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


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5cf1025c-4f2d-488c-82a5-e0845ff184e6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 4, 10:16 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

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.

But Hitler's actions were not what one would expect, if one were following
Darwin's work. Hitler was using ideas that were not based on evolutionary
theory, but on ancient ideas of stock breeding.


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.

Ray, what you define as "modification" has nothing to do with natural
selection. Natural selection produces changes in populations, not in
individuals.


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.

Where did Professor Evans provide a definition of "Darwinian"?

Evans said that Hitler made
these announcements in a speech given (IIRC) in 1938, well after "Mein
Kampf" was written.

So, even though you think Darwin gave lip service to Christanity, everything
he said about "Darwinism" were correct?


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.

There's no evidence that Hitler ever did so.


And your comments somewhat distort the claim.

How?


Hitler accepted that
mankind was just another animal race since we are in competition with
every other species including "sub humans".

"Sub human" makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Species are not normally
in competition with every other species, and species such as humans tend to
be social, which makes cooperation more reasonable than murder, when dealing
with other members of the same species.

He selected these
competitors for extinction.

Again, that doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms. Individuals don't
"select" others for extinction in evolution. If extinction occurs, it's
due to the population being unable to adapt to conditions. "Selecting"
another population for extinction would only lead to faster extinction of
one's own population. Also, there's no reason to suspect that Jews,
Homosexuals, or Gypsies, or Hitler's political enemies were using up
resources at a faster rate, or presented a physical threat to any other
segment of the population. The actions of Hitler, and other eugenicists
makes little sense in evolutionary terms.

Hitler implemented the main claims of
evolution.

The above is not a claim of evolution at all, much less a "main claim".

This is what happens when "science" says God does not
exist.

Science does not say that God does not exist. What's more, other tyrants
have committed the same kind of mass murder under the name of God. So, why
would this be what happens when science says God doesn't exist? When
people believe God exists (such as the recent genocide in Rwanda) such
crimes happen as well.

Professor Evans also said that Hitler accepted this "science"
as serving man and not God - which is absolutely true.

Irrelevant, at best. What Hitler accepted was not evolutionary science,
but pseudoscientific nonsense.

Darwinian
science says God is not seen in reality and therefore He does not
exist.

Ray, no science assumes the presence of God. That does not mean it claims
"God is not seen in reality", and it's your own assumption that if you don't
see the fingerprints of God, God isn't there. Don't blame science for your
own lack of faith.


The correspondence between Darwinism and Hitler are crystal clear.

Only if you wish to see what isn't there.

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.

Why should anyone admit what isn't true?

Presently
no evolutionist has admitted.

Because it's not true.

This failure indicates that
evolutionists are not objective and cannot recognize anything that is
perceived to hurt their causes, unlike Theists.

Ray, as explained before, even if Hitler was a devoted follower of Darwin,
it does not make the science of evolution any less valid. The fact is
that Hitler and the Nazis were not inspired by Darwin, or Darwin's work.
That claim is just wrong. "Theists" are just as capable of lying to
protect their beliefs, and you have shown that willingness to deny evidence
that you are cynically decrying.

But since Professor
Evans is undoubtedly an evolutionist this means lay evolutionists are
unable to admit to any truth that hurts evolution.

Again, it's not a matter of "admitting" a truth. The claim you make is
false. Professor Evans is not the last word in everything, and is not the
be all and end all of the matter. He may be wrong, he may be mistaken, he
may be misquoted. Even if he were right, it wouldn't affect the veracity
of the theory of evolution.


In fact I have
never seen a lay evolutionist admit to anything that hurts evolution.

Because there happens to be nothing that does "hurt" evolution. If you
find something that acutally do, please present it. Otherwise, don't expect
people to admit to things that are false.

This proves what kind of people the rank and file are.

Yes, generally honest people who haven't fallen for the same lies that you
willingly accept.



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).

What you are missing here is that the science of evolution goes beyond
Darwin himself, and his prejudices and beliefs. Social Darwinism, despite
what Desmond and Moore say, is still not the science of evolution.


"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).

This still doesn't make the science of evolution into the pseudoscience of
eugenics.


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.

Darwin realized that Malthus' observation about the competition for
resources was correct. There's nothing to indicate that Darwin agreed with
Malthus about what should be done about social conditions.


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.

"Food Stamps" did not exist at the time, and many "Christians", even today
oppose giving aid to the poor. Darwin did not advocate denying food to the
poor.

snip

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.

Why do you feel this does not make sense?


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.

Some eugenicists advocated forced sterilzation, others did not.

There is
nothing intelligent about these ideas.

Howard was using the term "intelligent" as in "directed", not "advisable",
or "wise".

The same is gutter racism;
proto-Naziism.

Ray, not all racism is "proto Naziism" The racist ideas that were in vouge
at the time were just as prevalent in religious circles as well as
scientific.

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.

I'm not defending racism, but one needs to undestand that was what nearly
everyone, even "Christian" leaders believed at the time. To single out
supporters of science, or evolutionary theory here misses the larger point.
What make success in economic terms is not not what makes success in
biological terms. Eugenicists misused ideas of "survival of the fittest"
to support their own economic success as being ordained by nature. The
real science of evolution does not support such beliefs.


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.

Which is not natural selection.


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.

