Why Evolution is True (2)

dad said:

Right. Since it all started from animals that God created, who much cares? The issue I was bringing out was that rapid evolution existed. So, as far as ERVs go, we would have those 30 species of tigers all getting the ERVs pretty fast.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what your definition of rapid is, but I believe all current land based animals came from those on the ark. I think you do too, so.... it would be relatively fast (all modern results of micro evolution within 6-7k years).

that goes to show the current dating methods are flawed:

""His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

Lead Contamination (common lead content) *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.

Movement of Argon 40 Gas Problem (*J.F. Evernden, et al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154).

Potassium Leaching Problem *Rancitelli and *Fisher (*Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 167).

Date selections which agree with the 19th-century geologic column dating theories. (*L.R. Stieff, *T.W. Stern and *R.N. Eichler, "Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, 1963, No. 414-E).

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).

"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A.

Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]."Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.

Radio Carbon Dating "It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as follows: ‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."—*T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44]."

above from:

http://www.warneveryone.com/inaccurate_dating_methods.htm

gradyll said:

like I said, if you share common ancestry with cats, then this may be a valued resource for you, if not, it's not.

Click to expand...

My science teacher with a Ph.D in biology and decades worth of teaching experience apparently disagreed with you since she felt like it was a valuable video for us to watch. I guess if you were our teacher you would have given us "modern" resources that were primarily written before we were born (and some before our grandparents were born), and taught us from sites like the one you quote mined from for your last post. WarnEveryone.com is conspiracy theorist-esque lolzercoaster that has a countdown to hell on their homepage. I don't know even if know if they're sincere or if they're part of a faux fundie group like Landover Baptist.

Out of curiosity, what did you learn in your middle and high school science classes about evolution?

PsychoSarah said:

We do share common ancestry with all mammals.

Click to expand...

Yep.

gradyll said:

ERV's are not a solid link for ancestry.

Click to expand...

What would you then define as a "solid link?" By what criteria is some "other" sort of evidence solid but not genetic evidence? In other words, in a court of law when trying to determine a paternity case genetic evidence is as good as it gets (solid) for establishing truth.

I understand no single piece of evidence should be in itself a great amount of proof for common ancestry or the evolutionary model, but surely when many lines of independent evidence are consistent and when other supportive evidence is used from other non biology domains in science is makes it look fairly solid.

any small amount of similiarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similiar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:

Click to expand...

I am not talking just about a similarity but rather a pattern of shared ERV's with other Great Apes. To know why this matters, why it's relevant and important you'd have to have some background on what ERV's are, how they insert into the genome of a host and so on.

Further, no where in that link that you provided does it mention that H. Sapiens share 96% similarity in genes or in the overall genome. Did you even read it?

Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:

Again, those quotes you provide are not found in those links, are you just making it up as you go now?

Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

Click to expand...

The only misleading thing I am seeing is your quotes that don't exist in the links you provided.

Secondly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similiar designer, not a similar ancestor.

Click to expand...

What similar designer? Oh ok, so what processes and mechanisms did the designer use to design here? When has anything ever even been observed to be the case for how biodiversity or reproduction occurs?

Scientifically, how can use & test a "same designer" hypothesis? It doesn't appear to be at all falsifiable.

You totally and utterly ignored the second point of evidence I provided, that of the evidence for a fusion in Human Chromosome 2. Any comment?

Do we have shared ancestors with pigs, or cats? Well we are very similar to both. So the allegations are unfounded.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do share common ancestry with pigs and cats, both are mammals (like us), both belong to the same biological Kingdom Animalia, (like us) and both are Eukaryotes (like us). Nested phylogenetic trees helps prove this.

gradyll said:

I am not sure what your definition of rapid is, but I believe all current land based animals came from those on the ark. I think you do too, so.... it would be relatively fast (all modern results of micro evolution within 6-7k years).

Click to expand...

The No-Way Flood supposedly occurred a littler over 4000 years ago, not 6-7K years ago.

that goes to show the current dating methods are flawed:

Click to expand...

By using a non peer reviewed science journal as your citation?

dad said:

I go with the dates that have the flood something like 4500 years ago give or take a few centuries for possible interpretive leeway in the bible. I assume the state change was over a century after the flood possibly a bit more. I think that almost all the evolving we see to humans or horses etc was in that time..(century or 2). Apparently before the change most animals and man could not fossilize. The fossils we do see from before the KT (where I assume the flood was, till I see evidence that indicates otherwise) were the sort of creatures that could fossilize, not representative of life in general. All remains of man and most animals are of course after the KT.

