• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

gladiatrix

Card-carrying EAC member
Sep 10, 2002
1,676
371
Florida
Visit site
✟28,397.00
Faith
Atheist
Novaknight1 said:
Evolution's a religion that says nature is all there is. Evolution is the basis for humanism, communism, naziism, abortion, and so on.

When creationists fail to prove their case, some of them will try to divert us from the FACT that they have presented NO evidence to support their claims by trying to play Hitler/Stalin=evolutionist=atheist=racist (yadah,yadah) card.....

Boy are you off the beam, NK, and here is why. What do you want to bet the NK uses sources like this one as "evidence" for his claims:


But is this story true?


Also see Anon., 2000. Marx of Respect. which also debunks the above claim.

If you read the bovine scatology that usually graces many creationist websites one would think that communists regarded Darwin as some kind of god, but that is not the case, even with regard to Marx. Marx was not that thrilled with some of Darwin's ideas as evidenced by these rather mocking references to Darwin's work in his private correspondence:


Looks like Morris et al prefer to propagate a myth rather than report the truth. And how about this blurb from the Creation Science Home Page
Funny thing is that if you read things like The Communist Manifesto, evolution or Darwin are NOT mentioned at all. Oh and where's the "case" for supporting the claim of "Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China". Not one shred of evidence is given to support the claims above.

Furthermore, this is actually a lie when one considers that Stalin was most definitely NOT an evolutionist:

STALIN, AN EVOLUTIONIST?
Stalin did NOT believe in evolution but was a devotee of the ideas of Trofim Lysenko. What Lysenko proposed was a form of Lamarckism which is NOT evolution. Lysenko got Stalin’s ear with the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendel’s theory of heredity were wrong. “Bourgeois science,” he called them, not fit for a communist state. It was a case of politics replacing science.
The implementation of Lysenko's "science" eventually resulted in the starvation of millions. Read more about this debacle when ideology overcomes science. This instance of where pseudo-science/ideology triumphs over the facts should be a warning to us all (not repeat this mistake by teaching bunk like YEC or ID as science when it's nothing but religion with no scientific evidence to back either)
Continued in Part 2 . . . .
 
Upvote 0

gladiatrix

Card-carrying EAC member
Sep 10, 2002
1,676
371
Florida
Visit site
✟28,397.00
Faith
Atheist
Novaknight said:
Evolution's a religion that says nature is all there is. Evolution is the basis for humanism, communism, naziism, abortion, and so on.


PART 2: HITLER AN "EVOLUTIONIST"?

To answer this charge, let's begin with the following:
From Creationists, Hitler and Evolution
EXCERPT
A common charge made by creationists is that evolutionary theory is "evil" and is the source of racism in general, and of dictatorial killers in particular. The most often-heard assertion is that Hitler and his racist genocide were the product of "evolutionary philosophy". Henry Morris, for instance, flatly declares, "However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionst." (Morris, "Evolution and Modern racism", ICR Impact, October 1973) Morris adds: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)

How accurate is this creationist finger-pointing? Not very. The creationists are apparently unaware of the fact that Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered). As for Hitler, even a cursory reading of his book Mein Kampf reveals that the true source of Hitler's inspiration and exhortations came from a source that creationists, understandably, would rather not talk about.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Had ICR made even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf, they would have seen a quite different source for Hitler's racist inspiration than the one they would have us believe. White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version) Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God: " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God. In fact, Hitler solemnly declares that his program of removing Jews and other "subhumans" from the earth is a divine task forced upon him by the Lord Almighty: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

Hitler concludes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission." For Hitler, removing the subhumans from earth was not a matter of biology or evolution---it was a divine mandate from God Himself, the "work of the Lord", a "truly high mission".
-----end excerpt-----

When the "Hitler was an atheist" argument is shown to be a fallacy, creationists will invariably try to blame Hitler's cruelty on evolution, their second-favorite whipping boy for the evils of the world after atheists/Satan. FYI, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was NOT coined by Darwin, but by the philosopher Henry Spencer. Furthermore, this phase, reluctantly adopted by Darwin, does NOT mean the survival of the meanest, strongest bad guy on the block at the expense of the weaker. This is the common mischaracterization by religionists and erstwhile "social Darwinists" like the American industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller et al, who first coined the phrase to justify their underhanded, dog-eat-dog corporate warfare and exploitation of their workers. What this phrase really means , IN CONTEXT, from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology


HITLER PRO-CHOICE?

What is hilarious about this comparison is that Nazis were dead set AGAINST abortion AND birth-control (just like most anti-choicers). They burned Margaret Sanger's books (very strange behavior on their part if she were really a Nazi sympathizer as most anti-choicers like to claim)
Nazis viewed women as having only one important function, that of perpetual baby factory (when they weren't worshipping at the shrine of Nazi male superiority in their spare time after changing nappies). To that end they outlawed both birth control and abortion which became a capital crimes (punishable by death):

Just how women were treated in Nazi Germany can be seen in this excerpt from Nazi Attitudes Toward Women :
More here from Hitler's Minister of Propaganda German Women by Joseph Goebbels

Did Hitler ever advocate abortion? Yes, when it was part of a campaign to exterminate all the "subhumans" (the "untermenschen"--Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, "coloreds", etc.). However, the Nazis usually didn't bother with abortion, but either killed those already pregnant outright or just worked them to death. After all, it was so much cheaper and cost effective than trying to mount "population reductions" by sterilization and abortion.

