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
scribed:

That's a lot of gently quivering bollocks Nando, and you know it.

Best Regards,
Dave
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law

E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net

Gary Hurd

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 2:20:30 PM4/8/01
to

"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...

What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
were probably correct.

Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
creationist movement in the USA.

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 2:43:52 PM4/8/01
to

The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism. The association of
Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
raising man on the organic scale).

Nando

KMT

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 3:54:11 PM4/8/01
to

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

Hitler was a Christian doing work for God. Research and understand before you
claim to know. Intelligence is just questions away.

Gary Hurd

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 4:06:47 PM4/8/01
to

"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rmb1dtkjgtksi1ksp...@4ax.com...

> "Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see
whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >>
> >
> >What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
> >little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition,
they
> >were probably correct.
> >
> >Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
> >demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
> >creationist movement in the USA.
>
> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.

This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism


The association of
> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
> naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
> consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
> raising man on the organic scale).
>
> Nando
>

Herbert Spencer was the originator of a racist/classist philosophy he called
"Social Darwinism." It was not, and is not related to evolutionary biology.
Galton was dead well before the end of WW1, was a contributor to
statistics -far from "the inventor"- and was the originator of eugenics,
whose thoughts on the inheritability of intellect did influence his cousin
Darwin. This was particularly evident in the 1871 publication of "The
Descent of Man." The mechanism of inheritance was unknown at the time, and
the very concepts of "mental faculties" was not particularly related to
modern ones. What does the errors, and misapplications of Galton, Spencer,
or Pearson (you missed a chance for another false charge there!) have to do
with biology? NOTHING. The resort by creationists to attack by association
is ample demonstration that there is no honest refutation available to them.


Pat James

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 4:33:05 PM4/8/01
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:13:36 -0500, foxt...@webtv.net wrote
(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):

[snip]

>
> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> others give the same ones or not.)
>

there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.

--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.


Jonathan Stone

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 4:39:19 PM4/8/01
to
In article <01HW.B6F635300...@enews.newsguy.com>,

Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:13:36 -0500, foxt...@webtv.net wrote
>(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> others give the same ones or not.)
>>
>
>there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
>are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
>it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.

I thought what they *really* hated is that we are descended
from "monkeys"?

(Heroically refraining from commenting on the education of those
who conflate african apes with monkeys)

R. Tang

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 5:29:36 PM4/8/01
to
In article <rmb1dtkjgtksi1ksp...@4ax.com>,

Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
>>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>>> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>>
>>> Nando
>>>
>>
>>What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
>>little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
>>were probably correct.
>>
>>Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
>>demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
>>creationist movement in the USA.
>
>The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.

They also associated Christianity with Nazism.

And you dare have the hubris to consider youself a Christian when
you so regularly lie? From your fruits, you appear to be
anti-Christian....

The association of
>Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
>influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>raising man on the organic scale).
>
>Nando
>


--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

ReidRover

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 5:42:39 PM4/8/01
to
i think this collection of Hitlers veiws on Christianity might be helpful

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 6:06:28 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 13:48:36 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

funny that hitler never mentioned darwin in his book...

and german biologists rejected darwin at the beginning of the
century...

and that christians hated jews for thousands of years, confining them
to ghettoes, and, on occasion, killing them

nando's an antisemite fundamentalist who prefers jews to forget
christian history, and focus on evolution as the 'enemy'. fortunately
most christians are more honest than nando, and havent forgotten what
christian theology often meant to jews.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 6:09:35 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 14:43:52 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
>>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>>> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>>
>>> Nando
>>>
>>
>>What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
>>little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
>>were probably correct.
>>
>>Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
>>demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
>>creationist movement in the USA.
>
>The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.

all, of course, except a guy named 'adolph hitler', who never once
mentions darwin in his book 'mein kampf'. nando's an antisemitic liar,
so he doesnt tell you that.

The association of
>Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel

and in chapter 11 of martin luther's book 'concerning the jews and
their lies', that good german recommended non converted jews be
exterminated. he said jews should be covered in pig shit, and their
synagogues burned.

nando, good little storm trooper, wont mention that, either.

(most
>influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>raising man on the organic scale).
>

here in america, jefferson davis, the president of the confederate
states, wrote a treatise on the hamitic hypothesis, and why blacks
deserved slavery...he was a devout christian. 1/2 of all proslavery
tracts in the US were written by the christian clergy. they had more
influence than evolutionists ever did.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 6:11:02 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 16:06:47 -0400, "Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>


>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>
>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken.


the nazis also associated physics with nazism. phillip lenard, nobel
laureate in physics, said relativity was 'jewish science'.

to nando, this means his computer doesnt work since its based on the
laws of physics and encroaches on his view of life...