I also see no reason that creatures could not have adapted and evolved in weeks, while alive in the former state! Hey, why not?


Got that right!


Since we do not know that decay existed at all, I see no need to invoke contamination!

.

Click to expand...

there are alot of assumptions in carbon dating. how do we know everything in the earth has consumed the exact amount of carbon to meet the quota. what if they were carnivors who ate carnivors who ate carnivors? no foliage in that diet, and as far as I know plant life is the main source of carbon. I agree with your dating of the flood. I get creation and flood dates crossed
.

Artemis97 said:

My science teacher with a Ph.D in biology and decades worth of teaching experience apparently disagreed with you since she felt like it was a valuable video for us to watch. I guess if you were our teacher you would have given us "modern" resources that were primarily written before we were born (and some before our grandparents were born), and taught us from sites like the one you quote mined from for your last post. WarnEveryone.com is conspiracy theorist-esque lolzercoaster that has a countdown to hell on their homepage. I don't know even if know if they're sincere or if they're part of a faux fundie group like Landover Baptist.

Out of curiosity, what did you learn in your middle and high school science classes about evolution?



Yep.

Click to expand...

my link proved that we are more similiar to cats than apes using erv and genome studies. so have you started looking for feline-human transitions yet? I rest my case. besides you entire argument is an appeal to authority which is a fallacy. Things are not right or wrong on the basis of who says them, it is on the basis of supporting premises being valid.

more info on how we are closer to cats than apes:

"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. " sources: Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

the exact chart on the genome site:
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17...expansion.html
Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

Naturalism said:

The No-Way Flood supposedly occurred a littler over 4000 years ago, not 6-7K years ago.



By using a non peer reviewed science journal as your citation?

Click to expand...

see my last post to dad, already adressed this.

gradyll said:

see my last post to dad, already adressed this.

Click to expand...

Your last post says nothing about supporting your earlier claim the no-way flood being 6-7 years ago. Nothing about human chromosome 2 fusion evidence either.

Naturalism said:

Your last post says nothing about supporting your earlier claim the no-way flood being 6-7 years ago. Nothing about human chromosome 2 fusion evidence either.

Click to expand...

I never said 6-7 years ago, I said 6-7k years ago. Thousands different. Anyway I was looking at a graph and confused the creation date with the flood date. Simple error.

Artemis97 said:

I'm not intending to be irreverent to your personal beliefs, but this part of your post reminded me of this:



Link to the source: Think Outside The Box (The Cutest Response to Creationism Ever!)

Click to expand...

technically thinking outside the box, would be the newer scientific discoveries of ID. Not Evolution, which is based on outdated science, but for the most part is unobserved on a macro level and therefore not science at all. I would say to the evolution believers, it's time to think outside of the box.

let me sum up evolution for you.


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother
__________________

gradyll said:

technically thinking outside the box, would be the newer scientific discoveries of ID. Not Evolution, which is based on outdated science, but for the most part is unobserved on a macro level and therefore not science at all. I would say to the evolution believers, it's time to think outside of the box.

let me sum up evolution for you.


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother
__________________

Click to expand...

It is so much easier to spew strawman arguments than to deal with reality.

Sadly you think the puzzle still is a duck.

Subduction Zone said:

It is so much easier to spew strawman arguments than to deal with reality.

Sadly you think the puzzle still is a duck.

Click to expand...

Actually, in the same way that the original naming of the 'Big Bang' was a futile attempt to belittle the process, his babyish representation of evolution is not that far from reality...

Except for the mud puddle nonsense....and the serial progression...and the 'coming from monkeys'....

On second thoughts......you're right......its still a duck for him......

Subduction Zone said:

It is so much easier to spew strawman arguments than to deal with reality.

Sadly you think the puzzle still is a duck.

Click to expand...

you comment is self defeating
what do you think the duck thing was? straw man.

"Darwin, Marx, and Freud helped shape the modern mind into conformity with the world view of Mechanistic Materialism."—*E.A. Opitz, "The Use of Reason in Religion," in Imprimis 7(2):4 (1978).

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx’s] ideology of ‘class struggle.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412."

‘This is the book,’ he [Marx] wrote to his disciple Engles in 1866, ‘which contains the basis in natural history for our view,’ and he would gladly have dedicated his own major work, Das Kapital, to the author of The Origin of Species if Darwin had let him.

"At Marx’s funeral Engels declaimed that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history. With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents . . After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 24.

"Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life . . But there are even finer points of comparison. In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or ethical quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product [and also the workman]."—*J. Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), p. 8.

