Re: Hitler-Nazi's were staunchly anti-Christianity

On Apr 7, 9:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 7:36 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:> On Apr 7, 3:43 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

I'm not concerned for the reputation you have or think you have here.
Had I been, I would have made you aware of the fact that you should
have been responding to and correcting Vernon, not Ray, and that you
effectively supported Vernon's claims.

It is a "fact" that I should have been correcting Vernon, not Ray?
Could you cite the peer-reviewed research that has elevated your
opinions about what my priorities should be to the status of facts?
And doesn't your refusal to accept Vernon's opinions show that my
support for his claims was really ineffective?

Yes, I consider an observation which has been verified to be a fact.

I suppose that, speaking loosely, we could say that you "observed"
that I should have been correcting Vernon, not Ray, but I know of no
one who has verified your "observation." I "observed" otherwise; but
I speak merely of my personal "priorities," not "facts" about whom I
should correct.

But perhaps you should have crapped in your hair and went bowling,
rather than to support your real position instead of creating the
appearance that you supported an opposing position. You may not agree,
but there are certain things we *should* do.

I do not think I created "the appearance that [I] supported an
opposing position." Throughout your response you seem to be replying
to points I did not make, which I find alternately exasperating and
confusing.

-- [snip]

You remind me of a magician, Steven. Fortunately, I know it isn't all
real. Tidbits of truth perhaps interspersed with disguised falsehoods
and deceptions. I can't speak for Ray, nor can you attribute any or
all of his position to be my own (excepting any part to which I may
specifically agree with), so your last little bit of convoluted
bull*** is most obvious to me as a trick. Darwinism, or social
Darwinism, or Eugenics, or racial hygenics, or genetics, or whatever
*you* want to call it, was one of the things that the Nazis based
their policies on. The Nazis were influenced by, and used this
philosophy to their own purpose. It is quite well accepted, Steven. In
a very real way, the Nazis did certainly think of themselves as
"Darwinists".

Darwinism, eugenics, and genetics are three different things (and I'm
not sure that "racial hygenics" is the same thing as any of them).
Indeed, "Darwinism" all by itself refers to several different concepts
(from common descent, to gradualism, to natural selection), and there
are many policies united under the rubric "eugenics." The Nazis no
doubt thought that there was a genetic basis for the "inferior" traits
they perceived in their racial enemies. On this grounds, will you
condemn the entire science of genetics, or at least insist on equal
time in the schools for anti-Mendellian views of inheritance?

Steven, eugenics was considered science, by scientists and
intellectuals alike. Papers in science journals were published on the
subject; science textbooks advocated eugenics. I can go on and on with
this. You can certainly dismiss any portion of what Darwin wrote as
pseudo-science if you like, however I have yet to see even one
Darwinist go to that extreme, yet it would not make what he wrote
pseudo-science of the day. Using the argument that eugenics is seen as
pseudo-science today to support an argument that the Nazis didn't use
science would be about as silly an argument as you could possibly
make. And it sure looks like what you and some others have advanced.

If the Nazis had limited themselves to sterilizing the handicapped and
mentally retarded, I doubt very much they would have become a by-word
for atrocity beyond other cultures; they would have been lumped in
with their American counterparts as just another example of the misuse
of science. If they had argued that Jews, overwhelmingly, were
mentally subnormal, this would be condemned today, but I doubt anyone
would find them more abhorrent than their contemporaries in other
cultures. The whole reason we're arguing about what ideologies
inspired and provided justifications for the Nazis is that they went
far beyond the eugenic views that were expressed in those learned
journals and science textbooks. The Nazi determination that entire
"races" were inferior and must be, not merely limited in their
breeding but outright exterminated, was not justifiable even in terms
of the eugenics views common in their day.

And one of the things that Darwin wrote was that he was opposed to
coercive eugenics.

There are, incidentally, good "Darwinian" grounds for opposing
eugenics. It has long been noted that a Darwinian explanation for the
persistence of such traits as alcoholism or schizophrenia implied that
either these traits are not inheritable, or some of the hereditary
factors (genes) for these traits are beneficial by themselves, and
only the combination with other genes gives rise to undesirable
traits. Thus attempts to purge undesirable traits from the population
would either fail or would purge desirable ones also. Theodosius
Dobzhansky also pointed out that attempts to replace natural selection
with artificial selection implied that we knew very well, today, what
traits would be beneficial in the future, which seems unlikely to be
true. So the Nazis were not very good "Darwinists," or very good
geneticists.

Yep, you did it. You jumped 70 years into the future. Yet you still
are using the same reasoning, just you personally at the moment reason
"good" reasons against.

The realization that "great wit is with madness close [genetically]
allied" and that this has implications for eugenics dates back (IIRC)
to the late 19th century. Theodosius Dobzhansky was an opponent of
eugenics at the time he was helping to formulate the modern synthesis,
which, as you note below, was around the same time as the Nazis were
in power. That's not "70 years in the future;" that was contemporary
with Hitler.

