Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazi's were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.

On Apr 4, 10:16 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 2, 11:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 2, 8:03 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 5:03 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 1:46 pm, RAM <RAMather...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

Now, Ray, can you point me to where the members of the Nazi Party note
that *natural* selection, since that is what was responsible for the
evolution of all modern humans, was quite sufficient to account for
and maintain human qualities?

The evidence has already been posted showing that Hitler (in 1938)
based his actions on the truth of Darwinism.

No.  Hitler may have *claimed* that he was basing his actions on the
"truth of Darwin" or "science" or "race science" or "eugenics".  That
does not mean he was.  

Since his actions confirm what he said you are wrong.

Since the key new idea of Darwin was that
*natural* selection was responsible for the evolution of *all* species
and *all* races within species (adapting them to local conditons),

False.

Darwin said natural selection was the main but not the exclusive means
of modification.

I am asking where, in the mishmash of pseudoscientific, pseudoreligious,
racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution*
of humans (including Aryans) by the process of *natural* selection.


Professor Evans (an evolutionist, presumably) said Hitler based his
actions on science defined as Darwinian. Evans said that Hitler made
these announcements in a speech given (IIRC) in 1938, well after "Mein
Kampf" was written.

If Hitler is basing his actions on the *real* ideas that we biologists
attribute to Darwin, don't you think he would have at least mentioned
the evolution of humans from some 'ancestral' (or, in the terms of
that time, 'lower') species?  

He could have. I don't know.

And your comments somewhat distort the claim. Hitler accepted that
mankind was just another animal race since we are in competition with
every other species including "sub humans". He selected these
competitors for extinction. Hitler implemented the main claims of
evolution. This is what happens when "science" says God does not
exist. Professor Evans also said that Hitler accepted this "science"
as serving man and not God - which is absolutely true. Darwinian
science says God is not seen in reality and therefore He does not
exist.

The correspondence between Darwinism and Hitler are crystal clear.
It's better to just admit like I have about Martin Luther and like Dr.
Scott did about the Church and its failure to stop Hitler. Presently
no evolutionist has admitted. This failure indicates that
evolutionists are not objective and cannot recognize anything that is
perceived to hurt their causes, unlike Theists. But since Professor
Evans is undoubtedly an evolutionist this means lay evolutionists are
unable to admit to any truth that hurts evolution. In fact I have
never seen a lay evolutionist admit to anything that hurts evolution.
This proves what kind of people the rank and file are.


Instead we hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo
about the Aryan race being divinely created by some Norse god or some
other god.

Now, *if* you want to claim that Hitler was a Spenserian "social
darwinist", I would agree.  But *social darwinism* is NOT Darwinian
evolution, even though it arose from Spenser's ideas,

You are wrong:

Darwin biographers, Desmond & Moore "Darwin" (1991; both scholars are
Darwinists):

"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly
concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event,
tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that
competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual
inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism
was invented to explain human society" (page 10).

"Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007

"The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin" by Peter Quinn:

"For the second edition of 'Descent of Man' (1874), Darwin
'added ...Galton's eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer's "survival of
the fittest" social philosophy...calling Galton's treatise
"remarkable" and Spencer "our greatest philosopher"" (page 10).

which he also
derived from Malthus; "social darwinism" is a social philosophy based
on the idea of species degenerating if one changes the environment to
help the less fortunate.  The poor, according to *social* Darwinism,
deserve their fate and attempting to improve their lot by providing
them with schooling, food, good housing, sanitation, or health care is
like teaching pigs to be astronauts.   Darwin was not responsible for
"social darwinism" and never used the term.


Nonsense. Darwin fully agreed with Reverend Malthus.

Malthus's argument was attempting to convince Parliament to repeal
Poor Laws. Imagine that; two "Christians" waging war on the poor
attempting to deny them food stamps.

*If* you want to claim that Hitler was a eugenicist, I might agree
(although it is soooooo easy to point out the ludicrousness of many of
the groups he chose to exterminate being 'genetic' or 'hereditary'
defectives).  Hitler, in fact, did not seem particularly concerned
with whether even the extermination of the mentally ill or mentally or
physically disabled Germans had any biological effect (no attempt was
made to distinguish between genetic and non-genetic causes of these
defects).  Instead the justification used for killing them was
economic (the area that social darwinism dealt with, taking capitalism
to its logical end):  these were unproductive lives, a drag on the
public, a waste of resources.


Agreed.