RepackRider

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 6:28:09 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap onan...@hotmail.com scribes mindlessly:

>It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>opposition to Christianity.

I presume you also reject other sciences used by the Nazis, for the same
reasons. They were pioneers of jet aviation and aerodynamic design, among
other things. Do you reject that also?

How about the Volkswagen, a Nazi development? You ever ride in one of those?


-----
~~ Repack Rider ~~

|| Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the ||
|| top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups. ||
|| No e-mail sent to this address is opened. ||

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 7:41:19 PM4/8/01
to

Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.

>The association of
>> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
>> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>> naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>> consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>> raising man on the organic scale).
>>
>> Nando
>>
>
>Herbert Spencer was the originator of a racist/classist philosophy he called
>"Social Darwinism." It was not, and is not related to evolutionary biology.
>Galton was dead well before the end of WW1, was a contributor to
>statistics -far from "the inventor"- and was the originator of eugenics,
>whose thoughts on the inheritability of intellect did influence his cousin
>Darwin. This was particularly evident in the 1871 publication of "The
>Descent of Man." The mechanism of inheritance was unknown at the time, and
>the very concepts of "mental faculties" was not particularly related to
>modern ones. What does the errors, and misapplications of Galton, Spencer,
>or Pearson (you missed a chance for another false charge there!) have to do
>with biology? NOTHING. The resort by creationists to attack by association
>is ample demonstration that there is no honest refutation available to them.

Whatever, I'm telling you the sort of things why so many Christians
reject Darwinism for over 140 years now. There are other matters, but
this is the main reason.

Let's note here that many Christians that did accept Darwinism,
consequently also accepted an Aryan fighting Jesus, so I don't think
you'd neccessarily be pleased with the results if Christians did
accept Darwinism.

Your above texts are irrellevant to the point at issue, which is that
Darwinism was associated to Nazism by the work of some very
influential mainstream Darwinist scientists, like Galton, Haeckel,
Lorenz, and last but not least, Darwin himself through his principle
of racial competition until extinction, raising man on the organic
scale. The story that Social Darwinism has/had nothing to do with
Darwinism is just wishful thinking of course.

Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
you would accept.

Nando

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 7:55:51 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 19:41:19 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>>
>>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
>>_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
>>to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
>>Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
>>creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
>>Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
>>1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
>>you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
>>intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
>>the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
>>from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
>>War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism
>
>Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
>much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
>which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
>the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.

the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
antisemite, and refuses to recognize, as 170 rabbis and jewish
scholars stated in the sept. 2000 issue of 'first things' stated,
christianity, while it didnt CAUSE the shoah certainly influenced who
its victims were, especially the jews.

unfortunately christians participated to an extraordinary extent in
the shoah. in his book 'escape from sobibor', author richard raschke
explains that the ukrainian volunteer guards outnumbered the germans
10:1. these ukrainian orthodox and catholic guards were members in
good standing in their churches.

in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
knowing full well what would happen to them.

nando, being a fundamentalist creationist, looks at jews as
automatons...robots fulfilling their place in the fundamentalist
cosmology...they are nothing more than ants placed on earth to
demonstrate gods will so that people will convert to fundamentalist
christianity. thats the view creationists have of jews.

>
>
>Whatever, I'm telling you the sort of things why so many Christians
>reject Darwinism for over 140 years now. There are other matters, but
>this is the main reason.

if they rejected ideologies because they led to hate, christianity
would be extinct.

>

Boikat

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 8:40:05 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >others give the same ones or not.)
>
> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> to the Hitleryouth,

Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
taught basic math, along with a full range of
other subjects which are not disputed, and 2)
evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
before Hitler came on the scene.

> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> opposition to Christianity.

Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
their uniform, don't you think?

Boikat

Boikat

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 8:46:30 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> "Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >>
> >
> >What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
> >little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
> >were probably correct.
> >
> >Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
> >demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
> >creationist movement in the USA.
>
> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.

They also associated Christianity with Nazism.

> The association of
> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
> naziparty as "applied biology",

The "wrongness" of the application is the
responsibility of the person or persons doing the
"applying", not the theory.

> and participated in the Holocaust),

Like all good christian Nazi's.

> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
> consequent from Darwinist findings),

Why do you not condemn statistics?

> Darwin (wrote about competitive
> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
> raising man on the organic scale).

So what? Do you deny that human history is full
of war and slaughter (Most if it in some religious
cause)? How does *reporting* a phenomena like
human war and slaughter *justify* war and
slaughter? You have always run away from that
question like a scalded dog. Are you going to run
like a yellow -bellied coward again?

