Replies

That is because I am not a Hitler, or Stalin, or Sanger.

Who you are is not relevant to your assertion. You have stated that the theory of evolution can be used to support genocide. Thus far, you have not actually demonstrated that the theory of evolution can be used to support such a thing.

I believe the sanctity of life militates against Darwinism and its intentional application to the human species.

You have yet to demonstrate that the theory of evolution -- or any scientific theory -- can be "intentionally applied". In fact, it is impossible for a theory to be "intentionally applied". Theories are nothing more than attempts to describe the cause behind observations in the universe. They are not, in themselves, a proactive plan. They may be used to predict the outcome of events, but they themselves cannot be "applied" as a means to an end.

You apparently would not be convinced of the connection betrween Darwinism and genocide even if you were to crawl inside the heads of those who practiced it.

I do not need to "crawl inside the heads" of anyone. I only need to hear an explanation of how the theory of evolution logically leads to genocide. Thus far, you have provided no explanation to that effect. Merely asserting that certain individuals believed that such a link exists does not demonstrate that a link actually exists.

Even those who practice it would say, "Genocide? What Genocide? A bunch of people are dead. So what?"

This is not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if you'd care to go back and read #842 all the way through you might see where I agreed in part with what you would like to say, namely that guilt by association does not make a good argument when it comes to science.

I agree, as such is an appeal to the logical fallacy of appealing to consequences. However, you have thus far not demonstrated that genocide is a logical consequence of the theory of evolution.

Merely asserting that certain individuals believed that such a link exists does not demonstrate that a link actually exists.

Merely typing keystrokes in an effort to communicate an incapacity to correlate theories with their implications and applications does not demonstrate that you actually exist. What's your point? How much demonstration do you need? You're convinced by mere conjecture when it comes to fossils, but are unconvinced when adherents to Darwinsism use the theory to justify genocide. That's okay. As long as you are convinced in your own mind.