No.  I am not interested in what Hitler *claimed* he was basing his
actions on.  Any more than I think that Hitler's *claims* to be in
favor of a Christian Germany should be taken as necessarily evidence
that he thought deeply about what it meant to be a Christian.  What I
am saying is, that *whatever* he claimed to be basing his actions on,
it was not, in actuality, based on either Christianity or an actual
understanding of Darwin's major contribution.  His *actions* and the
justifications for those actions are based on the ante-Darwinian idea
that natural selection is only able to preserve a breed of animals by
removing 'race polluters' and 'race contaminants' and is not even able
to do that without help from an 'intelligent designer'.

You were making sense right until the very end or the last phrase.

Which one?  The one where I say "and is not even able to do that
without help from an 'intelligent designer'"?  

Yes, that is the one.

Eugenics is, by
definition, "intelligently designed animal breeding".  

Eugenics is racial (white) superiority beliefs and an agenda of
advocating forced sterilization of anyone they deem a loser. There is
nothing intelligent about these ideas. The same is gutter racism;
proto-Naziism. While intelligent persons did advocate these ideas,
based on the belief that they were selected, it is indefensible racism
by educated persons and nothing more.

It is *some*
human(s) deciding whether certain other humans should contribute to
the future gene pool of humankind.  

Yes, that is what I just said a little bit differently.

That is true even in the most
innocuous forms of eugenics, someone who has a genetic defect
deciding, as a matter of personal choice, not to reproduce and risk
passing on the defective gene (giving people the knowledge they need
to make that choice is what genetic counselors do).  And humans are
the only *real* rather than *hypothetical* 'intelligent agents' I know
of.


Advocated and implemented by persons who believe in evolution and
natural selection. Most of these persons were also Atheists.

Ronald Fisher was Professor of Eugenics and according to Richard
Dawkins the most important scientific figure since Darwin.

The foundation of evolution is racism. Darwin relied on his racism to
explain mankind after he became convinced that species were mutable
productions in the late 1830s. He had no evidence for human evolution
in the late 1830s - none. This is what happens when God is rejected as
Creator: racism, animal ancestry, eugenics, repression of poor people,
etc,etc. All of the early Darwinists were flaming racists, white
superiority fanatics and Atheists. "Admirable" foundation that
evolution is built upon.

 But
scholarship makes none of your distinctions, Howard. Professor Evans
of Cambridge said Hitler based his actions on Darwinian science. I
have always said that what this Darwinian Group believes and what
scholars publish is always in conflict.

I always assume that when a creationist quotes a legitimate source, it
is quote-mined and the quote is misleading.  

(your only hope)

You refuse to accept that your subjective preconceptions are false.
But thanks for admitting what we already know: the dishonest tactic
universally employed by evolutionists.

But it is also possible
that the source being quoted was not an expert in biology and also
confused "social darwinism" with "evolution of species".


Tactic.

A Darwinist attempting to preserve subjective preconceptions, which
always believe nothing to exist that harms evolutionary theory. This
tactic assumes evidence that harms evolution is really an honest
error. Of course the evolutionist never gets around to supporting
these face saving and ad hoc assertions. That is why it is a tactic
and not an argument.

No one ever said Evans was a biologist. The initial posts said he was
a Professor of Modern History. Howard, of course, knew this.


That is NOT
based on the idea that is the main contribution of Darwin.  It is
based on "animal breeding" and the conception of selection that is pre-
Darwinian.

Now all you need to do is support your assertion with a source.

Let me remind you that no less a source than the speaker in Matthew 7:
18-19 knew about breeding for desirable traits and what one must do to
those organisms which lacked those desirable traits.  He said, "A good
tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into
the fire."


Text book example of a quote mine.

The KKK does it, Ken Miller does it, Hitler did it, and now Howard
does it.

A little *real* rather than fabricated creationist history.  Although
Galton coined the term eugenics and first proposed *positive* eugenic
ideas (favoring the reproduction of the successful), he most certainly
had the classic *eugenic* anti-Darwinian idea that, in any match,
undesirable traits would eventually outweigh desirable qualities.
[Remember that heredity was thought to be a type of blending at this
time, this was before Mendel's rediscovery, so a belief that good
'blood' could be swamped out by 'bad' was not unreasonable.  However,
when Mendel was rediscovered the idea that bad traits outweighed good
traits never disappeared from eugenic ideas.]  Francis Galton
_Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws And Consequences_ 1892 p.
xviii, quoted in _War Against the Weak, Eugenics and America's
Campaign to Create a Master Race_, Edwin Black  Thunder's Mouth Press,
2003.  The last is a history of the eugenics movement, which was
largely American.

