Posted on 05/01/2008 3:09:53 PM PDT by sitetest
As I recall, the Nazis alleged that Jews did this by unconventional(ie, un-natural) and unethical means, thus polluting German purity and survival.
Eugenics was about creating a better breed of man, not a new species. Darwin was concerned with the origin of new species. Socrates, via Plato's Republic, actually provided a model for social eugenics 400 years before Christ was born.
"Race" is another word for "breed". All races on earth are ons species. A superior race would be a superior breed WITHIN species. If you want to have an honest debate. Stop making things up as you go along
True. But grass needs dirt.
Not sure what that means in all this: I just now waded in.
But what fun!
Tom
But my point is precisely that no one seems to get this. Everyone has it in their brains that Jews are liberal, urban, sophisticated, intellectual, and liberal as all get-out, therefore the Biblical Israelites weren't "Jewish" in the conventional sense. Instead somehow chr*stianity gets associated with all the good stuff and the Biblical Israelites are turned into a combination of the Ku-Klux Klan and the Spanish Inquisition. After all, the ancient Israelites simply could not have been Jews practicing the identical Torah that Orthodox Jews practice today. No way, Hosea! Jews don't sacrifice sheep or raise crops or execute people for apostasy or exterminate heathen races--they win Nobel Prizes. Everyone knows that! And so Mr. Dawkins (and most other people) turn Joshua into the Pope or John Hagee and his pagan Canaanite victims into the "real Jews" of that era.
Now, the ADL's attacks on the "new testament" are most interesting, considering that the six day creation is taught no where in it. No siree, it comes from the Torah. So how did a Torah teaching magically become "un-Jewish" and chr*stian? See previous paragraph. In fact, most of the manifestations of the Bible that liberal Jews spend all their time attacking don't come from the "new testament" at all. The Hexameron? The Ten Commandments? The definition of male homosexuality as a capital offense? None of this is in the "new testament" (it condemns the practice, but prescribes no legal penalty). So it seems to me that the ADL's and the Holocaust Museum's invocation of the "new testament" as the origin of anti-Semitism is, quite bluntly, a fig leaf. This becomes even more obvious when one considers that Jewish liberals spend most of their time trying to legislate the "sermon on the mount" even as they condemn the "chr*stian" Ten Commandments.
Now--I am personally not huge on screaming "Darwin caused the Holocaust," and I'll try to explain why. I ask everyone who has read thus far to read the following very, very carefully.
First, the Darwin/Hitler connection controversy detracts from the actual subject at hand and wastes much time. As a matter of fact, I believe Darwinists welcome the charge just so they can spend all their time refuting it and blaming the Holocaust on "chr*stianity" (by which they mean the "genocidal old testament G-d").
But secondly and much more important is that appealing to the Holocaust in order to discredit Darwin assumes that Theists and atheists share a common morality even though they disagree about the existence of G-d. This is a terrible mistake. Theists and Atheists cannot share a common morality for the simple reason that morality means "obedience to the commandments of the Creator of the universe." Anything other than this is not morality at all. It is a mere collection of hang-ups. In appealing to the horrors of the Holocaust one implies that the mere fact that they were horrors means that they were "obviously" objectively immoral and that both Theists and atheists can agree on this. Nothing is immoral merely because it is horrifying or instinctually repulsive. A thing is immoral only because G-d so defines it. Discrediting Darwin via the natural revulsion most people have towards the Holocaust implies that morality rests on something other than Divine decree. Morality is not the product of science, reason, instinct, intuition, or the opinions of any number of human beings (whether a single one, a plurality, a vast majority, or even of the human race as a whole). It is the product of Divine Revelation alone. When Dawkins argues that Darwin is not responsible for the "crimes" of Hitler he ignores the fact that apart from the G-d he doesn't believe in he has no grounds to regard them objectively as crimes at all.
It is for these reasons that I wish people would not spend so much time trying to discredit Darwinism by associating it with the Holocaust.
Nazis viewed the world in terms of competing races. This racial theory was born of Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and Wilhelm Marr.
So before Darwin, racism did not exist? Europeans and Americans thought Africans were their equals? They enslaved them for what? Oh, I recall, in America they counted as a fraction of a white man. And, you call me nuts.
Max Müller is often identified as the first writer to speak of an Aryan “race” in English. In his Lectures on the Science of Language in 1861. He was a critic of Darwin.
Well you have finally said something so stupid I can no longer debate you. I guess you just solved the world's racial problems by denying races exist. Hitler believed they existed, hence the "Aryan Race". He acknowledged they weren't "different species" by trying to eliminate non-Aryans from the gene pool. Different species do not interbread by definition. I can't believe that I have cast my pearls before such a swine.
You’re making things up. Your premise is that Nazis emphasized Jewish achievement. This premise is ridiculous.
Nazis emphasized the falsehood that Jews are inferior.
Certainly it did exist.
But Darwin provided it a rational basis.
First, excellent post! Second, tying Darwinism to Hitler or the holocaust has nothing to do with the validity of Darwinism. The point is to show the thought process by which Darwinism led to the Holocaust. Both ideas can be completely true....i.e. Darwinism is true, and, Darwinism led to the Holocaust. There is no conflict there.
However, I think the reason this debate has come up and the reason Stein inluded the Darwin/Hitler connection in his movie is because of the constant bashing of Christianity and Judaism by athiests such as Dawkins and Hitchens, who spent a lot of effort accusing Christiainty of the worst crimes in history, including the Holocaust. Stein is just throwing their own crapola back in their faces and they are not liking it very much......:)
Now go back to my post #101 and pay attention to it.
How does this assertion of yours work in Russia. Stalin razed the Christ Church Cathedral in Moscow, executed priests, melted down their church bells. And you believe the Church encouraged the masses to submit to the world's most vile and bloody dictator? I do recall hearing Stalin once retorted to a follower about the anger of Rome to which he replied, " how many divisions does the Pope have?"
——I have shown repeatedly that breeding WITHIN a species is Socratic, not Darwinian.——
And it has been shown repeatedly that Hitlers inspiration for the improvement of the “Master Race” was born more from Darwin that from Socrates as he saw the evolution of the “Master Race as the goal. Not the improvement, the evolution.
Please show me an example of where Hitler EVER mentioned Darwin
Stalin didn’t try to use religion like Hitler did. Stalin was a Lenenist. Lenenists were atheists.
Really? Darwin identified natural selection as the process of speciation in nature. Eugenics the science which appealed to the Nazi's is nothing more than a fancy name for breeding. Breeding has been going on for thousands of years. Breeding (planned selection) is what helped Darwin come up with the idea of natural selection. Darwin did not provide anything new for the racists.
Did Hitler ever use the word evolution(in German of course)? Where did the term(idea) come from if so?
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.