Boikat

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 8:51:59 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0r1dt028f0n3qe68...@4ax.com...

[snip]

> Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
> scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
> Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
> individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
> killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
> was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
> you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
> you would accept.

Exactly. Scientific theories don't make prescriptive statements and don't
take a stand on morality. Anyone who attempts to use evolution to justify
any sort of condemnable action is wrong, period. But even if this were not
the case, your point is still irrelevant, because true theories do not
suddenly become false because they have implications we might dislike. Is
atomic physics false because we can use it to build hydrogen bombs?

And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.
I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any of Hitler's
other works.

--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"

To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"


Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 8:50:27 PM4/8/01
to
wf...@ptd.net wrote:

>the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>antisemite,

A lie of course. You're a Darwinist that's true.

Nando

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 8:53:12 PM4/8/01
to
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>
>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>> to the Hitleryouth,
>
>Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
>taught basic math, along with a full range of
>other subjects which are not disputed,

No they weren't.

> and 2)
>evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
>before Hitler came on the scene.

The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
came on the scene.

>> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>> opposition to Christianity.
>
>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>their uniform, don't you think?

What about the SS, did they have that too?

Nando

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 9:20:00 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 20:50:27 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:

really? then why did daniel goldhagen, professor of history at
harvard, write a book on the subject?

you think historians have a vested interest in darwinism?

more fundamentalist paranoia.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 9:22:26 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 20:53:12 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

here's a quote from a speech of hitler:

>My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
> It points me to the man who once in
> loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison.
>

from:

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html


doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.

by the by...he echoes the views of martin luther...another german
christian.

i personally dont think hitler was a christian. however, i know nando
hates jews. and i know nando's a fundamentalist.

foxt...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 9:42:56 PM4/8/01
to
Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.

Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?

Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?

BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
natural selection to further their causes, that would mean nothing for
the real natural selection anyway. They also tried to hold up Friedrich
Nietzsche as a great German patriotic philosopher and supporter of their
beliefs. But in fact he was full of praise for Jews and criticism of
German culture, and his discussion of the "übermann" was about
individuals rising above the crowd, not one crowd exterminating another.
So if you reject Nietzsche because of the supposed Nazi connection, you
might be rejecting works that you'd appreciate a lot if you read what
they really are insted of listening to Nazi lies about them.

If Nando wants to reject things based on the Nazis having coincidentally
been among the participants, fine for him. Personally, I can't imagine
going the rest of my life without potato salad.

Boikat

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 9:48:13 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth,
> >
> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
> >other subjects which are not disputed,
>
> No they weren't.

So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
evolution. You come from an alternate reality,
right?

>
> > and 2)
> >evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
> >before Hitler came on the scene.
>
> The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
> came on the scene.

So, you agree that "Darwinism" has nothing to do
with the Nazis or Hitler. Thank you.

>
> >> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >
> >Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
> >said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
> >supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
> >their uniform, don't you think?
>
> What about the SS, did they have that too?

<sarcasm mode>
I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
them Nando.
</sarcasm mode>

Boikat

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 9:58:57 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 20:40:05 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>their uniform, don't you think?

They said 'Gott mit uns', actually.

The Nazis did not start that - it went back to the Kaiser and before.
There were certainly many Christians in the Wehrmacht. I would guess
that Hitler saw no reason to take it off and risk whatever morale
effect that might have, especially since he was posing as a Christian
anyhow.

Mark E. Miller

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:04:44 PM4/8/01
to
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d0r1dt028f0n3qe68...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
>> scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
>> Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
>> individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
>> killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
>> was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
>> you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
>> you would accept.
>
>Exactly. Scientific theories don't make prescriptive statements and don't
>take a stand on morality. Anyone who attempts to use evolution to justify
>any sort of condemnable action is wrong, period. But even if this were not
>the case, your point is still irrelevant, because true theories do not
>suddenly become false because they have implications we might dislike. Is
>atomic physics false because we can use it to build hydrogen bombs?
>
>And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.
>I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any of Hitler's
>other works.

Ah first you say you won't accept any evidence, and then you want me
to give you evidence. The evidence of Hitler talking about natural
selection is there, but then you don't accept that as evidence of
anything.

Nando

Tony Curtis

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:02:51 PM4/8/01
to
>> On 8 Apr 2001 21:42:56 -0400,
>> foxt...@webtv.net said:

> If Nando wants to reject things based on the Nazis
> having coincidentally been among the participants, fine
> for him. Personally, I can't imagine going the rest of
> my life without potato salad.

