• 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.

Natural selction - creationist style

FreezBee

Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
1,306
44
Southern Copenhagen
✟1,704.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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:


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]

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]
 

FreezBee

Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
1,306
44
Southern Copenhagen
✟1,704.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟19,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
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
 
Upvote 0

FreezBee

Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
1,306
44
Southern Copenhagen
✟1,704.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single

You just made my case!

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

- FreezBee
 
Upvote 0