"Again, Marx wrote to Engels, January 16, 1861, ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history . . not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to ‘teleology’ in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.



"Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Fredrick Engels in which he said: ‘. . this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view . .’ By defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of these reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order."—*Cliff Conner, "Evolution vs. Creationism: In Defense of Scientific Thinking," International Socialist Review, November 1980.

"Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an avid, self-appointed spokesman for Darwinism in Germany . . Haeckel professed a mystical belief in the forces of nature and a literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm. The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and the Monist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism. " . . English Darwinism interlinked two main themes, natural selection and the struggle for existence. Social Darwinism is an attempt to explain human society in terms of evolution, but Haeckel’s [proto-Nazi] interpretation was quite different from that of capitalist Herbert Spencer or of communist Marx. For him a major component was the ethic of inherent struggle between higher and lower cultures,—between races of men."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 48."Along with his social Darwinist followers, [Haeckel] set about to demonstrate the ‘aristocratic’ and nondemocratic aspect of the laws of nature . . Up to his death in 1919, Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed-bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany’s main ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. xvi.

"German Darwinism was shaped by Ernst Haeckel, who combined it with anticlericalism, militaristic patriotism and visions of German racial purity. He encouraged the destruction of the established church in Germany, with its sermons about ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ and compassion for unfortunates. Such a ‘superstitious’ doctrine would lead to ‘racial suicide.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119. ("Monism" is the theory that all reality consists only of matter. This teaching is an important basis of atheism).

"Of all the forerunners of Hitler in Germany—Hegel, Comte, Nietzsche, Bernhardi, and others—the most significant was certainly Ernst Haeckel, the atheistic founder of the Monist League and the most vigorous promoter of both biological Darwinism and social Darwinism in continental Europe in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 77-78.

"Only the fittest should survive."

"He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].

"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

"The great German exponent of Militarism, Nietzsche, extended the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in order to inspire his countrymen to fight. According to him, ‘The supreme standard of life is purely materialistic vitality and power to survive.’ The 1914-1918 war was thus the calculated climax of a policy nourished on the diabolical ideas of Nietzsche for the subjugation of the world. General von Bernhardi in his book, The Next War, shows the connection between war and biology. According to him, ‘War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind that cannot be dispensed with. War increases vitality and promotes human progress.’ The summuim bonum [highest good] of life according to Nietzsche’s own words is ‘Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly’ " (Oscar Levy, Complete Works of Nietzsche, 1930, Vol. 2, p. 75).

"Adolph Hitler reiterated the same philosophy of life derived from the theory of evolution when he said, ‘The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966) pp. 147-148.

"In defending two young men, Loeb and Leopold, for cruelly murdering a fourteen year old boy, by name of Bobby Franks, the celebrated criminal lawyer of the day, Clarence Darrow, traced their crime back to what they had learned in the university. He argued, ‘Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy seriously?’ His appeal to the judge was, ‘Your honour, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen year old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."—*W. Brigans (ed.), Classified Speeches, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 146.



"The greatest authority of all the advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of science."—*Max Nordau, "The Philosophy and Morals of War," in North American Review 169 (1889), p. 794.

*Barzun, a history teacher at Columbia University, wrote an epic book, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, in which he clearly showed that Darwinism inflamed militarism and warfare wherever it went.

"In every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens—all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, science incarnate . . Race was biological, it was sociological; it was Darwinian."—*Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), pp. 92-95.

"Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel laid the foundations for the intense German militarism that eventually led to the Great War of 1914-1918. There were others who participated in the development, of course, including many of the German generals and political leaders, all very much under the spell of the German variety of social Darwinism. General Friedrich von Bernhardi said:" ‘War gives biologically just decisions, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things . . It is not only a biological law, but a moral obligation and, as such, an indispensable factor in civilization!’ "—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 74.

"During World War I, German intellectuals believed natural selection was irresistibly all-powerful (Allmacht), a law of nature impelling them to bloody struggle for domination. Their political and military textbooks promoted Darwin’s theories as the ‘scientific’ basis of a quest for world conquest, with the full backing of German scientists and professors of biology."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 59.

"One need not read far in Hitler’s Mein Kampf to find that evolution likewise influenced him and his views on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments, etc."—Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"[The position in Germany was that] Man must ‘conform’ to nature’s processes, no matter how ruthless. The ‘fittest’ must never stand in the way of the law of evolutionary progress. In its extreme form, that social view was used in Nazi Germany to justify sterilization and mass murder of the ‘unfit,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘inferior races.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

The undesirables had to be eliminated.

