Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Communist deniers

Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Steven J." <steven_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188253355.654807.266390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 27, 4:52 pm, Jason Spaceman
<notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


But one disturbing tangent that has come out of these debates is the
shocking tendency of some evolutionists to attempt to disavow the
significant historical impact that Darwin's dangerous idea had on
some of history's most dangerous men. While the National Socialist
enthusiasm for evolution-inspired eugenics is too well known to be
credibly disputed, the
direct link between Darwin and communism is less well understood.

Even if these 'historical impacts on' and 'direct links between' were
demonstrable and credible (which they aren't), they wouldn't affect
the reality of natural selection or the truth of neo-Darwinism *in the
slightest*.

In short, nothing that a bad man does with a good theory stops it
being a good theory. And that fact remains true no matter how many
pretend tantrums the sub-moral Mr Day is paid to throw.

Well I have been having a lovely little chat with Vox and even quoted you.
Being a WingNutter, I would have thought he was a drooling Republican, but
he seems to be enjoying the heck out of the whole Republican gloryhole
action.

Here's what I originally wrote:

Sir:

You write: "But one disturbing tangent that has come out of these debates is
the shocking tendency of some evolutionists to attempt to disavow the
significant historical impact that Darwin's dangerous idea had on some of
history's most dangerous men."

What about Newton's dangerous idea? Warriors and madmen (including those
Nazis and Communists) have been using Newtonian mechanics for centuries to
lob everything from rocks to ICBMs. And what about Einstein's dangerous
idea? With it, humanity faces annihilation. The president has warned us
about the danger that we face should a certain madman have a nuclear weapon.
So what do you propose we do about these well established theories? Do we
ban teaching science?

And your attempt to vilify a scientific theory by ascribing it a political
persuasion is laughable. Evolutionary theory is no more communistic than
combustion theory is capitalistic. I could make an equally valid argument
that evolutionary theory is capitalistic. Wouldn't natural selection fit
better in a capitalistic framework where the strong survive and the weak are
vetted rather than a communistic setting where the strong support the weak?

Regardless, evolutionary theory describes biological systems. To apply them
to political or sociological systems is possible but beyond the realm of the
theory itself.

Eugenics represents a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory
that even Darwin understood, even if Hitler and you don't. Eugenics
represents artificial, not natural, selection. Darwin knew, and any
biologist will tell you, that any time a trait is artificially selected for
there is a significant risk that other traits will be selected as well and
these may have deleterious effects on the organism. In nature, any
beneficial mutations that are coupled with a deleterious mutation will be
balanced out. If the balance tips toward beneficial, then the trait will
likely be preserved. If not, nature will ruthlessly weed it out. You see,
from a efficiency standpoint, Hitler had nothing on nature.

History is replete with examples of man's inhumanity to man. Even the Bible
is filled with stories of the Israelites killing their neighbors in grand
fashion. No Darwin or Marx there. How could they have possible known how to
do what they did? Oh, right, their god told them to do it. What about
Rwanda, the Balkans, Darfur? Are these "atheistic Darwinists" everywhere?

And as you touch on, these modern atheist killers like Stalin and Mao were
motivated by their ideologies. Hitler, of course, was virulently
anti-atheist. Was he a Christian? Sure, he was raised Catholic. Was he
driven by his religion or his ideology? I think a better case can be made
for at least a residual effect of his religious upbringing on his
anti-Semitism than one can make for Stalin's atheism on his murderous
tendencies. Atheism, despite what you might think, does not ask its
followers to murder.

Quoting another denizen of talk.origins (Pt. Lurk): "Even if these
'historical impacts on' and 'direct links between' were demonstrable and
credible (which they aren't), they wouldn't affect the reality of natural
selection or the truth of neo-Darwinism in the slightest. In short, nothing
that a bad man does with a good theory stops it being a good theory."
(Geoff - I left off the part where you called him sub-moral...LOL).

Regards,

Geoff

P.S. You might want to read up on Stalin. He rejected Darwinian evolution
for Lysenkoism.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do ... Clarifying what Darwin ... phrase that should be deeply embarrasing to Evolutionists stands out ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... These imaginary slits do not exist, ... Darwin was wrong. ... instance, most animals have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. ... that evolutionists wouldn't think everything of common origin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
    ... science in attempts to attack evolution. ... great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian. ... of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
    ... science in attempts to attack evolution. ... great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian. ... of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... These imaginary slits do not exist, ... Darwin was wrong. ... instance, most animals have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. ... that evolutionists wouldn't think everything of common origin. ...
    (talk.origins)