<delurk>

I think fundamentalist christians have a binary view of
the world. Good - evil. God - Devil. You are either
with them, or against them. Their religion does not admit
of more possibilities. That things can be amoral is not
possible with a binary morality.

Christianity of course lands on the "good" end of the
spectrum. "Nazi" now carries such a weight of "badness"
that clearly it's on the "evil" side, and thus must be
something which actively opposes christianity
(<tangent>it's strange watching old footage of people
nazi-saluting, e.g. Chamberlain being driven through the
streets on that piece-of-paper visit. That
arm-straight-out and shouting "Heil" didn't have the same
connotations then).

Therefore...since evolution is also evil, the nazis must
have been all for evolution. There can only be 2 sides,
you see.

Godwin's law applies at this point, if it hasn't done so
already. Maybe there should be the Ronteltap Corollary
too?

--
Just reach into these holes. I use a carrot.

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:09:38 PM4/8/01
to
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >>
>> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
>> >>
>> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>> >> to the Hitleryouth,
>> >
>> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
>> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
>> >other subjects which are not disputed,
>>
>> No they weren't.
>
>So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
>evolution.

Something like that yes, no mention of math in "the schoolbook for the
hitleryouth"

> You come from an alternate reality,
>right?

A reality where the Holocaust occurs and millions of people accept
things like communism and nazism.

>> What about the SS, did they have that too?
>
><sarcasm mode>
>I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
>them Nando.
></sarcasm mode>

Did they? Maybe like that person who killed people in Columbine they
had natural selection printed on their uniforms.

Nando

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:09:32 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 19:55:51 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

>On 8 Apr 2001 19:41:19 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>>>
>>>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
>>>_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
>>>to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
>>>Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
>>>creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
>>>Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
>>>1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
>>>you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
>>>intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
>>>the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
>>>from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
>>>War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism
>>
>>Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
>>much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
>>which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
>>the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.
>


While I basically agree with you in dismissing the smear of Darwinism
being a motivation for Nazism, I feel constrained to jump in to these
threads where historical falsehoods are being perpetrated.

>
>in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
>explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
>protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
>turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
>knowing full well what would happen to them.

I have not read the above, I will at my earliest opportunity. *If* you
have fairly characterized his message, he is perpetrating a blatant
falsehood. If not, you are.

Does the phrase 'Barmen Declaration' mean anything to you? It was the
declaration by the Confessing Church that the 'German Christians'
(those collaborating with Hitler) were guilty of heresy. You can read
about the church struggle in Germany at great length (800 pp) in
Eberhard Bethge's biography, 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer'.

Mark E. Miller

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:11:16 PM4/8/01
to

The fighting Aryan Jesus is Darwinist Christianity.

Nando

KMT

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:31:48 PM4/8/01
to

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

The fact that humans inherit traits was known well before Darwin's time. There
was no need for Hitler to thank Darwin for his ideas regarding natural selection.
As far as Hitler was concerned, he was doing God's work. Just think, if there was
a heaven, you would get to spend it with Hitler. I prefer the Hell that your God
sent all the Jews that died in concentration camps.

Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
present it. I am not holding my breath.

Get Well Soon,

Kevin

Boikat

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:33:51 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >> >>
> >> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> >> to the Hitleryouth,
> >> >
> >> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
> >> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
> >> >other subjects which are not disputed,
> >>
> >> No they weren't.
> >
> >So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
> >evolution.
>
> Something like that yes, no mention of math in "the schoolbook for the
> hitleryouth"

I suppose the only subject taught was evolution
and nothing else at all, right? Pull the other
leg Nando.

>
> > You come from an alternate reality,
> >right?
>
> A reality where the Holocaust occurs and millions of people accept
> things like communism and nazism.

...and democracy, and monarchies, and so on. What
does that have to do with biological evolution?

>
> >> What about the SS, did they have that too?
> >
> ><sarcasm mode>
> >I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
> >them Nando.
> ></sarcasm mode>
>
> Did they?

You tell me, smart guy. Or are you so dull witted
that you don't know sarcasm, even when it is
clearly marked as sarcasm?

> Maybe like that person who killed people in Columbine they
> had natural selection printed on their uniforms.

As usual, your utter stupidity shows through. The
tee shirt (and there was no "their uniform")
referred to a video game of the same name, you
stupid ass.

Boikat

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:50:58 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 21:22:26 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>here's a quote from a speech of hitler:
>
>>My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
>> It points me to the man who once in
>> loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison.
>>
>
>from:
>
>http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Of all the quotes found on this page, this is the only one (and I have
found no others elsewhere) which even alludes to Jesus - albeit
without saying his name. And in this quote, Hitler displays his heresy
in dismissing ('not as a sufferer') Jesus' redemptive work on the
cross. You may dismiss the cross as foolishness (many have), but to be
fair you have to admit that it is at the center of the Christian
message, and here Hitler dismisses it.


