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.
I havn't seen the movie, but are you suggesting that the scientific community is taking action against people who have conducted properly constructed experiements or observation that unambiguously point to inteligent design?Really? The impression that I got from Expelled was that it was comparing the actions of the scientific community to a totalitarian regime. I don't remember anything about a link between Darwinism and the holocaust being used as an actual argument against ToE. Besides, wasn't the focus of the movie about the actions taken against proponents of intelligent design?
And for showing that X is the root for genocide you would have to do more than just showing that someone justified his genocide by X.Of course that depends on why we are asking the question in the first place. For me, it's pretty clear. The roots of the holocaust should be understood so that we can avoid similar tragedies in the future.
You can´t draw that conclusion from Darwinism reasonably.If through Darwinism one can reasonably draw the conclusion that genetically 'inferior' individuals must die for the betterment of the human race, then there would be a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.
There isn´t a logical implication in the case of Darwin´s theory, either.As I stated earlier, yes, Christianity was a factor, but it takes alot of twisting to get from "love your neighbor as yourself" to "destroy inferior races for the good of humanity". In this case there is no logical implication between the two.
And you would have to show that Hitler´s conclusion was rational or more rational than any other prescriptive conclusions anyone could possibly draw from a descriptive theory.I think it's fair to say that a rational viewpoint that leads to genocide is much more dangerous than one that is irrational.
You have to discern the problem correctly, in the first place.But so what and why does that matter? It's obvious. You can't avert or fix a problem without first staring it in the face.
Take a look at all the thought systems that have come up since the Enlightenment, and you will see that "Social Darwinism" is not a prominent one.Well, since the modern era usually refers to the period of history beginning with the Enlightenment, why is that a problem?
You can´t draw that conclusion from Darwinism reasonably.
There isn´t a logical implication in the case of Darwin´s theory, either.
Darwin´s theory describes natural processes, and any prescriptive conclusion necessarily depends on your ethical convictions. As reasonably (or unreasonably, for that matter) as you can conclude from Darwin´s theory that inferiour races need to be destroyed for the good of humanity you can conclude the very opposite.
And you would have to show that Hitler´s conclusion was rational or more rational than any other prescriptive conclusions anyone could possibly draw from a descriptive theory.
I will go on record as saying that nothing the Nazis did was wrong and nothing the Nazis did was right, but much of what they did was ignorant and a cover-up for power-grabbing (as government always is). No one who understands evolutionary theory in general and the reality of human genetics and anthropology could possibly buy into the racialist theories.
To make another point: The Greeks though they were inherently ethnically and culturally superior to everyone else in the world. Were they influenced by 'Darwinism'? Cultural conformism and irrational jingoism are products of tribalistic stupidity, to link them to a scientific doctrine which more than anything refutes such theories is ridiculous.
This would fall under the general heading, yes. I don't accept morality. It's nonsense.Whoa there..... are you saying genocide isn't wrong??
Fair enough. I'll list my own conclusions beginning with Darwinism, and if you can show them to be irrational, I'll rest my case.
Beginning with Darwinism itself, it proposes that species adapt over time through small changes in their genetic pool through propagation, mutation and selection of the fittest. It also proposes that it is not necessarily the strongest that survive, but those that are most responsive to change. Am I right about all of this so far?
If that is true, then it follows that any species which is to survive must possess some trait that aids its ability to survive in the face of drastic change, and that it is drastic change which enables these traits to become predominant within a population by eliminating a substantial number of individuals that do not possess it.
It is very reasonable to assume through human experience that within our species, traits such as intelligence, good eye sight, hearing and strength, etc., are traits that help us to adapt to change in our environments. But if we, through our own inventive ways, sufficiently conquer nature and minimize the effects of these drastic changes, then the very mechanism which has aided in the development of our 'superior' traits will itself be subverted if we continue in our ways. In fact it can be observed that through the practice of modern medicine, the lives of countless individuals are preserved where they would have died if left unattended. In this case we should expect some of these traits to degenerate over time at the very least.
So then, if we are to avoid the degeneration of our abilities to survive, the reintroduction of adverse circumstances which cause the deaths of the 'unfit' could be a solution to this problem.
Granted, this in no way defines exactly what it is to be 'unfit' or what a society should do, but I believe it sufficiently backs up my point that there is a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.
Not necessarily. If for some odd reason, Aunt Bee rose to power in Hitler's place, I seriously doubt that there would have been a holocaust even if she was a fascist. Hitler was a madman, and people don't tend to listen to madmen unless they make sense. He might not have been a reasonable man, but I don't think he would have been so successful in his agenda if his solution itself was completely irrational.
Fair enough. I'll list my own conclusions beginning with Darwinism, and if you can show them to be irrational, I'll rest my case.
Beginning with Darwinism itself, it proposes that species adapt over time through small changes in their genetic pool through propagation, mutation and selection of the fittest. It also proposes that it is not necessarily the strongest that survive, but those that are most responsive to change. Am I right about all of this so far?
If that is true, then it follows that any species which is to survive must possess some trait that aids its ability to survive in the face of drastic change, and that it is drastic change which enables these traits to become predominant within a population by eliminating a substantial number of individuals that do not possess it.