"During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler believed he was carrying Darwinism forward with his doctrine that undesirable individuals (and inferior races) must be eliminated in the creation of the New Order dominated by Germany’s Master Race."—*R. Milner, Encylopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

"[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution . . For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. 188.

Hitler said this:
"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed."—*Adolf Hitler, quoted in *Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155."This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at face value . . He accepted evolution much as we today accept Einsteinian relativity."—*Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 180.

"Sixty-three million people would be slaughtered in order to obey the evolutionary doctrine that perishing is a law of nature."—*Op. cit., p. 181.

A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this:

"I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."—*Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.

"Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . [*Hitler said:] ‘He who would live must fight; he who does not wish to fight, in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.’ "—*Robert E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process."—*R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"Benito Mussolini, who brought fascism to Italy, was strengthened in his belief that violence is basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Neitzsche."—*Encyclopedia Britannica (1982), Vol. 16, p. 27.

all four parts are from :

Untitled Document

"Darwinism was welcomed in Communist countries since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had considered The Origin of the Species (1859) a scientific justification for their revolutionary ideology. As far as Socialist theorists were concerned, Darwinism had proved that change and progress result only from bitter struggle. They also emphasized its materialist basis of knowledge, which challenged the divine right of the czars."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

"Aspects of evolutionism are perfectly consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was, and remains, as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists. The sources of value and responsibility are not to be found in a separate mental realm or in an immortal soul, much less in the inspired words of the Bible."—*Robert M. Young, "The Darwin Debate," in Marxism Today, Vol. 26, April 1982, p. 21.

"Marx and Engels were doctrinaire evolutionists, and so have all Communists been ever since. Since atheism is a basic tenet of Marxism in general, and Soviet Communism in particular, it is obvious that evolution must be the number one tenet of communism. Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists, and so are today’s Communist leaders. In fact, they have to be in order ever to get to be Communist leaders!"—Henry Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 85.

"At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."—*E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (1940), pp. 8-9 [written and published in Moscow, by a close associate of *Stalin, while Stalin was alive].

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."—*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."—*Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 127.

"The study of human origins by anthropologists was particularly influenced by racist considerations, and this situation extended well into the first half of the 20th century. It is well-known that Darwin and Huxley, as well as Haeckel, believed in white supremacy, as did practically all the nineteenth-century evolutionary scientists, but it is not as widely known that the leading 20th-century physical anthropologists also shared such opinions."—H.M. Morris, History of Modern Christianity (1984), pp. 48-49.

"The pseudo-scientific application of a biological theory to politics . . constituted possibly the most perverted form of social Darwinism . . It led to racism and antisemitism and was used to show that only ‘superior’ nationalities and races were fit to survive. Thus, among the English-speaking peoples were to be found the champions of the ‘white man’s burden,’ an imperial mission carried out by Anglo-Saxons . . Similarly, the Russians preached the doctrine of pan-Slavism and the Germans that of pan-Germanism."—*T.W. Wallbank and *A.M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2 (1961), p. 362.

"Racism is the belief that other human groups are inferior to one’s own and can therefore be denied equal treatment."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 414.

"Almost any 19th or even mid-20th century book on human evolution carries illustrations showing the progression: monkey, ape, Hottentot (or African Negro, Australian Aborigine, Tasmanian, etc.) and white European. Few of the early evolutionists were free of such arrogance, not even the politically liberal Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 380.

"Darwin postulated, in the sixth edition of his Descent of Man, that the time would come when the white peoples would have destroyed the black. He also thought that the anthropoid apes would become extinct. He believed that when these two eventualities had occurred the evidence of evolution among living creatures would not be as strong as previously."—Bolton Davidheiser, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1989, p. 151.

"[Houston S.] Chamberlain wrote this prophetic statement in his Foundations [1899]: ‘Though it were proved that there never was an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. That is the decisive standpoint for men of action.’"When asked to define an Aryan during the height of the Nazi madness, Josef Goebbels proclaimed, ‘I decide who is Jewish and who is Aryan!’"During the German Third Reich (1933-1945), the ideal of Aryan purity and supremacy became that nation’s official policy. Adolph Hitler’s program of herding ‘inferior’ races into concentration camps and gas chambers was rationalized as making way for the new order of superior humanity. Meanwhile, S.S. officers were encouraged to impregnate selected women under government sponsorship to produce a new ‘master race’—an experiment that produced a generation of ordinary, confused orphans.

