Replies

What evidence do you have that those who believe in the TOE are more prone to such behavior?

Hitlers own writings and his actions...I gave them to you.

The origin of this moral code - whether from our genes or from God - is irrelevant as far as how people behave, IMO.If there is no moral standard, then the opinion of the strong man rules. There is no anchor.

Hitler's followers were no more true Darwinists than they were true ChristiansHere we go again with your moral equivalence. I don't see any other way to read it. If so please clarify.

Yes, he took a scientific theory and distorted its message, just as he did with Christianity.

Same response as prior.

I said he used Christianity like he used Darwin. I've been very clear that he TWISTED both for his own ends. I said this multiple times, so please keep that in mind in any future responses on this thread.What part of Christs teachings did he actually follow? What part of darwins theory did he actually put into practice?

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Is the above statement by Darwin consistent with the naturalist materialist, law of tooth and fang, natural selection which is put forth as Darwinian Evolution? Or have contemporary darwinists "deteriorated in the noblest part of our nature?"

What is the noblest part of our nature? What was the noblest part of Hitler's nature? Is nobility selected for? Is there a noble gene?

I would think it must follow, then, that most of the Ecclesiastical bodies throughout most of Christian history were in scriptural error with regard to the Jews. Fair statement?

Any ecclesiastical body or person whether Christian or Jew or otherwise who holds in contempt the Jew, or Israel, or is antisemetic has been wrong to do so.

We have agreed that genocide predates Darwin. You might have an arguable case if genocide began after Darwin. It didn't, so you have a very tenuous argument at best.

I may be wrong, but I know of no other nation or national leader who committed genocide in order that it may select for "an Aryian Nation of Supermen". Most have been political events or usurpation of power as a cause, or resources. Hitler wanted to create (evolve)(engineer) a nation of supermen. But doubtless there have been a history full of genocidal maniacs, none of which were in response to the teachings of Biblical Christianity.

I don't much care about disagreeability

I believe you don't.

If there is no moral standard, then the opinion of the strong man rules. There is no anchor.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the source of the moral standard. A moral code seems inherent in humans, IMO. It's there whether it came from God or our genes. You're surely not saying that if science proves that it's encoded in the genes, then - POOF! - all morality gone?

______________________

Ken H: Hitler's followers were no more true Darwinists than they were true Christians.

Texas Songwriter: Here we go again with your moral equivalence. I don't see any other way to read it. If so please clarify.

I have no idea how you can read a moral equivalence into my statement. I could have said that Hitler was no more a true Muslim than he was a true Buddhist. Would you read into that a moral equivalence between Islam and Buddhism?

_____________________

KH: Yes, he took a scientific theory and distorted its message, just as he did with Christianity.

TS: Same response as prior.

Again, I cannot understand how you take from that, that I am making any moral comparison at all between the TOE and Christianity. I call your attention to this exchange between you and another poster, who was making the same point I was making:

Hitler was a personification of evil and in my opinion grasped at whatever tools he could find to justify his racism, and used whatever other tools he could to promote it.

I note that you did not comment on that statement in your reply. I wonder why you failed to call him on it.

What part of Christs teachings did he actually follow? What part of darwins theory did he actually put into practice?

None and none. I'll say again, genocide and anti-semitism predated Darwin. It is sophistry to say he put the TOE into practice, just as it is sophistry to say he put Matt. 10 into practice. As the above poster said, he use whatever tools he could find.

Is the above statement by Darwin consistent with the naturalist materialist, law of tooth and fang, natural selection which is put forth as Darwinian Evolution?

Yes. The TOE is simply an explanation for the variety of species observed on Earth. It says nothing at all about what is moral or how humans should behave. Darwin was expressing his own moral view, which seems more in line with Christian teaching than Naziism.

Any ecclesiastical body or person whether Christian or Jew or otherwise who holds in contempt the Jew, or Israel, or is antisemetic has been wrong to do so.

Agreed, but that is not what I asked. I asked whether or not it was fair to say that "most of the Ecclesiastical bodies throughout most of Christian history were in scriptural error with regard to the Jews." Is it accurate to make such a claim?

I may be wrong, but I know of no other nation or national leader who committed genocide in order that it may select for "an Aryian Nation of Supermen".

They all had their various twisted rationales for their evil, did they not?