Moreover, Galton was well aware of the paucity of actual evidence for
his ideas.  In the above book, he wrote:  "The great problem of the
future betterment of the human race is confessedly, at the present
time, hardly advanced beyond the state of academic interest."  Even
years later he thought that musing about "improved breeds" of humans
was nothing more than"speculations on the theoretical possibility."
Black, op. cit. p. 18.

The tenuous connection between Darwin's evolutionary ideas and
Galton's eugenic ones rests on the following logic:  Humans evolved
initially by *natural* selection.  Civilization and charity toward
others subverts the cruel harshness of *nature* that produced humans,
allowing the 'weak' and 'unfit' to survive and reproduce.  Therefore
humans must substitute their intelligence for the missing reproductive
consequences of *nature* in order to preserve that which *nature*
produced.  This, of course, is the same logic that goes into 'social
darwinism'.  Note that in both eugenics and social darwinism, the
working assumption is that *natural selection*, the key idea that
Darwin proposed to explain speciation, no longer works.


That is not the key assumption. "You have made an honest error and
misunderstood."

(Have I learned the tactic?)

Galton's rather modest positive eugenics involved voluntary family
planning and governmental regulation of marriage.  To see how this
kind of social idealism became *negative* eugenics involving
sterilization and the use of governmental coercion, we need to go
across the pond -- to the good ol' racist-to-the-core, Klu Klux
Klannish, U.S. of A. (there were 3,224 lynchings during the 30 year
period between 1889 and 1918) and a man named Charles Davenport.


Please be reminded that Darwin fully endorsed his cousin's theories.
Darwin, in fact, was against slavery because he favored extermination
via forced sterilization. Slavery necessitates breeding to produce
replacements.


The *fact* that Americans had actually breed humans (and had for more
than 100 years before Darwin's publication) for the explicit benefit
of their masters was not some distant memory.  America was virulently
racist from top to bottom at this time *without* being Darwinist.  It
wasn't a belief in the theory of evolution that powered the genocide
against native Americans, the end of reconstruction and the
institution of Jim Crow laws against blacks and the rise in power of
the Klan, the Chinese Exclusion Acts, and repeated attempts to
restrict immigration and prevent "race suicide" by letting in all
those "huddled masses" of (Irish, Italians, Slavs, Jews, take your
choice).  

Agreed.

Americans were British-European immigrants. But what is your point
since no one said racism before Darwin was Darwin's fault. The charge
is that Darwinism is racism packaged as science and its original
perpetrators used science to justify and implement their racism. It
seems you have lost track of the basic points.

Only after God was rejected as special creator did Darwin then "see"
the "similarity" between non-caucasians and apes. How ironic!

Moreover, American science was not as 'academic' as it was
in Europe.  It focused more on practical subjects like agricultural
advances and breeding (the whole raison-de-etre of the Land Grant
college system.

This was a time when criminologists were talking about crime being an
inherited trait with identifiable "criminal types" with "beady
eyes" (excluding the robber barons, of course).  And numerous books
like "The Jukes, a Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and
Heredity" (1877) [interestingly, although this book was widely used as
evidence for the hereditary nature of criminality, the author
explicitly rejected that idea] or "Tribe of Ishmael: A Study of Social
Degeneration." (1888 by the social reformer, the Reverend Oscar
McCulloch.  Hereditarian ideas were widely present in the society, and
not just localized in a small minority of atheistic academics.  Many
social reformers, including people who also (or otherwise) advocated
for the ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, you failed to make any point after typing these histories.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Origins of Human Violence
    ... Did the earliest humans employ violence against one another, ... It was likely born out of the pressures of sexual selection. ... to have caused quantum-cosmological evolution (as if in a condensation-style ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
    ... Evolution and Reason ... humans employ reason they are not subject to Darwinian ... no group selection is required). ... make mutualised trading groups work our species evolved ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ...  All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five ... Selection acts to better ... Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to ... only force that drives evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM: Evolution week here at the ranch
    ... We grab a calf and the calf gets roped, ... call such a barbaric process "good") example of evolution. ... The fact that humans do the selecting does not change the fact that it ... the selection because humans are part of the natural world. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Birdbrain: From the Beagle to Buchenwald; the Trail of the Final
    ... I suspect that there is a connection between Darwin formulating ... natural selection and it's usefulness in preserving the purity of the ... and his comments relevant to evolution suggest that he did not ... humans and the most humanlike anthropoid apes. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading