Posted on 04/28/2008 12:01:40 PM PDT by Delacon
Hardly, but you missed the point...don’t get so defensive or assume that I’m anti-darwin/evolution.
My point was that Hitler used Darwin, much like he read scripture to the masses at Nurmeberg, but that didn’t make him a Christian either.
But just because Hitler used Darwin and those that are anti-ID, and/or hate Ben Stein for pointing it out, did NOT mean Hitler didn’t exploit Darwin either!
He did.
What the Wright brothers and 9-11 had to do with anything, well, you’ll no doubt submit a scientific paper for peer review?
Right? :)
In order for ID to be science, it needs to offer facts to support its conclusion. Until it does so, saying that it COULD be science if it ever offered testable facts for its hypothesis means nothing.
I could be President if I ever got elected, but that doesn't make me President now.
I can offer a hypothesis that sometime in the future, the physicists will manage time travel, and inadvertently introduce modern microbial life into Earth's ancient past. I don't expect I'll be getting any research grants to study it, though.
In rereading your original post I agree.
I do contend that Darwin is no more responsible for Hilter's actions, than the Wright brothers are for Mohammad Atta and company on 9/11.
Where in the movie does stein say Darwinsists are Nazis? What Stein does do in the movie is, according to conservapedia, the following:
The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of “survival of the fittest” and the Holocaust. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Josef Mengele studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled “Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups.” In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the “Angel of Death” for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitted: “The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide.”[7]
One academic says in the film, “While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other.” [8]
Steven C. Meyer said, “In Darwinism there’s a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind”[9]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
Well said. From a yankee episcopalian.
The funny thing is that evolution would work with that hypothesis.
But a hypothesis sounds all “scientific” when it’s nothing more than a suggested explanation or even a conclusion, which then needs to be evaluated, tested, verified, before it can be considered a fact.
ID is indeed a hypothesis. That I am 200 times smarter than anyone who ever lived on the planet is a hypothesis. I’ll offer the posts I’ve made here at FR, except for the ones when I had been imbibing, or mad, or just wrong, as strong evidence of my hypothesis.
I’ve just offered more evidence than ID proponents have offered for theirs.
In his book “From Darwin to Hitler” Richard Weickart lists 6 key reaons why Darwinsim lead to the Holocaust:
1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the “anthropocentric” view that humans are unique and special.
2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.
3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.
5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”
Stein doesn’t say that evolutionists are Nazis. He blames Nazis on Darwin.
It’s a distinction without much of a difference, which is what he intended.
Damn that Darwin for studying finches in the Galapogos Islands. If he hadn’t done that, there would have been no Holocaust.
Jews and arabs would be holding hands and singing in the Middle East.
Yes you did throw in the nazi analogies to me. As for Derbyshire, I know that he has been swatting out ID fires on the blogosphere since it began. This is my opinion but, he has the closest views to the Buckley tradition that National Review has these days.
Wilson said what Derb was going for. Science is an art, and it is something that we as Americans can be proud of being among the best and the brightest at. And unlike many other arts that sit in one place and brighten only the countenance of its host nation and those lucky enough to visit, the currency of Scientific knowledge enriches all nations.
He shows with historical facts how Darwinism led to the Holocaust. His assertion is correct. Further documentation for this can be found in Weickarts "From Darwin to Hitler."
It is well known that he used anti-Capitalist rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and his own twisted view of Christianity; yet there seems to be NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE where he used Evolution as an excuse to kill Jews.
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.” Adolf Hitler
See what a shoddy tactic guilt by association is when it is our own ox that is being gored?
Was “Darwinism” responsible for the many pogroms against Jews that took place throughout European history?
What the word “ghetto” invented only after Darwin, as a word to denote where to allow the Jews to live?
Was the word “pogrom” only invented after Darwin to denote the widespread practice of European “Christians” killing of Jews?
Hitler inherited a great tradition of hating and killing Jews that went on long before Darwin published his Scientific theory.
Not that easy. Only locally. Genetic dominance causes some species to flee the area and find dominance in another area and at the same time some to settle and be susceptible to other specie's domination.
“Find some other mechanisms, they abound.”
Can you list these abounding mechanisms? I mean other that ID.
Oh good...well I’m glad you made sure I defined theory as you saw fit! WHEW!
I’d hate to know what would become of us had you not made sure!
All kidding aside...I think it would behoove you to study those that are proponents of ID, and those that are dead set against it.
And which side wants it “my way or the highway”. I just don’t see it so much as “right or wrong” on a subject so broad as science!
I think you’ll find that the ones who believe in ID also, for the most part, have no problem with others that don’t want to even consider ID for whatever their reasons, are free to continue to explore the THEORY of evolution as they see fit. IN FACT, I think most would be fine with both theories. I myself see God using parts of evolution in His grand design.
The reverse I think you’ll also find to be true, but not as frequently, and RARELY from those in control and are terrified of losing such control and/or are literally threatened with losing their status. This is true about ID, conservative ideas like abortion, gun ownership and the like.
And you’ll often find science isn’t always their motive any more thantheir opponents are either! There are those in between, but MY argument is don’t shut down the debate forever! A healthy debate is often all we have at the moment!
If we traveled back in time, and had our cell phones with us, and talked with each other it would be considered science fiction, even further back it would be magic, and further still witchcraft.
Put it this way....the left is so deranged....they go so far as to not allow teachers to make a simple statement like: “ID is not going to be part of the science curriculum, although we realize people do accept this as scientific theory, and there are books in the school library exploring this, but THIS school will not address ID. Not scientifically.”
Even THIS was too threatening in one school district! It’s VERY clear it’s not about science all too often!
These are the very same NEA types that are so insecure that “Christmas” is too offensive in schools too!
So young children are merely taught more intolerance and many, since religious studies are disallowed in liberal run failed public schools, are left wondering which is ultimately the truth? Parents, church and God on Sundays or during the week at home, OR schools, the NEA, liberally programmed teachers and science; away from home during the week!
It’s just not reasonable.
Ultimately science can not claim ownership of creation alone. And to squash that debate puts it at clear odds with other disciplines, history, philosphy, religious studies, WHEN ultimately it’s allowed in higher education, etc.
I’m helping my 2nd grader read a book now entitled: “GOD, WHY ARE THERE SO MANY STARS”?
Sadly, I’ll also have to explain that eventually, the science curriculum at school is at odds with God and why it is so.
And how this fact has nothing to do with science!
I hate to burst your bubble, but you or Weickart saying it is so, doesn't mean it is so.
And frankly, it has nothing to do with whether evolution occurred.
It's a ridiculous smear that has no scientific merit and is meant only to accomplish a very poorly done "guilt by association" argument.
Let's just say Darwin was the first Nazi. Okay, now what?
What does that have to do with his scientific deductions?
Why even make the association? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. It's a smear, utterly false, but one you like. That's what it has to do with science.
I KNEW you couldn't get through it without pulling the "I'm smarter" arrogance card.
Nope, didn't say Stein couldn't be criticized, but you JUST CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES, can you?
I confused the two but I gotta say that Wilson was the statesman in that exchange.
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.