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"
>>&