Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by 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.
Thanks!
The weaker of the species loses to the stronger of the species, that's Darwin's theory, right? Man is included.
Your failure to see the ideology to be the cause and to falsely blame the people who founded that ideology shows you arent thinking it through.
The fist Pope didnt start the inquisition, but Catholicism sure did.
Darwin never spoke to Hitler, but evolutionary thinking sure did. Marx, too, and that means Stalin, too, and Mao, and Pol Pot and since Evolutio is what feeds liberalism and Non-Biblical belief, it feeds the liberals and democrats, too.
The revolutionary process derived from Hegelian dialectic not the evolution. Darwin theory was LATER than Marxism.
I got that quote wrong, Marx came first and LATER and he wished he came up with Darwinsim for it defined his theories the best.
I am ROFLMAO!
your refusal to read and comment on the post shows you lost.
"The weaker of the species loses to the stronger of the species, that's Darwin's theory, right? Man is included."
No, actually, that's not Darwin's theory at all. You might want to do a little reading somewhere other than on anti-evolution sites. It might be interesting for you.
What a load of horse hocky.
The worst kind of creationist is he who can't manage to read anything besides the Bible.
Had the man read The origin of Species he could not have made such an ignorant claim.
The main theme of Darwin is selection by man. The Nazi programs were selection by man. They were breeding people like horses or dogs. a pure strain was developed by repeated cross breeding.
"Sorry, but Karl Marx plainly stated evolution was one of the basis for his theories."
What silliness. Marx wrote before Darwin. I hope the rest of your "knowledge" is not that flawed, although I doubt it.
It doesn't matter how or why the Holocaust happened, it's Darwin's fault no matter what the facts are.
"I got that quote wrong, Marx came first and LATER and he wished he came up with Darwinsim for it defined his theories the best."
I see. Boy...your logic is pretty strange, it seems to me. You seem to have a little trouble with the basics there.
You don't believe that the Theory of Evolution explains speciation? OK. Lots of people don't. Your arguments don't convince, though, because you have too much information wrong in them.
That's what happens when you only get information from the creationist sites. They get a lot of stuff wrong, you see.
I don't read antievolution sites. It's just my understanding from my college days.
How am I wrong in believing that Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest?
Since the poster is an obvious creationist idiot, I'll comment on the poster. The article and links are bullshit. LOTS of tyrants have highjacked scientific ideas to support their ideologies--that doesn't invalidate the science (though you obviously think it should).
"It doesn't matter how or why the Holocaust happened, it's Darwin's fault no matter what the facts are."
Absolutely! It's all Darwin's fault. In fact, I have it on good authority that Darwin was the AntiChrist, not the Pope as so many people believe.
It's a lot of ignorant people out there, apparently.
Really? So Marx based his writing on Darwin's theory, which wouldn't emerge until over a decade later?
Impressive. LOL.
That's interesting; that perfectly explains why he formulated his ideas before the release of "On the Origin of Species." It also explains why Lenin and crew employed Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckian evolution, in place of Darwinian evolution and thus ruined Russian agriculture for years to come. It also explains how ridiculous it is to make an argument using guilt by association. Let's see the popular Reductio ad Hitlerum/Nazium argument:
Person A argues for proposition B
Person C shows that proposition B was favored by Hitler/Nazis (I guess we'll have to include Commies as well)
Thus, proposition B is false.
Let's substitute "evolution" for proposition B:
Person A argues for evolution
Person C shows that evolution was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies
Thus, evolution is false.
Do you see how stupid the reasoning is? Let's try "vegetarianism."
Person A argues for vegetarianism
Person C shows that vegetarianism was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies (In this case, Hitler)
Thus, vegetarianism is false
Guilt by association shows nothing. Is gravity false because people die when they fall off high-rise buildings? Is germ theory false because people die from diseases and because of chemical warfare? Is atomic theory false because of the bomb?
But, you know what's funny? Darwin never supported Social Darwinism and he distanced himself from it. The people you should really blame are Herbert Spencer, a fair bit of Thomas Malthus, ancient Spartan ideology of infantcide, Plato with his selective breeding of children, Franicis Galton, and others.
But you know what's really funny? It wasn't evolution that guided Hitler's footsteps, if anything, it was his perverted form of Catholicism. Forgotten "Gott Min Us?" It's funny how creationists assert that evolution is atheistic. Let's look at this logically:
Evolution is atheistic (Assumed for the sake of argument)
Hitler supported evolution to use in his fascist regime. (I'll accept that for the sake of argument)
Hitler was Catholic. Hitler used Catholicism to fuel his fascist regime. (This is actually historically correct)
If evolution is atheistic, and Hitler was a rabid Catholic that cut down anything not-Christian, why would support evolution? Methinks that creationists need to make up their minds.
Of course, it was Christianity that Hitler used, not evolution:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/index.php?page=Hitler
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/nazis.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
But, of course, what else does one expect from the Discovery Institute. Like creationists they: a) quote-mine b) make use of the same arguments of "gaps in the theory" and even distort the current research c) try to shamelessly invoke Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments or Social Darwinism as if it somehow makes evolution false d) have religious motives apropos the Wedge Document e) they call biologists "Darwinists" instead of biologists.
In summary, the claim is worthless because a) it's irrelevant b) it's logically errant; guilt by association doesn't work and c) it's actually wrong.
NOTE: By creationists, I am referencing prominent IDers/creationists who have indeed been shown to quote mine, distort the research, use guilt by association fallacies, have religious not scientific motives, and call biologists Darwinists. I apologize if you take offense to it.
Here's what you said in the earlier message:
"The weaker of the species loses to the stronger of the species, that's Darwin's theory, right? Man is included."
The thing is that Darwin's theories have nothing whatever to do with the struggle to survive within a species. That's where you go astray with your "understanding from ... college days."
The Theory of Evolution simply says that changes in individuals of a species happen through genetic means. Those changes are passed along to the offspring of those individuals, if that individual survives to produce offspring.
The environment where the species lives offers both challenges and benefits for a species. If a change results in improved survivability for the changed member of the species, it will survive to reproduce, passing along those changes. If the change results in maladaptation, then the changes will not survive.
Over time, and many, many generations, some of the changes may result in a group of individuals diverging in characteristics from the others of its species. Eventually, the theory predicts, the two groups will diverge enough to no longer be able to interbreed. At that point, there is a new species.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the survival individual members of a species. It only has to do with the survival of characteristics that change within the population of the species.
It cannot be applied to society or culture.
"Survival of the fittest" it is constantly misinterpreted.
What should be said is Survival of something that is able to flourish in a given environment. Fittest (in the literal sense) has nothing to do with it.
Look, this is just silly.
Yes, the early eugenics movement in the USA took its cue from evolutionary theory, and yes the Nazis based much of their racial theory on the American eugenics movement.
But, to single out Hitler and the policies of the Nazis as the only expression of evolutionary theory is a bit much. I am sure many "evolutionists" fought to rid the world of Nazism in the war.
It's almost as ignorant as calling him a Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.