It is very reasonable to assume through human experience that within our species, traits such as intelligence, good eye sight, hearing and strength, etc., are traits that help us to adapt to change in our environments. But if we, through our own inventive ways, sufficiently conquer nature and minimize the effects of these drastic changes, then the very mechanism which has aided in the development of our 'superior' traits will itself be subverted if we continue in our ways. In fact it can be observed that through the practice of modern medicine, the lives of countless individuals are preserved where they would have died if left unattended. In this case we should expect some of these traits to degenerate over time at the very least.
So then, if we are to avoid the degeneration of our abilities to survive, the reintroduction of adverse circumstances which cause the deaths of the 'unfit' could be a solution to this problem.
Granted, this in no way defines exactly what it is to be 'unfit' or what a society should do, but I believe it sufficiently backs up my point that there is a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.
Not necessarily. If for some odd reason, Aunt Bee rose to power in Hitler's place, I seriously doubt that there would have been a holocaust even if she was a fascist. Hitler was a madman, and people don't tend to listen to madmen unless they make sense. He might not have been a reasonable man, but I don't think he would have been so successful in his agenda if his solution itself was completely irrational.
Beginning with Darwinism itself, it proposes that species adapt over time through small changes in their genetic pool through propagation, mutation and selection of the fittest. It also proposes that it is not necessarily the strongest that survive, but those that are most responsive to change. Am I right about all of this so far?
If that is true, then it follows that any species which is to survive must possess some trait that aids its ability to survive in the face of drastic change, and that it is drastic change which enables these traits to become predominant within a population by eliminating a substantial number of individuals that do not possess it.
It is very reasonable to assume through human experience that within our species, traits such as intelligence, good eye sight, hearing and strength, etc., are traits that help us to adapt to change in our environments.
But if we, through our own inventive ways, sufficiently conquer nature and minimize the effects of these drastic changes, then the very mechanism which has aided in the development of our 'superior' traits will itself be subverted if we continue in our ways. In fact it can be observed that through the practice of modern medicine, the lives of countless individuals are preserved where they would have died if left unattended. In this case we should expect some of these traits to degenerate over time at the very least.
So then, if we are to avoid the degeneration of our abilities to survive, the reintroduction of adverse circumstances which cause the deaths of the 'unfit' could be a solution to this problem.
Granted, this in no way defines exactly what it is to be 'unfit' or what a society should do, but I believe it sufficiently backs up my point that there is a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.
1. Darwin´s theory describes what nature does all by itself. There is no prescriptive postulation whatsoever implied in a descriptive theory. Nature doesn´t need us to intentionally help it.
2. With a similar line of reasoning as yours it could be concluded from the theory of gravity that we should drop everything without resisting it.
3. You list a couple of particular human traits and leave out others - compassion for example. Why is that?
4. The idea of "Social Darwinism" has not been successful. It has been entertained at times in some small areas, but the overall fact is that we do the very opposite, as you yourself have pointed out. Yet, the human race is remarkably successful in terms of survival of the species. Facts demonstrate your conclusion to be false.
5. Now here´s the key question: What do you think should be done with descriptive scientific findings from which people like you and Hitler (who don´t grasp the difference between "is how nature works" and "is what we should do" - which, consistently applied, of course would allow for the absurdest prescriptive conclusions from all sorts of scientifc findings)manage to "reasonably" derive the prescriptive postulation that certain atrocities are not only justified but even the way to go?
Knock them down? Oppress them? Pretend they aren´t accurate? Burn the books?
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, so far as I can tell, is that not all forms of Eugenics are bad. For instance, if scientists created and gave people a gene that acted as a vaccine for HIV, or even say, the Rhino virus, how would that be bad? Accepting, of course, it wasn't all an elaborate hoax set up by the Godless, reprobate evolutionists and it actually killed people instead. Which I'm sure is very likely.
I am not trying to show this. I am trying to show that it is a rational/irrational as any other conclusion. I am trying to show that these conclusions are not implied by and do not necessarily follow from Darwin´s theory. I am trying to show that the conclusions are determined by other preconceptions, and not by Darwin´s theory itself.I agree with you at least in that it is an incomplete conclusion, but your points here aren't enough to show that that line of reasoning alone is irrational.
Darwin´s theory was not required to "allow" persons to commit horrible atrocities. Such things happened before Darwin appeared on the scene, and there was no shortage of justifications that convinced others. Including justifications from Christianity.It makes enough sense to allow a madman like Hitler to sway a society into doing horrible things.
And elsewhere they thought differently about it.You can argue against it all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it appears that this is how many people of post WWI Europe were thinking at the time.
And these quotes demonstrate what exactly? Sure, that was what was going on in their heads, but I don´t even see any reference to Darwin´s theory, even less a conclusive deduction.To demonstrate the kind thing that was going on in their heads here's a couple quotes from one of the founders of the idea of racial hygiene:
"Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state." - Ernst Rüdin at a speech to the German Society for Rassenhygiene, quoting Hitler.
"The significance of Rassenhygiene did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating Rassenhygiene into action finally become a reality." - Ernst Rüdin.
Of course, that would require us to ignore those parts of the bible who can be used to justify the opposite.Lol... of course, we would all do well to adhere to the basic tenets of Christianity in loving our neighbors and bearing one another's burdens.
What´s that got to do with anything? How does it answer my question?If we do, God will give us the grace and wisdom we need to improve upon our problems. And if we reject morality, what's to stop us from doing what Hitler did in the case that another madman rises to power?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?