Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologiesHolocaust was fallout of evolution theory

World Net Daily ^ | Posted: August 19, 2006 | World Net Daily

[RaceBannon]

Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.

The results of Darwin’s theories

"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.

[freedumb2003]

Hey Race, do you have an answer to 112?

Or is this just a "plant a stink bomb and run" thread?

I think you can answer. You ignored my challenge way back when in this thread.

Please, answer if you can.

[freedumb2003]

Ideology started Hitlerism, Hitler started the Holocaust Ideology based on Evolution

Ideology started the Inquisition. Ideology based on Christianity.

How is that different?

Roman paganism was based on observing lightening. Does that make lightening invalid?

[brytlea]

Actually, you can take the idea and use it to justify eugenics. Not that I think most people who believe in evolution or Darwin's theory do that.
suise

[freedumb2003]

You keep letting me win this by default.

No offense, friend, but you are getting crushed.

You can't support your specious and disengenuous thesis.

That someone used a scientific theory to their nefarious ends has no effect on the validity of the theory.

I can direct you to Logical Fallacy sites that may help you. I really think that it would be a good idea for you to learn a little bit before you post like this again.

It is embarrasing for FR and for you. I am sure the Left is citing this thread as an example of just how "stupid" and "ignorant" (their words, not mine) "Conservatives" (again, their words, not mine) can be.

This doesn't pass Logic 099.

Please, I beg you: don't do this to us again.

[little jeremiah]

Unfortunately I don't have time to even read it all, what to speak of add my 02. But maybe you (irish) have a few minutes!

Wagglebee, what do you think? List?

[ChessExpert]

Evolution says nothing about "superior races."

The alternate title of Darwin’s most famous book is:
The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Adolph could have used that for the title of a book!

[Stultis]

Yet, relatively speaking, no evolutionist ever even came close to presaging, and recommending, the actual policies the Nazis would eventually adopt as completely as did one of the architects of Protestant Christianity, and the founder of Reformed Christianity, Martin Luther.

Luther's book, On The Jews And Their Lies, was explicitly proposing policy to be adopted by contemporary European leaders. While Luther stopped short of recommending outright genocide, he did call for:

1. Burning synagogues and Jewish schools; confiscating their holy books
2. Confiscating Jewish property and utterly destroying their homes
3. Forcing Jews to work at hard labor
4. Denying Jews legal protection from assault (at least on the highways and byways; They have no business there, says Luther, so they should stay home; Luther apparently forgets he's just recommended their homes be razed to the ground)

And etc.

So, Race. Should we apply the same logic to (the comparatively FAR more culpable) Martin Luther as your article would have us apply to Charles Darwin?

[DanDenDar]

FYI, Luther also called for the execution of rabbis.

[Stultis]

The alternate title of Darwin’s most famous book is:
The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

But this can't refer to human races. Darwin doesn't address human evolution at in The Origin. "Races" in the title is a synonym for "varieties," or what we would probably call today "subspecies" or "populations".

Later, when Darwin does directly address human evolution in The Descent of Man, he explicitly rejects the notion that there are well defined human "races". He notes that they have been numbered variously from 5 to (I forget the high figure, 30 or 40 something I think) by various authorities. He points out that the so-called races of humans intergrade with each other in all cases, and that there are no constant and distinct features that define any of them.

In fact Darwin systematically undercut the entire basis for scientific racism in his own day. He's not responsible for the fact that later scientific racists would "adapt" to evolution by completely recasting their justifications.

[ChessExpert]

I give some weight to slippery slope arguments, but they have their limit. Yes, once one starts down a slippery slope (Darwin), one might go too far (Hitler). But it may also be possible to stop one’s slide short. We have done that in the United States.

Our secular, school-taught dogma are to “believe in evolution” and to reject racism. Racism was once considered a natural extension of evolution. But that thinking has fallen from grace - don’t go there - don’t think. To further reject racism, students must now believe in multiculturalism, often understood as the equality of races and cultures.

For myself, I have my doubts about the scientific merits of biological evolution. That puts into doubt a significant underpinning of scientific racism. I accept the Christian perspective that we are all God’s children and should be valued highly. But I see no reason to accept the claim that all cultures have equal merit. Muslims greatly outnumber Jews in the world, but their positive contributions are far less. By itself, this would seem to deny the equality of cultures.

[DanDenDar]

Our secular, school-taught dogma are to “believe in evolution” and to reject racism. Racism was once considered a natural extension of evolution.

This makes no sense. In the United States, the region which put up the most resistance to the teaching of evolution - the South - was also the most racist. The dominant church there among whites, the Southern Baptist Converntion, was born of racism, and was and continues to be anti-evolution. American racists sometimes used evolution as a rationalisation for their racism, true, but before evolution was formulated, they used Christianity. This indicates there was no real foundation for racism in either evolution or Christianity, but both can be butchered to justify racism.

[Stultis]

Actually, you can take the idea and use it to justify eugenics.

Yeah. You could. You can also do so with creationist ideas. In fact the Nazis did exactly this. Nazi doctrine was that the races had originally been created with unique "racial souls," and that these were carried in "the blood" of the race. Nazi eugenics was basically an attempt to purify "the blood" and thereby the "racial soul," and thereby restore the state of the original creation and The Creator's intent.

See for instance, Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century, one of the most complete statements of Nazi race theory.

[wireman]

Do you have an intelligen refutaion of the 3 links provided or are you just making an attack on the poster?

An "intelligen refutation" of utter idiocy is difficult.

[hinckley buzzard]

Eugenics in the early years of the twentieth century was considered legitimate science not only in Germany but England, the US, and other countries with active scientific establishments. The principle of genetic selection is not totally invalid--just of very limited use and then only in isolated family histories of genetic disabilities such as Huntington's disease. It also must remain a totally voluntary decision made by informed parents, and relate not to euthanasia but to birth control and family planning. Racial eugenics simply does not work as the error term is too large.

[ml1954]

This makes no sense. In the United States, the region which put up the most resistance to the teaching of evolution - the South - was also the most racist. The dominant church there among whites, the Southern Baptist Converntion, was born of racism, and was and continues to be anti-evolution. American racists sometimes used evolution as a rationalisation for their racism, true, but before evolution was formulated, they used Christianity. This indicates there was no real foundation for racism in either evolution or Christianity, but both can be butchered to justify racism.

Well said. The predisposed pollute whatever group they decide to join.

[Dumb_Ox]

Wiekart's book deserves better friends than Coulter and WND. He's a good historian, and his analysis requires more serious consideration than most of these silly CreVo vituperation society meetings.

[Stultis]

Probably not a good idea, in post #2, in a thread attempting to link evolution to racism, to feature a screed by the same creationist Jerry Bergman who wrote a letter, apparently intended for publication, to overt racist David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People, complaining about "reverse discrimination".

[Stultis]

BTW, not intended to be accusational (at least in this post :-). But is there some reason you didn't identify this as an excerpt? And didn't include the information about when and where the program is airing, and the organization (church) which produced it?

Author and Christian broadcaster D. James Kennedy said the new "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy," is a ground-breaking inquiry into Darwin’s "chilling" social impact, and it will air nationwide on Aug. 26-27 on "The Coral Ridge Hour."

[brytlea]

It also must remain a totally voluntary decision made by informed parents, and relate not to euthanasia but to birth control and family planning.

Exactly.

susie

[Loud Mime]

Thanks..........I'll look further into eugenics.