Natural selction - creationist style

[FreezBee]

In 1835, Edward Blyth published

An Attempt to Classify the "Varieties" of Animals, with
Observations on the Marked Seasonal and Other
Changes Which Naturally Take Place in Various
British Species, and Which Do Not Constitute Varieties
​

(Link)

As the title states, the paper attempts to classify the "varieties" of animals. As true varieties, Blyth counted breeds, about which he writes:

The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form; and, as the sexual passions excite to rivalry and conflict, and the stronger must always prevail over the weaker, the latter, in a state of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing its race. In a large herd of cattle, the strongest bull drives from him all the younger and weaker individuals of his own sex, and remains sole master of the herd; so that all the young which are produced must have had their origin from one which possessed the maximum of power and physical strength; and which, consequently, in the struggle for existence, was the best able to maintain his ground, and defend himself from every enemy. In like manner, among animals which procure their food by means of their agility, strength, or delicacy of sense, the one best organised must always obtain the greatest quantity; and must, therefore, become physically the strongest, and be thus enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of offspring. The same law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties; but it is also clear that, if man did not keep up these breeds by regulating the sexual intercourse, they would all naturally soon revert to the original type. Farther, it is only on this principle that we can satisfactorily account for the degenerating effects said to be produced by the much-censured practice of "breeding in and in." There would almost seem, in some species, to be a tendency, in every separate family, to some particular kind of deviation; which is only counteracted by the various crossings which, in a state of nature, must take place, and by the above-mentioned law, which causes each race to be chiefly propagated by the most typical and perfect individuals.

As should be clear, Blyth was a creationist believing that the struggle for existance and mating was what kept a species healthy and true to its nature. The most typical members were the best adapted.

Blyth even considers this a natural law made by Providence (= the creator).

Now, in another thread, a quote from Mein Kampf, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, came up.

Here with som more context:

[SIZE=+1]The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.

Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]

Compare carefully to the Blyth quote. As you'll see, Hitler agrees with Blyth, except that Blyth accepted the possibility of evolution.

However, the main thing is that they agreed that a struggle for existance was what kept a species healthy, and they agreed concerning the essentialism of species.

While Darwin kept the struggle for existance, he gave it a small tweak: what if the environment changes, so that there would be other fitness parameters. Would the species then not change? Darwin's laim was that it would.

My point here is that Darwin, contrary to, what some creationists claim, was no proto-Nazi, and that Hitler actually was closer to creationists than he was to Darwin.


- FreezBee
[/SIZE]

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

FYI creationism is opposed to evolution.

 

[FreezBee]

FYI creationism is opposed to evolution.

Not quite that simple.

While all creationists are essentialists, most of them do accept some evolution (change).

But the point in the OP is that Blyth and Hitler saw natural selection as a natural law that kept a species healthy and true to its essence, whereas Darwin saw natural selection as a modifier of species that therefore could not have an essence.


- FreezBee

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

While all creationists are essentialists, most of them do accept some evolution (change).

Every Christian accepts change.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

 

[FreezBee]

Every Christian accepts change.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

You just made my case!

Hitler and Blyth did not accept common descent, while Darwin did not deny it.

- FreezBee