Quite curious that you could honestly compare your regard for eugenics
today with the eugenics of the late 19th and early 20th century; odder
still that you think to compare the eugenicists of that era against
themselves. All in the name of Darwin, I suppose.

I am told (not, I concede, by you, but by Jonathan Wells and other ID
proponents and creationists) that diverse fields of biology have been
"Darwinized" -- shanghaied into an evolutionary framework when they
can stand quite well on their own. Two of these fields are genetics
and selective breeding, yet after all, eugenics is just selective
breeding applied to human beings. There is no need, and by
creationist standards no logic, to dragging Darwin's name into
eugenics, which is, after all, artificial rather than natural
selection.

"Social Darwinism" all by itself is at least three different things.
It was originally an attempt to apply the principles of natural
selection to sociology: to study social institutions in "Darwinian"
terms. In the early 20th century it was applied to the political
philosophy of Herbert Spencer (arrived at before Darwin announced his
theory): laissez-faire economics, equality between the sexes, and
opposition to government meddling in family planning, among other
things. In this sense, Hitler was certainly no "social Darwinist."
Richard Hofstadter, in the mid-20th century, popularized the current
sense of the term as "everything good decent liberals oppose," and
pretended that there actually was such an ideology that united, _inter
alia_, the 19th century "robber barons" and 20th century
totalitarians.

Excuse me for interrupting your fantasy rant, but Darwin was a
respected member of the scientific community, who lent much validity
to the concept. Attempts to distance him from eugenics is pure
amateurish revisionism. It is quite well known and accepted.

To which concept did Darwin "lend much validity?" He distanced
himself from eugenics; seeing the process as inhumane and
unjustifiable.

I assume by "in a very real way, the Nazis certainly did think of
themselves as 'Darwinists,'" you mean that the Nazis held some ideas
that you lump in with what you call "Darwinism." I will concede the
truth of this. Of course, I will not concede, without further
evidence, either that what you call "Darwinism" bears a close
resemblance either to Darwin's actual theory of evolution or to the
modern synthesis, nor that the Nazis actually thought of themselves as
followers of Darwin or as basing their program on Darwin's theories.

And at it still, although the modern synthesis was being formed during
the Nazi period. Of course most of the authors promoted or at endorsed
eugenics in one form or another. It was considered science, Steven.

_Gone with the Wind_ was made during the Nazi period, but I think that
Goebbels was not its producer. That the modern synthesis was formed
during the Nazi period is no indication whatsover that the Nazis
agreed with it, or that it reflected Nazi principles, unless you wish
to assert that during the Nazi period everyone on Earth agreed with
the Nazis on everything, which seems to me a rather extreme position.

Eugenics was considered science, yes, but that has nothing much to do
with the synthesis of Mendellian genetics and natural selection, or,
for that matter, with Darwin's original formulation of natural
selection as an explanation for common descent. And, again, the Nazis
went far beyond the eugenics ideas of their day.

The modern synthesis being of course, a unified theory of evolution,
integrating Darwin's theory of selection with Mendelian genetics. I
would imagine that those authors thought of themselves as "followers"
of Darwin, or basing their synthesis on Darwin's theories.

Well, yes, I suppose that the founders of neo-Darwinism thought of
themselves as being, in some sense, "Darwinists." But the founders of
neo-Darwinism were not the architects of the Nazi extermination
programs, nor were they the authors of the Nuremburg laws, nor even of
the _Lebensborn_ program. And Eichmann, Heydrich, and Hitler played
no role in incorporating Mendellianism into Darwinism. Indeed, you
still have not bothered to show that any of these latter even thought
of themselves as Darwinists (or Mendellians, for that matter).`

As I have
said many times, it is well known and accepted, not controversial,
that the Nazi's used science, particularly the ideologies of eugenics,
to accomplish their goals. Whether you accept that the method or
extent of their eugenic practices bears a resemblance to Darwin's
"actual theory" is beside the point. The very followers of Darwin
*did*. And choosing between you and them for the most accurate
historical picture, I suspect you know which I would choose.

Once more: eugenics is not evolutionary theory. Artificial selection
is not natural selection. And, notwithstanding the stated views of
Arthur Keith and Richard Dawkins, since natural selection gives us no
reason to prefer one selection regime over another, all government
policies, whether eugenicist or not, whether totalitarian, laissez-
faire, or something in between, are equally compatible with
"Darwinism" (or "evolution" or "natural selection"). There is no such
thing as a "Darwinist state" as opposed (presumably) to a non-
Darwinist state. And you have yet to show that Hitler or his
followers actually thought of themselves as "Darwinists" or of their
goals as a "Darwinist" regime.

-- Steven J.

.