>
>
>doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.

I agree!

>
>by the by...he echoes the views of martin luther...another german
>christian.
>
>i personally dont think hitler was a christian.

?? Now I'm confused - I thought that was what you were arguing for...

Mark E. Miller


Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:52:53 PM4/8/01
to
foxt...@webtv.net wrote:

>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>
>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?

I said it's things *like* that is the main reason why many Christians
don't accept Darwinism. There are other similar things, like for
instance when weak organisms die, then Darwinists say that the
population has become better. That kind of language is just
unchristian.

>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
>
>BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
>natural selection to further their causes,

You don't get it. Lorenz, Haeckel, Galton, Darwin, the very
influential Darwinist scientists themselves spurred on application of
Darwinism to political life, they spurred on derivative ideas of
natural selection.

Lorenz, one of the main people in evolutionary science, selected out
people to be killed in the Sudetenland. You will probably have read
the works of a murderer, a murderer who legitimized his murders with
ideas derived from the works you have read.

In any case you asked a question, so you got an answer. It's things
like Lorenz's selecting, things like Darwinism being taught to the
Hitleryouth in Darwinist styled schools, and many more things like
that, which is why after 140 years many Christians still don't accept
Darwinism. You may not agree with that reason, but that is the reason
it is rejected.

Nando

Nando Ronteltap

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 10:58:17 PM4/8/01
to
KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:

>Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
>not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
>present it. I am not holding my breath.
>

From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.

(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)

10 october 1941, midday

War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
them who conquers them.
The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
from west to east.
This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
victorious.
Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness.


--Dutch text
"De oorlog is teruggekeerd tot zijn primitieve vorm. De oorlog van
volken tegen volken heeft plaatsgemaakt voor een ander soort oorlog -
een oorlog om het bezit van de grote ruimten. Oorspronkelijk was
oorlog niets anders dan een strijd om weideland. Dankzij een inherente
wet behoren deze rijkdommen aan hem die ze verovert.
De grote volksverhuizingen begonnen vanuit het oosten. Met ons zet de
eb in, van west naar oost.
Dat is in overeenstemming met de natuurwetten. Door middel van de
strijd worden elites voortdurend vernieuwd. De wet van de natuurlijke
selectie rechtvaardigt deze nooit eindigende strijd door de sterkste
te laten overwinnen.
Het Christendom is een rebellie tegen de natuurwet, een protest tegen
de natuur. Logisch tot het uiterste doorgeredeneerd, zou het
Christendom de systematische cultivering van menselijke zwakte
inhouden. "

Nando

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:19:58 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:50:58 -0400, memi...@net-link.net (Mark E. Miller)
wrote:

nope, im arguing for the fact that christianity itself laid the
groundwork for nazi antisemitism. hitler used whatever he could to
further his power. evolution had nothing to do with christianity or
antisemitism.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:18:37 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:11:16 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>On 8 Apr 2001 20:53:12 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>

>>here's a quote from a speech of hitler:
>>
>>>My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
>>> It points me to the man who once in
>>> loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison.
>>>
>>
>>from:
>>
>>http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
>>
>>
>>doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.
>
>The fighting Aryan Jesus is Darwinist Christianity.
>
>Nando
>

ah. i see you've invented a new view of both darwin and christianity.

the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, dressed up in drag. faulty logic, as
always, nando. you decide, a priori, christianity cant be at
fault...by definition. thus anything you dont like MUST be darwinism.

yeah, thats creationism alright

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:17:18 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:04:44 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:

really? perhaps you can tell us where in 'mein kampf' he mentions
natural selection.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:23:42 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 21:42:56 -0400, foxt...@webtv.net wrote:

>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>
>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
>
>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?

because its the sin of 'omission'...you can be evil by what you dont
say as well as by what you say. nando thinks jews are just foils for
god to prove his benevolence by letting christians rescue them from
the evil evolutionists.

the belief is common among fundamentalists in the US that jews are
little ignorant robots, carrying out plans to rebuild the temple so
jesus will return. jews get murdered in the mean time, but thats
irrelevant because it shows how good the fundies are 'cuz they try to
save 'em.

>

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:20:29 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:09:38 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

you mean on their T shirts...

to nando, a T shirt is reality...

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:28:33 PM4/8/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:52:53 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>foxt...@webtv.net wrote:


>
>>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>>
>>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
>
>I said it's things *like* that is the main reason why many Christians
>don't accept Darwinism.

no, they dont accept it because they've arbitrarily decided on a cult
view of the bible. they believe the shoah is a consequence of
evolution, not a cause. the cause of creationism is a bizarre non
biblical belief about the bible.

