The Final Solution

[bhsmte]

Are they still going?

Not sure.

 

[Strathos]

Arguing that Hitler (who had a very twisted and misguided view of the ToE, combined with various elements of creationism and even paganism) did what he did because of ToE is a common creationist misconception. In fact Hitler had Darwin's Origin of Species banned. But of course various atheists also make claims that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity, which isn't true either (although Hitler professed Christian beliefs, or at least used them to motivate the German people, obviously he wasn't acting in accordance with the teachings of Christianity). He also wasn't acting in accordance with the "teachings of evolution" either, because there is no such thing (The ToE, like all scientific theories, is descriptive, not prescriptive). Even if he had been, that wouldn't make it false either (imagine saying that since atomic theory was used to construct nuclear bombs and kill many people, that means atomic theory must be false).

In the end Hitler did what he did because he was a racist nutcase. No ideas, religions, or philosophies he may have appropriated and twisted to his own ends are responsible for that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Arguing that Hitler (who had a very twisted and misguided view of the ToE, combined with various elements of creationism and even paganism) did what he did because of ToE is a common creationist misconception. In fact Hitler had Darwin's Origin of Species banned. But of course various atheists also make claims that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity, which isn't true either (although Hitler professed Christian beliefs, or at least used them to motivate the German people, obviously he wasn't acting in accordance with the teachings of Christianity). He also wasn't acting in accordance with the "teachings of evolution" either, because there is no such thing (The ToE, like all scientific theories, is descriptive, not prescriptive). Even if he had been, that wouldn't make it false either (imagine saying that since atomic theory was used to construct nuclear bombs and kill many people, that means atomic theory must be false).

In the end Hitler did what he did because he was a racist nutcase. No ideas, religions, or philosophies he may have appropriated and twisted to his own ends are responsible for that.

I think most of us would agree that "If Hitler says it is true, it must be true" is not a valid argument.

 

[Armoured]

I think most of us would agree that "If Hitler says it is true, it must be true" is not a valid argument.

Conversely, "Hitler said it is true, therefore it is false" is equally problematic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Conversely, "Hitler said it is true, therefore it is false" is equally problematic.

Exactly. You need to show that each statement stands on its own using evidence, reason, and logic.

 

[timewerx]

Lastly, eugenics doesn't work. Many of the traits we most desire our species to have are too complex to reliably use selective breeding to improve, such as intelligence.

It works on dogs, and some dogs are smarter than people. So intelligence shouldn't matter!

Only breeding geniuses may have a problem because genius is often a result of genetic defects or brain injury.

And many of the hardcore geniuses are "mad" and unstable like Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh was estimated to have higher IQ than Albert Einstein.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Goonie]

This is a thread that was godwinned from the start.

 

[USincognito]

Why is this in the C&E forum?
Shouldn't this belong somewhere else? Like Ethics and Morality?

Because JohnR7 has always posted these bizarre, off-topic threads in the C&E forum whatever sockpuppet he has used.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It has a lot of bearing as to how much the theory of evolution is true and how much it is error. Although the topic is "the final solution". The theory of evolution was a part of that.

It's not.

Just like the theory of gravity isn't part of the practice of ISIS to throw homosexuals down from high buildings.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The question is: "How can we tell if Science is objective or just a reflection of popular opinions?" Do you have an answer for the question?

By looking at the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The "final solution" has a LOT to do with evolution. They wiped out millions of people of our species. It has everything to do with the theory of selective or artificial breeding. Just like the slaves in south american were subject to selective breeding. That is very much one of the evolutionary theories. It was a part of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

No, it's not.

Instead, it was part of a delusional short, black haired psychopath with brown eyes who kept yapping about the "übermensch", which ironically was described as a tall, blonde person with blue eyes.

Evolution is a theory of biology explaining the processes life are inevitably subject to in reality. It's not a model on how to organize a society, nore is it a model telling people how they should behave.

No matter what some psychopath said or didn't say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the attitude of the medical profession. Perhaps they got that attitude from Darwin and from the theory of evolution.

Or perhaps you are completely wrong about every nonsense claim you have made throughout this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

View attachment 165945

Interesting mustache.

 

[Goonie]

Interesting mustache.

http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl
There's more cats where that came from

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is not my opinion. It's all a part evolution theory. "The idea of "social Darwinism" originated in the class stratification of England, and has often been used as a general term for any evolutionary argument about the biological basis of human differences. Drawing on social Darwinism, supporters of the 20th-century eugenics movement sought to "improve" human genetic stock, much as farmers do in agriculture."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/

Social Darwinism was not a part of the theory of evolution.
It was an overreaction to the idea presented by Darwin, with people thinking that it applied to social classes as well as animals. Social Darwinism doesn't work anyway.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is getting ridiculous. People are trying to have a real conversation with you. You could do them the basic common courtesy of not doing... whatever it is you're doing.

It's the thread on the Neolithic Revolution all over again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It works on dogs, and some dogs are smarter than people. So intelligence shouldn't matter!

Only breeding geniuses may have a problem because genius is often a result of genetic defects or brain injury.

And many of the hardcore geniuses are "mad" and unstable like Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh was estimated to have higher IQ than Albert Einstein.

But as Armoured said, that's an example of positive eugenics, i.e. breeding for positive traits in a species. What Hitler wanted to practice was negative eugenics, getting rid of what he saw as negative traits in humans.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's not.

Just like the theory of gravity isn't part of the practice of ISIS to throw homosexuals down from high buildings.

ISIS are anti homosexual? Is there some sort of symbolism in throwing them off of a high building?

 

[Loudmouth]

ISIS are anti homosexual? Is there some sort of symbolism in throwing them off of a high building?

You are side stepping the issues.