Actually, most of the eugenicists were not atheists, but professed to be
Christians. If they said they "believed in" evolution and natural
selection, they showed no sign of letting natural selection to operate on
it's own. They instead thought that they had to provide "intelligent
design" to make the species "better". Those concepts are not Darwinian.


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

Because of his work with statistics and genetics, not because of eugenics.


The foundation of evolution is racism.

That claim is not true. The foundation of evolution is to explain the
evidence.

Darwin relied on his racism to
explain mankind after he became convinced that species were mutable
productions in the late 1830s.

Darwin did not rely on any "racism" to make the connection between humans
and other apes. It was already well known that chimps and gorillas were
the species closest to humans in anatomy and physiology.

He had no evidence for human evolution
in the late 1830s - none.

Except for the above mentioned anatomy and physiology. Why do you ignore
that this evidence already existed?

This is what happens when God is rejected as
Creator: racism, animal ancestry, eugenics, repression of poor people,
etc,etc.

First of all, Darwin did not reject God as creator. Second, racism,
eugenics, represson of poor people, all existed before Darwin. "Animal
ancestory" is hardly something to be ashamed of. Humans are animals, and
animal ancestory is just a fact of nature.

All of the early Darwinists were flaming racists, white
superiority fanatics and Atheists.

That of course is not true. While most the society was racist, what makes
them "flaming" racist? How were they more racist than Cuvier and Agassiz?
None of the early supporters of evolution were more "white superiority
fanatics" than say, Owen, or Wilberforce. Darwin was not atheist.
Neither was Huxley, and Asa Gray was a devout Christian. Your above
statement is obviously false.

"Admirable" foundation that
evolution is built upon.

Evolution is based on the foundation of the evidence. Your claims about
Darwin's racism are irrelevant to that evidence.





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.

You'd have to show some evidence that they are false, or "subjective
preconceptions"? Do you deny that creationists do use quote mines quite
often?

But thanks for admitting what we already know: the dishonest tactic
universally employed by evolutionists.

What Howard has admitted is that Creationists tend to be dishonest, and he
doesn't take their claims at face value. How is this a "dishonest tactic"?


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.

"you wish".


A Darwinist attempting to preserve subjective preconceptions, which
always believe nothing to exist that harms evolutionary theory.

Present some evidence that "harms" evolution, and we'll see. Your claims
don't do it.

This
tactic assumes evidence that harms evolution is really an honest
error.

Or, more likely, doesn't exist. So what evidence to you have that "harms"
evolutionary theory? Even if your claims about Darwin and racism were
true, it doesn't harm the science of evolution.

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.

Do you mean, that creationist quote mining has not been shown? Please
look up the Quote Mine Project.


No one ever said Evans was a biologist.

You did, when you said he was a "Darwinist". "Darwinism" as it exists at
all is a biological theory. To call someone a "Darwinist" you are implying
that the person is a biologist, who has an opinion on the mechanism of
evolution.

The initial posts said he was
a Professor of Modern History. Howard, of course, knew this.

Howard knew that you called him a "Darwinist", which implies you felt he was
a biologist.




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.

How does the statement above quote, out of context, in order to change the
meaning? Using quotes to support one's position is not quote mining.
Taking quotes out of context, to change their meaning, is.

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

Where has either Howard, or Dr. Miller quote mined? Please give examples.

snip

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?)

No, you've just tried to evade the fact that you are wrong.


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.

There's no evidence that he "fully endorsed" Galton's claims.

Darwin, in fact, was against slavery because he favored extermination
via forced sterilization. Slavery necessitates breeding to produce
replacements.

You haven't given any evidence to support this assumption. Darwin did not
support forced sterilzation of anyone, much less slaves. Also, slavery does
not require breeding, when replacements can be had by capturing more slaves.
Your projection of your own hatred and sick beliefs on Darwin is quite
instructional.





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.

Are you trying to claim that Africans brought here weren't Americans?

But what is your point
since no one said racism before Darwin was Darwin's fault.


Then what's the point of blaming racism on Darwin?

The charge
is that Darwinism is racism packaged as science and its original
perpetrators used science to justify and implement their racism.

A claim that is laughably untrue.

It
seems you have lost track of the basic points.

Your 'point' makes no sense in relation to the facts. Darwin did not seek
to justify racism by his scientific work. In fact, his work tended to
repudiate racism.



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

This claim is also false. Darwin, like anyone familiar with anatomy would
have known the similarity between all humans and other apes. Linneaus, who
did not "reject God as special creator" placed humans among the apes in his
classification system. Darwin did not claim it was just "non caucasiaians"
that were related to apes. All humans are apes, and are equally descended
from ape populations.


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.

Again, you fail to see the point anyone can see for themselves.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ... Darwin said natural selection was the main but not the exclusive means ... racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution* ... of humans by the process of *natural* selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is evolution?-A LAUGH
    ... In all its debates with ID, Darwin never says. ... > Laughing at Evolution ... Well, not in science, ... which are to kill God and elevate humanism to His throne. ...
    (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)
  • Re: Poor Darwin
    ... >> Darwin has been on trial for the last, well when did he first come up ... >> Also it's not Darwin who is on trial as evolution is not many many ... >> Sorry but I see no signs that science is in trouble. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Commentary: Three Columnists on Darwin
    ... Religion is no substitute for evolutionary science ... Charles Darwin and 150 years after the publication of his The Origin ... honest teaching of evolution on the altar of religion. ... we are descended from other species. ...
    (talk.origins)