Darwin's Dystopia : Darwinism and Hitler's Eugenics Program

tothesource.org ^ | May 8, 2008 | Dr. Benjamin Wiker

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Again, you call yourself a scientist but you are merely parroting talking points and posting airbrushed fantasies. You are practicing social engineering, not science: manipulation of facts and minds, not testing of theories. A ‘phisher’ of men.

I have no time for fanciful parakeet dances. I want facts and you are proffering piffle, for you have nothing else to offer.

Good Day.

[Gondring]

Exactly.

[Gondring]

There is an important difference. Liars can make false assertions continually. Those are arguments for, and prove nothing.

Exactly. For many years, I defended so-called Scientific Creationism as being another explanation of data...until I began to attend lectures, examine the evidence myself, etc., and realized these so-called "scientists" were just charlatans misleading people.

There are many good Christians who believe them, and I have nothing against them...but I don't believe the leaders in these deceptions are even Christian--they bear false witness to the evidence.

Perhaps some are well meaning, thinking that misleading people is a lesser evil to people believing what they think is wrong, but I have a hard time with that. (I also have a hard time believing that Young Earth Creationism is the only possible fit with Christianity.)

I also try very hard to apply Heinlein's Razor, but still, my personal experience with some of these Scientific Creationists gives me the same feeling as listening to Bill Clinton. >shudder!<

[Coyoteman]

Again, you call yourself a scientist but you are merely parroting talking points and posting airbrushed fantasies. You are practicing social engineering, not science: manipulation of facts and minds, not testing of theories. A ‘phisher’ of men.

I have no time for fanciful parakeet dances. I want facts and you are proffering piffle, for you have nothing else to offer.

In response to your challenge yesterday I have posted three links to detailed summaries of horse evolution.

Your only response has been, like above, to hand-wave the evidence away. You can't refute the evidence so you try to pretend it doesn't exist.

Well, here is some more for you to ignore:

The Branching Bush of Horse Evolution.

This article has a lot of good historical background. You might actually learn something if you would just allow yourself to read it. And there is a lot more evidence where that comes from.

You do realize though, don't you, that with every good article loaded with evidence that I post that you just hand-wave away you just make yourself look more and more like a religious zealot, unwilling to even entertain evidence contrary to your religious beliefs?

[ChessExpert]

But while Darwin was an agnostic, many of his most vocal supporters today, including on FreeRepublic, are ardent atheists. Among Christians, he has both supporters and critics. I’m not aware of any atheists criticizing Darwin (evolution).

[Gondring]

Fruit flies breed new generations every oher day; that was the entire point. Those experiments involved more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or “proto-humans” on this planet.

Yes, but they were not exposed to countless millenia of environmental exposures that could have influenced them. For example, once upon a time, some insect might have landed on fresh tar oozing from the ground, thus becoming exposed to polyaromatic hydrocarbons that could be mutagenic. I doubt that happened in the lab.

Remember, even buying 1,000,000 losing lottery tickets wouldn't mean there's no likely winner in a lottery that's SO huge. Nature has drawn countless zillions of times.

[DoctorMichael]

: ...as... :

Therefore Jesus is Evil.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thank you for pointing out that the evolution has occurred.

In fact, that was my point. I realize now that my post could be read the wrong way. I was trying to say that those who wave away the horse evolutionary sequence as "varieties of horses" only know they're horses because of the work scientists have done. If they saw a live Eohippus without being told what it was, I doubt they'd immediately say, "Oh, that's just some kind of horse." In fact, as it would be almost as accurate to say "that's some kind of tapir" or "that's some kind of rhinoceros," since both those lines descended from Eohippus or something very much like it. As G.G. Simpson said, "Eohippus is referred to the Equidae because we happen to have more complete lines back to it from later members of this family than from other families." I have wondered if that's why it's often referred to as Hyracotherium these days, to avoid the implication that it's more a horse than anything else.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

With all due respect to the dignity of your topic, and I mean all as in every iota that is due...HORSEFEATHERS!

And since you're not a real scientist...lyrics from the movie:

I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.

[Gondring]

Among Christians, he has both supporters and critics.

Ergo, "Darwinian" does not equal "atheist."

[Gondring]

I take back my point. I see that the original point was referring to a specific type of Darwinian thought--atheistic.

The problem in that is that the evidence given was anecdotal, an example. It provides no evidence that Darwinism led to Nazism, nor that atheism did...it just shows the evils of a madman who was likely an atheist.

Similarly, a listing of the excesses of the Crusades would not be evidence for why we should shun "religious, Christian thought."

[Gondring]

I have wondered if that's why it's often referred to as Hyracotherium these days, to avoid the implication that it's more a horse than anything else.

I prefer Eohippus myself, but the reason for Hyracotherium is that it was published that way first. Owen's find was incomplete, so based on the teeth, he thought it was like a Hyrax--thus the name, meaning "Hyrax-like beast".

Marsh's find 35 years later was more complete, showing its horse-like attributes, and so actually, the term Hyracotherium demonstrates evolution even more strongly, as the teeth were still showing an early form's characteristics even while the later (equine) forms were developing!

Of course, I believe "The Spirit Of Allegiance" will wave away the evidence, as it doesn't fit his preconceived notions. Sad.

[wendy1946]

There is no such thing as a "countless millenia"; millenia are all countable. In the case of Charles Darwin and his idiot theory, there is a double problem with time which some people are starting to call the "basic evolutionist time sandwich".