"Hitler was furious when the black American Jesse Owens outraced ‘Aryan’ athletes at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, contradicting his theories of racial supremacy. And when the ‘Brown Bomber’ Joe Louis knocked out boxer Max Schmeling, German propaganda became even more vehement that white superiority would be vindicated. However, when Hitler needed the Japanese as allies in World War II, he promptly redefined those Asians as ‘Honorary Aryans.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 25-26.

"Darwin’s notion that the various races were at different evolutionary distances from the apes, with Negroes at the bottom and Caucasians at the top, was not unique to him, but rather was almost universal among the evolutionary scientists of the nineteenth century . ."It was not only Darwin and Huxley, the two top evolutionists, who were racists. All of them were! This fact has been documented thoroughly in a key book by John Halter, appropriately entitled Outcasts from Evolution."—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 60-81.

"Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the ‘white man,’ because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania [Australia] in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state."—Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86.

A noted Chinese scientist, *Kenneth Hsu, wrote these words concerning his feelings about *Charles Darwin:

"My abhorrence of Darwinism is understandable, for what member of the ‘lower races’ could remain indifferent to the statement attributed to the great master (Darwin, 1881, in a letter to W. Graham) that ‘at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’ "—*Kenneth J. Hsu, in Geology, April 1987, p. 377.

"Unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to future ones is the modus operandi [operating mechanism] of biological evolution and may be regarded as rational behavior."—*W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," in Science, March 28, 1975, p. 1169.

"Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardice instead of bravery, cheating and exploitation."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Ethics and Values in Biological and Cultural Evolution," in Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1974, p. 6."As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy . . The law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15.



"As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy . . The law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15.



"Evolution is a hard, inescapable mistress. There is just no room for compassion or good sportsmanship. Too many organisms are born, so, quite simply, a lot of them are going to have to die . . The only thing that does matter is, whether you leave more children carrying your genes than the next person leaves."—*Lorraine Lee Larison Cudmore, "The Center of Life," in Science Digest, November 1977, p. 46.

"Biological theories of criminality were scarcely new, but Lombroso gave the argument a novel evolutionary twist. Born criminals are not simply deranged or diseased; they are, literally, throwbacks to a previous evolutionary stage."—*Steven Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 223.

"[Evolutionary] Science and religion are dramatically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels. And because the two world views make claims to the same intellectual territory, that of the origin of the universe and humankind’s relation to it—conflict is inevitable."—*Norman K. Hall and *Lucia B. Hall, "Is the War between Science and Religion Over?" in The Humanist May/June 1986, p. 26.

"By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has no fear of God is very shaky. That’s the condition we are in."—*Will Durant "Are We in the Last Stage of a Pagan Period?" in Chicago Tribune, April 1980.

"Darwinism spawned mangy offshoots. One of these was launched by Darwin’s first cousin, Francis Galton. Obsessed, as were many, by the implications of the ‘fittest,’ Galton set out in 1883 to study heredity from a mathematical viewpoint. He named his new science eugenics, from a Greek root meaning both ‘good in birth’ and ‘noble in heredity.’ His stated goal was to improve the human race, by giving ‘the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."—*Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1.

"Once almost obligatory in all biology textbooks, the promotion of eugenic programs was set back by the disastrous, barbarous attempts to create a ‘master race’ in Nazi Germany."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 156

."Nazi eugenics had two aspects: the extermination of millions of ‘undesirables’ and the selection and breeding of preferred ‘Aryan’ types. It was an article of faith that the blond, blue-eyed ‘Nordic-looking’ children would also prove intellectually and morally superior and that they would ‘breed true’ when mated. Neither assumption was correct."—*Op. cit., p. 272.



"I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or as the Nazi liked to say, of Blood and Soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. (Viktor Frankl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), a former Auschwitz inmate wrote in The Doctor and the Soul, that the source for much of the 20th Centurys inhumanity has come from the very origins being discussed here.
"Darwin, Marx, and Freud helped shape the modern mind into conformity with the world view of Mechanistic Materialism."—*E.A. Opitz, "The Use of Reason in Religion," in Imprimis 7(2):4 (1978).

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx’s] ideology of ‘class struggle.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412."

‘This is the book,’ he [Marx] wrote to his disciple Engles in 1866, ‘which contains the basis in natural history for our view,’ and he would gladly have dedicated his own major work, Das Kapital, to the author of The Origin of Species if Darwin had let him.

"At Marx’s funeral Engels declaimed that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history. With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents . . After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 24.

"Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life . . But there are even finer points of comparison. In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or ethical quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product [and also the workman]."—*J. Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), p. 8.

all four parts are from :

Untitled Document