There are other similar things, like for
>instance when weak organisms die, then Darwinists say that the
>population has become better. That kind of language is just
>unchristian.

whatever 'better' means. nando thinks he gets to tell scientists how
to talk.

>
>>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
>>
>>BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
>>natural selection to further their causes,
>
>You don't get it. Lorenz, Haeckel, Galton, Darwin, the very
>influential Darwinist scientists themselves spurred on application of
>Darwinism to political life, they spurred on derivative ideas of
>natural selection.

and christian clergymen wrote 1/2 of all proslavery tracts in the USA.
martin luther advocated the murder of jews. he's got a church named
after him. he invented the modern german language. aint no
evolutionist around that had the influence of christian racists.

>
>Lorenz, one of the main people in evolutionary science, selected out
>people to be killed in the Sudetenland. You will probably have read
>the works of a murderer, a murderer who legitimized his murders with
>ideas derived from the works you have read.

and bishop alois hudel helped the commandant of auschwitz to escape
allied justice.

the nobel physics laureate phillip lenard said relativity was 'jewish
physics'. that had no influence on physics at all.

>
>In any case you asked a question, so you got an answer. It's things
>like Lorenz's selecting, things like Darwinism being taught to the
>Hitleryouth in Darwinist styled schools, and many more things like
>that, which is why after 140 years many Christians still don't accept
>Darwinism. You may not agree with that reason, but that is the reason
>it is rejected.

some christians hated evolution long before the shoah. they did so
because of their cult bible beliefs. and they hated jews long before
darwin. as the 170 jewish rabbis and scholars said in the sept. 2000
issue of 'first things', christianity, while not a cause of the shoah,
led the nazis to choose jews as their victims.

evolution was not involved.

George Acton

unread,
Apr 8, 2001, 11:40:39 PM4/8/01
to
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >others give the same ones or not.)
>
> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> opposition to Christianity.

This is a lie. There were Biblical literalists long before the
Nazi era and no evidence that there was an increase afterwards.
Very few creationists cite the Nazis, preferring to rely on a
different set of lies.
--George Acton

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 12:31:35 AM4/9/01
to
foxt...@webtv.net wrote:

> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> others give the same ones or not.)

[I apologize in advance if this sounds inflamatory, elitist, and
overgeneralized, but that's where the subject matter seems to lead. At
least I won't use the N-word here.]

There are probably many factors.

One, possibly, is that we now try to educate everyone, so essentially
everyone gets exposed to a bit of science now, including people who would
have remained ignorant peasants 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago. But
not all peasants give up their peasant mentalities just because they get a
bit of schooling.

The move toward universal education has progressed a lot over the last 50
years, and alas, so has the intensity of the knee-jerk response to
evolution. The two may well be related.

Another factor probably contributing to the increasing frequency and
intensity of expressions of outrage is the general improvement in the
communications infrastructure over the past 200 years. It is much easier
now than before, for an ill-informed kook to disseminate his
disinformation, attract a following, and whip them into a frenzy. (That
has always been possible on a local basis, but it is becoming more and more
possible to do on a national or global basis.)

Yet another is probably the profusion of ignorant protestant sects in the
USA over the past couple of centuries. I say 'ignorant' deliberately,
because before that, and in the more "high church" sects, there was a
tradition of selecting the clergy from among the educated. (Indeed, many
of the early Natural Philosophers were clergymen, and conversely, our
modern notion of higher education evolved directly from the medieval
tradition of packing clerics off to the university.) But in the USA we
evolved a system where any lout could be come a preacher, or start his own
sect if the sect of his ancestors wouldn't ordain him. And even if a sect
does require some time at seminary, the profusion of sects means more and
more time has to be spent teaching the difference between "us" and "them",
and drilling on the articles of faith, rather than actually *educating* the
poor guy.

Most of the other scientific discoveries that uprooted Man's Special Place
in the universe came before the above trends were very advanced, which may
explain why they didn't provoke the same degree of outrage. Of course, the
Big Bang also threatens certain religious traditions, and has been
discovered more recently yet, but notice how it tends to get rolled into
one with evil-oution in discussions here. The big bang, abiogenesis, and
"macro" evolution are dissed because they directly call religious
traditions into question, but relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., do not
seem to threaten any religious beliefs.

Still, there is surely an element of randomness in this kind of thing. Why
have abortion and evolution been the fundamentalist hot buttons for the
past pair of decades? The first surely has a lot to do with the desire to
control sex, but you could easily list other erotic/reproductive issues
that could just as well have become the hot button. Similarly, as you
pointed out originally, other scientific issues seemingly could have become
the hot button rather than evolution.

