Godwin's Law smites this thread

[sbvera13]

So creos like to claim that evolution causes Nazism. I found an interesting quote about that today (thanks to Aron-Ra's vids).

"Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI

ps. expanding the quote.

"The fox remains a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, endurance, etc., with which individual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly and protect disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition toward mice. ...The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

emphasis added

 

[marlowe007]

Hitler's beliefs were ever-changing, and never stagnate. Dogma never found a permanent home in his mind. In Mein Kampf for example, he maintained a belief in biological evolution and particularly Social Darwinism, whereas in his private Table Talk conversions he once stated that humans descended from apes but then later denied evolution on some other day.

But Godwin's law could be used with reference to Heinrich Himmler, who stated that evolution was "scientifically totally false" and "quite insulting to humans."

 

[AV1611VET]

Hitler can take a hike --- let's not blame this just on him.

What is embedded in the Theory of Evolution is the concept of Eugenics, a word you don't see evolutionists using here.

 

[Cabal]

So creos like to claim that evolution causes Nazism. I found an interesting quote about that today (thanks to Aron-Ra's vids).

"Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI

ps. expanding the quote.

"The fox remains a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, endurance, etc., with which individual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly and protect disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition toward mice. ...The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

emphasis added

I believe it's quite likely he rejected evolution because of his heavy basis in Nietzsche's philosophy, which also rejected Darwinism.

Hitler can take a hike --- let's not blame this just on him.

What is embedded in the Theory of Evolution is the concept of Eugenics, a word you don't see evolutionists using here.

Yes, funny that, seeing as the theory of Evolution and social Darwinism are completely separate things.

It's like why you tend not to see nuclear physicists saying because we have atomic weapons, we should always use them.

The facts of a theory are separate from their applications (or in the case of social Darwinism, misapplications).

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe it's quite likely he rejected evolution because of his heavy basis in Nietzsche's philosophy, which also rejected Darwinism.



Yes, funny that, seeing as the theory of Evolution and social Darwinism are completely separate things.

It's like why you tend not to see nuclear physicists saying because we have atomic weapons, we should always use them.

The facts of a theory are separate from their applications (or in the case of social Darwinism, misapplications).

I have no idea what 'Social Darwinism' is, nor do I care.

Let me repeat myself:

What is embedded in the Theory of Evolution is the concept of Eugenics, a word you don't see evolutionists using here.

 

[Cabal]

I have no idea what 'Social Darwinism' is, nor do I care.

Brilliant.

Either way, the point still stands, no matter how much foot-stamping you do - the misuses of a theory have no bearing on its validity.

You can either address the point, or you can keep making posts like the above. Your call

 

[AV1611VET]

Brilliant.

Either way, the point still stands, no matter how much foot-stamping you do - the misuses of a theory have no bearing on its validity.

You can either address the point, or you can keep making posts like the above. Your call

My call is this:

Evolutionists shy away from the concept of Eugenics.

 

[Cabal]

My call is this:

Evolutionists shy away from the concept of Eugenics.

And my counterpoint, for the third time, is:

The uses or misuses of a theory are removed from its scientific validity.

Do you think car designers shy away from the concept of road death?

Do you think nuclear physicists shy away from the concept of nuclear war?

They only engage with it to say the same things* as evolutionists say about
evolution in relation to eugenics.

*These things usually involve either:
- "That's not what it was designed for."
- "That's actually not how it works."
- "Wait, what?"

 

[AV1611VET]

The uses or misuses of a theory are removed from its scientific validity.

Who 'misused' the theory?

I clearly (and on purpose) said, 'Hitler can take a hike' --- did I not?

Is the concept (or theory) of Eugenics embedded in Evolution, or isn't it?

 

[Cabal]

Who 'misused' the theory?

I clearly (and on purpose) said, 'Hitler can take a hike' --- did I not?

Is the concept (or theory) of Eugenics embedded in Evolution, or isn't it?

No, it isn't. The uses of a theory are never embedded in the theory itself.