Should you also visit the sites of white racists like Christian Identity, Stormfront, White Power World Wide you will find that one reason that they idealize Hitler is his attitude toward women, abortion, and birth control (they call him "real progressive in the true nature of women's rights"!)

Hitler was NOT
  • an evolutionist
  • an atheist
  • pro-choice
despite what Novaknight would like others to believe in his campaign to slander all those who don't walk in lock-step to his particular version of Christianity.

Looks to me like you are doing nothing here but bearing false witness, NK.
 
Upvote 0

jwu

Senior Member
Sep 18, 2004
1,314
66
43
✟24,329.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true
Not only that, but the German word for "evolution" is "evolution". The straightforward translation of "Entwicklung" is "development" or "design".

ICR is playing a semantics game with synonyms and polynyms there.

jwu
 
Upvote 0

wardpossy

Warrior For Christ
Jan 6, 2005
782
76
Indiana
✟1,331.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Problems Of Evolution

Some have assumed that an evolutionary explanation of life would make God unnecessary. This overlooks some problems. Even if we assume that scientists will someday find enough "missing links" to confirm that life appeared and developed gradually over great periods of time, laws of probability would still show the need for a Creator. As a result, many scientists who believe in evolution believe also that the universe in all of its immensity and complexity did not "just happen." Many feel compelled to acknowledge the possibility or even likelihood of an intelligent designer who provided the ingredients for life and set in motion the laws by which it developed.

Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins. Info. provided by rbc
 
Upvote 0

h2whoa

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist
Sep 21, 2004
2,573
286
43
Manchester, UK
✟4,091.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

This is not a problem for evolution. Evolution adheres to the principles from your quote (copied and pasted, word for word). If people would actually bother to listen to even most atheistic evolutionists, let alone theistic evolutionists, you would have hear us say that evolution and science as a whole is not out there to disprove God. Clearly I would have a problem being a genetics researcher and a Christian if this were the case.

Only militant atheists and militant Creationists argue that evolution is attempting to disprove God. In fact anyone who actually gives the smallest damn about what pure science is about looks on both camps with equal dismay.

Science is not a theology. Nor does it attempt to be. Science and religion do not occupy the same niche in human understanding. Therefore any conflict between them is essentially artificial or the result of misapplication.

h2
 
Upvote 0

h2whoa

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist
Sep 21, 2004
2,573
286
43
Manchester, UK
✟4,091.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
wardpossy said:
Ya know, You are such a whiner

Thank you for your thoughful and concise reply which addresses the main body of my post.


wardpossy said:
you complain for my spelling,

Remedy = learn to spell. And actually it should be "you complain about my spelling".

wardpossy said:
You say I need to check my sources before posting, I do and I copy and paste a Professional point of view correctly written to post and you complain about that

Remedy = learn to think for yourself and stop regurgitating that which others have already vomitted into the discussion.

Remedy = redefine what you might consider a professional view point. A totally pointless argument about evolution that doesn't even apply due to the fact it's based on the false premise that evolution = NO GOD.

wardpossy said:
I would ask what you wanted but you would just complain or smart of about that....

You know what I want. Intelligent responses to the actual issues. ORIGINAL THINKING!

wardpossy said:
Are you insecure or something????

Yes, I worry that maybe the fundamentalists are the true representatives of Christianity in which case I'm insecure about the decision between abandoning my faith or turning into an ignoramous.


wardpossy said:
Sorry if this sounds kinda ******

Apology accepted. And you make your first correct post (ever?) it does indeed sound starstarstarstarstar...


wardpossy said:
but You dont even know what you want

Milk, two sugars.

wardpossy said:

Just so that you can keep whinging, should that be "unless"?

wardpossy said:
Anything I copy and paste are materials I have studed and use on a regular basis.

Edit: should say "anything I plagarise are things that someone told me are against evilution and I have copied and pasted them a thousand times before, never giving one ounce of thought into what I'm actually debating about".

That is my complaint.

Now, would you care to address what the rest of my post was actually about (i.e. that science and theism are not opposed)?

Love and hugs.

h2
 
Upvote 0

L'Anatra

Contributor
Dec 29, 2002
678
27
41
Pensacola, FL
Visit site
✟969.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then life itself would also violate it, as would practically any process that required heat input. Evolution can not possibly violate the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, since life can not exist at such a temperature. Do you realize what absolute zero is? It would seem that you do not know one iota about thermodynamics at all.
 
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

wardpossy

Warrior For Christ
Jan 6, 2005
782
76
Indiana
✟1,331.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Face it, If a person wants to believe something as a fact ANYONE can find evidence to pick and choose thru to make it APPEAR to back their Idea's, If you think about it we people here dont have any idea as to what is 100% FACT all we can do is take educated guesses and build ourselves upon that, Diffrence of opinions are healthy.
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
40
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟24,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single

Precisely. I hope you see that this is true for creationism as well. Your job, then, is to look at both sides with an open mind, examine things carefully, and make a decision based upon your conclusions from the evidence rather than concluding from bias. From your posts I feel that the latter is what you are doing.

If you lock up your mind against foreign ideas, you will miss out on a lot. And if you don't believe the creationsists are capable of doing what you accuse evolutionists of, you must at least be feeling some cognitive dissonance.
 
Upvote 0