Any sandwich involves two slices of bread. The slice of bread on the bottom of the evolutionite time sandwich involves the Haldane dilemma and related problems of population genetics: it would take quadrillions of years for evolution to produce a modern human from an ape even if that were possible (it isn't). The slide of bread on the bottom involves the growing body of evidence that ancient man dealt with dinosaurs on a regular basis and included them in his artwork. Any sort of a google search on 'dinosaurs' and 'petroglyphs' will give you a flavor for it.

[Caramelgal]

But, as if I had rung Pavlov’s bell…

I find it interesting that you invoke the scientific theory of “Classical Conditioning” as proposed and researched by another scientist of Darwin’s era - Ivan Pavlov. So perhaps you don’t dismiss all scientific theory, just the ones that challenge your dogmatic and literal biblical interpretations for the origin of species and explanations of the physical world – perhaps you have been “conditioned” to do so.

…Coyoteman immediately claims to have provided evidence, among horses, a specific kind of animal. That is not macro, in other words bona fide, evolution….

This was not the only example that Coyoteman and others have provided but you chose to dismiss them all out of hand.

Actually the fossil record of the horse and its earlier ancestor and the various branches that evolved from that earlier evolutionary branch demonstrates Macroevolution very clearly. (And I see that Coyoteman has provided additional information since I started writing this).

Horse Evolution

Hippos, Zebras and Horses all evolved from a common ancestor yet you are not going to see a Hippo run in the Belmont Stakes next week. As you previously stated, “of course a horse is a horse is a horse of course” but a modern horse is not a horse ancestor or a hippo or a zebra (and Mr. Ed not withstanding) none of them “talk” and they don’t and can’t interbreed because they are now very separate and distinct species.

But since you can’t seem to refute the more recent evolution of the modern horse then perhaps you at least accept that Microevolution is proof of evolution within species? Then again I see you dismiss this as “posting airbrushed fantasies.” If you had bothered to take the time to read the supporting evidence instead of just looking at then summarily dismissing the graphic you might have actually learned something.

I’m not sure what you would accept as proof of Macroevolution and I’m not sure you are willing to accept any evidence that challenges your point of view. If you are looking for one single fossil that shows for example that a fish crawled out of the ocean became an upright walking talking ape in one giant leap overnight, you’re never going to get that evidence because it doesn’t exist because that’s not how evolution works. Evolution works in very small incremental steps, mostly over very long periods of time – millions of years.

Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors

(A Minotaur skeleton? Hey, then you’d have something.)

I seriously doubt that a skeleton of a Minotaur will ever be found because it is a purely fantastic creature with a basis in Greek religious mythology. Do you think that Greek mythology has any place in explaining ID?

But another purely mythical creature is mentioned several times in the Bible – the Unicorn.

As you are a big fan of Answers in Genesis, I would direct you to this from their website regarding Unicorns:

In the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible we read of God questioning Job (Chapter 39:9,10):

‘Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?’

The unicorn is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. Nowhere in these passages is there any suggestion that anything other than a real animal is being described.

… But the unicorn is well known to be a product of legend, a creature whose remains have never been found and about whom fabulous tales have been told.

…So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again.

So Answers in Genesis would have you and I believe that Unicorns were not really real even though the Bible makes several references to them, that the Bible is inspired and infallible but that sometimes “translations” are the problem.

But Answers in Genesis would also have you and I believe:

As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.

So Answers in Genesis are to have you and I believe that unicorns did not exist because there is no evidence for their existence in the fossil record but they will have you dismiss the fossil and geologic record that absolutely refutes the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth and the age of dinosaurs based solely on literal and inspired and infallible interpretations of the Bible that are not open to false interpretations? You and Answers in Genesis really can’t have it both ways.

[Coyoteman]

You and Answers in Genesis really can’t have it both ways.

Sure they can. They're doing apologetics, not science. They can just make it up as they go.

Unicorns? Pah! This is the one I want to see found:

[Coyoteman]

So? If you look at pictographs and petroglyphs long enough you can find just about anything you want.

It's called the Von Daniken effect.

(And it also shows that Rorschach did not live in vain!)

[Caramelgal]

Petroglyphs – Ancient Rock Art – “Long neck sheep”:



Madonna with the Long Neck



Ancient abstract painting:



Modern Abstract painting:

[wendy1946]

Louis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror of Mishipishu (stegosaur) glyphs around the Mississippi river. Indian oral traditions describe Mishipishu (water panther) as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a spiked tail which he used as a weapon; the stegosaur matches that while nothing else which ever lived here does.

One particular column stone which turns up in a temple at Angkor, Cambodia, raises the question of whether the stegosaur might have survived in pockets into AD times:

The link offers convincing arguments that the temple stone could not be a recent addition for the sake of tourism. Cambodians would kill anybody who messed with those temples in any way, for any reason.

Then again there is the question of Peruvian Ica stones:

Naturally enough establishment science venues will claim the Ica stones are all fakes but they do not offer an explanatgion as to how the first batch of the things which ever turned up numbered in the thousands or why anybody would have ever gone to such huge pains on a purely speculative basis, i.e. why anybody would have done the fabulous amount of work needed to create thousands of these things before they knew whether or not gringos would pay for them.

[allmendream]

“eugenics, is hardly more than animal husbandry applied to human beings.”

Yes, and other cultures (such as the Spartans)practiced it long before Darwin, just as cultures used selective breeding on their domestic animals.

[onewhowatches]

I've seen something like that before.... I can't remember where.... Oh, yeah.

"Now this end is called the thagomizer, after the late Thag Simmons."

Cavemen living with dinosaurs must be true. Indeed, to this day, those tail-spikes are still called "thagomizers."