The theory of nuclear fission doesn't contain a set of rules about when to drop your atomic bombs on civilian targets.

The theory of engine design doesn't contain a set of rules about how to run a child over with your car.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it isn't. The uses of a theory are never embedded in the theory itself.

The theory of nuclear fission doesn't contain a set of rules about when to drop your atomic bombs on civilian targets.

The theory of engine design doesn't contain a set of rules about how to run a child over with your car.

From Dictionary.com:

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Who 'misused' the theory?

I clearly (and on purpose) said, 'Hitler can take a hike' --- did I not?

Is the concept (or theory) of Eugenics embedded in Evolution, or isn't it?

Isn't.

Evolution is a scienfitic observation, and the theory thereof is a scientific theory. Eugenics is a social movement or philosophy. One does not follow the other.

 

[Cabal]

From Dictionary.com:

It's still a (mis)application of the theory, not the theory itself. Point out to me an engineering manual that makes claims about how to commit vehicular homicide. Point out to me a nuclear physics theory textbook that points out the best place to bomb.

You're treating it as something that every evolutionist knows about as something that is (or at least should be) practised on an academic level but just keeps quiet about, and that simply isn't the case.

Evolutionists have only ever needed to address this when detractors bring it up, and the responses, starting from Darwin himself, have been resounding condemnation.

Besides, the key to success of a species that evolution brings is diversity and thus adaptability, above all. Eugenics would actually reduce that. Additionally, eugenics tends to select based on social desirability, and the links between that and the actual machinery of evolution - genes - is still undetermined.

 

[anagnostic]

Evolution is as amoral as any scientific idea, ie we cannot derive ethics from science.

There may be an absolute 'good', but I don't see evidence of it in the Bible, which justifies cruelty and inhumanity on a truly grand scale.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists have only ever needed to address this when detractors bring it up, and the responses, starting from Darwin himself, have been resounding condemnation.

Darwin?

You mean that guy who wrote, The Preservation of Favoured Races would resoundingly condemn Eugenics?

 

[marlowe007]

Darwinism is social, but also very flexible.

It has been politicized by both the Fascist might-is-rightists and the Marxist liberal-lefties.

 

[Cabal]

Darwin?

You mean that guy who wrote, The Preservation of Favoured Races would resoundingly condemn Eugenics?

Really?

That's the best you can do, that's your only response to the thread now? That old chestnut?

Firstly, use the full title - "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

We're talking natural selection here, not artificial selection.

Nowhere in the book does he espouse killing off "unfavoured races".

In fact, he calls our urge to preserve all members of society "the noblest part of our nature", and he does this in the context of discussing eugenics.

Here's the longest section I could find that touches on the subject.

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"

Yes, his language and attitudes are somewhat Victorian (I figured best not to quote-mine the best bits just to prove my point ). But nowhere does he encourage eugenics.

 

[Cabal]

Darwinism is social, but also very flexible.

Social Darwinism is, yes. The science is not.

It has been politicized by both the Fascist might-is-rightists and the Marxist liberal-lefties.

Can we agree that chances are they were both equally misguided in their misapplication of evolution?

 

[marlowe007]

Social Darwinism is, yes. The science is not.

According to the Marxist historian Robert Young, there is no distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. This fact is not a denial of evolution itself, but an acknowledgment that Darwin's biological views attempted to bring man into nature and were built on the political economy of Malthus, Smith and others.

 

[Cabal]

According to the Marxist historian Robert Young, there is no distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. This fact is not a denial of evolution itself, but an acknowledgment that Darwin's biological views attempted to bring man into nature and were built on the political economy of Malthus, Smith and others.

So you believe this is actually true, or someone with an agenda putting forward some tenuous argument?

You did say that Darwinism gets manipulated by people of both sides, and you felt the need to introduce this guy as a Marxist historian (as opposed to....?), so.....

Oh well, good job the theory of evolution has moved on a lot in the 150 years since Darwinism started!