End ramble. Maybe there's something in there worth following up on.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


WickedDyno

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:00:59 AM4/9/01
to

> the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, dressed up in drag.

You mean it's wearing pants?


I'll get my coat.

--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |

R. Tang

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:09:40 AM4/9/01
to
In article <1l12dtolinnr63ag6...@4ax.com>,

Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>>the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>>antisemite,
>
>A lie of course.

Nope.


--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

R. Tang

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:11:19 AM4/9/01
to
In article <ln12dt49gk838mhrj...@4ax.com>,

Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>>
>>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>>> to the Hitleryouth,
>>
>>Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
>>taught basic math, along with a full range of
>>other subjects which are not disputed,
>
>No they weren't.

They weren't taught basic math?

Ah....delusional, isn't this?

>> and 2)
>>evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
>>before Hitler came on the scene.
>
>The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
>came on the scene.
>

>>> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>

>>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>>their uniform, don't you think?
>

>What about the SS, did they have that too?

What about the German military belt buckles, sir?

Gonna run off and hide again? Let your opponents do all the
research AGAIN?

R. Tang

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:12:29 AM4/9/01
to
In article <6u52dtcf0erh0h1pp...@4ax.com>,

A lie, as usual.

but then you don't accept that as evidence of
>anything.
>
>Nando
>

Pat James

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:13:23 AM4/9/01
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:53:12 -0500, Nando Ronteltap wrote
(in message <ln12dt49gk838mhrj...@4ax.com>):

>> Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>> said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>> supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>> their uniform, don't you think?
>
> What about the SS, did they have that too?

the regular armed forces had the inscription "Gott Mitt Uns" on their belt
buckles. Tradition, going back to Prussia, IIRC. The Waffen-SS had the
inscription "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" (Loyalty is my Honour) on their belt
buckles, so the W-SS did not walk around saying that God was with them.
However, each and every W-SS recruit _did_ swear the following oath: (in
German, of course...)

"I swear to thee Adolf Hitler
As Fuhrer and Chancellor of the German Reich
Loyalty and bravery.
I vow to thee and to the superiors whom thou shalt appoint
Obedience unto death
So help me God."

taken from page 26 of _Hitler's Samurai_, Bruce Quarrie, Patrick Stephens
Limited, 3rd Edition (1986) ISBN 0-85059-806-0.

Hmmm. Very anti-Xian, eh?

--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.


R. Tang

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:14:32 AM4/9/01
to
In article <5d62dt0gmkjjiq6t8...@4ax.com>,

This, of course, means nothing, except that you have once again
failed to defend your anti Christian blatherings.

How can you call yourself Christian????

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:39:50 AM4/9/01
to

OK - so I have to agree, regretfully, with your first sentence, and
wholeheartedly with the rest.

Mark E. Miller

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:38:05 AM4/9/01
to
On 8 Apr 2001 22:58:17 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:


>
>>Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
>>not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
>>present it. I am not holding my breath.
>>
>
>From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
>(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
>10 october 1941, midday
>
>War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
>peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
>possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
>struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
>riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
>them who conquers them.
>The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
>from west to east.
>This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
>the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
>justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
>victorious.
>Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
>against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
>would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness.
>
>

Thanks for finding this - do you have publication information beyond
what you give above? Do you know of an English edition?

Mark E. Miller

wilkins

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:54:15 AM4/9/01
to

Bravo. Would that there were more like you.

Incidentally, I am reading George Mosse's _The Crisis of German
Ideology_ (c 1964) and he details the roots of Nazi ideology through (as
I suspected) German romanticism and Christian nationalism. The only
place he mentions "Darwinism" it is clear that he is referring to
anything *but* Darwin's views.

>
> >
> >in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
> >explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
> >protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
> >turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
> >knowing full well what would happen to them.
>
> I have not read the above, I will at my earliest opportunity. *If* you
> have fairly characterized his message, he is perpetrating a blatant
> falsehood. If not, you are.
>
> Does the phrase 'Barmen Declaration' mean anything to you? It was the
> declaration by the Confessing Church that the 'German Christians'
> (those collaborating with Hitler) were guilty of heresy. You can read
> about the church struggle in Germany at great length (800 pp) in
> Eberhard Bethge's biography, 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer'.
>

A great book about a great man (I met his student Helmut Thielicke in
the 70s briefly) but note that the Confessing Church was never a large
part of the Lutheran communion and their declarations about what was and
was not heresy were of no real import to the wider Christian community.
Moreover, I doubt that in the accepted sense of heresy, the German
Christians were indeed heretical in any doctrinal sense (although I
recall Bonhoeffer, Barth, and Thielicke angsting over the "unforgivable
sin" - the Prohibitiva - in this connection).

--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:59:07 AM4/9/01
to
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v292dtsavol47c1g9...@4ax.com...

> KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no
evidence",
> >not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any
evidence,
> >present it. I am not holding my breath.
> >
>
> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
> (Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
> 10 october 1941, midday
>
> War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
> peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
> possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
> struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
> riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
> them who conquers them.
> The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
> from west to east.
> This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
> the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
> justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
> victorious.

Well, there's your problem right there. The principle of natural selection
says no such thing.

And for people who think Hitler's anti-Semitism was inspired by Darwin:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison."

[snip]

--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"

To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"


Pat James

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:58:28 AM4/9/01
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 0:09:40 -0500, R. Tang wrote
(in message <9arg6b$spc$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>):

> In article <1l12dtolinnr63ag6...@4ax.com>,
> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>> the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>>> antisemite,
>>
>> A lie of course.
>
> Nope.

I would have to agree there. On the available evidence it would appear that
if Nando ain't an antisemite he's turning in an awfully good immitation.

Mark E. Miller

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:01:23 AM4/9/01
to

In a post above, Adam says:
"And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of
Nazism. I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any
of Hitler's other works."

>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:v292dtsavol47c1g9...@4ax.com...

>> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>>

QUOTE 1:


>> (Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>>
>> 10 october 1941, midday
>>
>> War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
>> peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
>> possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
>> struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
>> riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
>> them who conquers them.
>> The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
>> from west to east.
>> This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
>> the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
>> justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
>> victorious.

So, Adam issued a challenge and Nando met it. Instead of graciously
conceding the point (the narrow point, I mean, that Hitler did indeed
at least refer to natural selection to justify his policies, not the
broader point that he was justified in doing so or that evolution was
actually a cause of Nazism), Adam replies:


>
>Well, there's your problem right there. The principle of natural selection
>says no such thing.

...but in a sense it's not Nando's 'problem', but Hitler's - he was
misusing Darwinism in (almost) exactly the same sense that the Social
Darwinists were - mistaking description for prescription.

Instead of analyzing this any further, Adam quickly changes the
subject:


>
>And for people who think Hitler's anti-Semitism was inspired by Darwin:
>

QUOTE 2:


>"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
>points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison."

Now, elsewhere in this thread I comment on QUOTE 2 above, arguing that
it is heretical on its face, and shows Hitler could not have been an
orthodox Christian. In any case, it is, of course, not an argument
that Hitler was not inspired by Darwin! It doesn't mention Darwin.

Here is the last part of QUOTE 1 that Adam snipped:

"Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness."

This was said in private, I gather, in the circle of his intimates, Q2
was a public declaration. Which is more likely to be a reflection of
his true beliefs?

My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
true.

Mark E. Miller


Adam Marczyk

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 12:09:10 PM4/9/01
to
Mark E. Miller <memi...@net-link.net> wrote in message
news:3ad1cec6$0$12827$bbae...@news.net-link.net...

The quote doesn't refer to evolution per se, but I'll concede the point.

I could find several more quotes where Hitler professes his allegiance to
Christianity; I rather suspect that one quote with a vague mention of
natural selection is the best Nando can offer. But I wouldn't rush to draw a
conclusion from either side, since I doubt Hitler was anywhere near stable
mentally. The point is that Nando (or any Christian) should be very hesitant
to fight evolution by blaming the Holocaust on it -- their religion is just
as vulnerable in that department, probably more so. Christianity has a long
history of being used to justify anti-Semitism, right back to the original
writing of the New Testament. You know what they say about glass houses and
stones.

> My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
> Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
> power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
> he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
> earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
> policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
> true.
>

--

Walter Bushell

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 12:16:41 PM4/9/01
to
Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

> In article <01HW.B6F635300...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:13:36 -0500, foxt...@webtv.net wrote
> >(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
> >
> >[snip]


> >
> >>
> >> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >

> >there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
> >are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
> >it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.
>
> I thought what they *really* hated is that we are descended
> from "monkeys"?
>
> (Heroically refraining from commenting on the education of those
> who conflate african apes with monkeys)

___> Why the bad feeling about being descended from monkeys, the
Christian Totem animal is the sheep. In Chistianity being a sheep is a
good thing. Even Jesus is refer ed to as a Lamb, Whyfore is being a
primate so offensive?

Boikat

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 12:37:14 PM4/9/01