Posted on 05/24/2008 9:04:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The folks at Scientific American are steamed at Ben Stein: (see links):
Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie)
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know)
Stein's controversial movie Expelled links Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler, the ultimate scientific hero to the ultimate manifestation of human evil. "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust," shouts John Rennie's headline. Rennie then declares that its "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency."
The problem is, that the link is quite real. In fact, undeniable. One doesn't need to see the film to make that link. Simply read Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Darwin's Descent of Man applies the evolutionary arguments of his more famous Origin of Species to human beings. In it, Darwin argues that those characteristics we might think to be specifically human—physical strength and health, morality, and intelligence—were actually achieved by natural selection. From this, he infers two related eugenic conclusions.
First, if the desirable results of strength, health, morality, and intelligence are caused by natural selection, then we can improve them by artificial selection. We can breed better human beings, even rise above the human to the superhuman. Since human beings have been raised above the other animals by the struggle to survive, they may be raised even higher, transcending human nature to something—who knows?—as much above men as men are now above the apes. This strange hope rests in Darwin's very rejection of the belief that man is defined by God, for "the fact of his having thus risen" by evolution to where he is, "instead of having been aboriginally placed there" by God, "may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future."
Second, if good breeding gives us better results, pushing us up the evolutionary slope, then bad or indiscriminate breeding drags us back down. "If…various checks…do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," Darwin groaned, "the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."
Now to Hitler. The first, most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. That is, nobody is making the case that Hitler had Darwin's eugenic masterpiece The Descent of Man in one hand while he penned Mein Kampf in the other. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. That makes the linkage all the stronger, because we are not talking about one crazed man misreading Darwin but at least two generations of leading scientists and intellectuals drawing the same eugenic conclusions from evolutionary theory as Darwin himself drew.
A second point. We misunderstand Hitler's evil if we reduce it to anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism had, of course, multiple causes, including his own warped character. That having been said, Nazism was at heart a racial, that is, a biological political program based up evolutionary theory. It was "applied biology," in the words of deputy party leader of the Nazis, Rudolph Hess, and done for the sake of a perceived greater good, racial purity, that is, for the sake of a race purified of physical and mental defects, imperfections, and racial inferiority.
The greater good. We need to remember that, even though we rightly consider it the apogee of wickedness, the Nazi regime did not purport to do evil. In a monstrous illustration of the adage about good intentions leading to hell, it claimed to be scientific and progressive, to do what hard reason demanded for the ultimate benefit of the human race. Its superhuman acts of inhumanity were carried out for the sake of humanity.
Hitler had enormous sympathy for the downtrodden he witnessed as a young man in Vienna. "The Vienna manual labourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles of ordure, loathsome filth and wickedness."
He believed that the social problems he witnessed in Vienna needed a radical, even ruthless solution if true change were to be effected. As he says with breathtaking concision, "the sentimental attitude would be the wrong one to adopt."
"Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved."
The proposed ruthlessness of his solution was in direct imitation of nature conceived according to Darwinism. "Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation—which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development."
How do we secure a better road for future development? By ensuring that only the best of the best race, the Aryan race, breed, and pruning away all the unfit and racially inferior. That isn't just a theory; it's eugenic Darwinism as a political program. As Hitler made clear, "the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind." Jews have to be pruned away, but also Gypsies, Slavs, the retarded, handicapped, and any one else that is biologically unfit.
That's Darwinism in action. Does that mean that Darwin would have approved? No. Does that mean that Darwin's theory provided the framework for Hitler's eugenic program? Yes.
That's a dishonest or ignorant equation. You're making the comparison between an idea and a tool - clever but disgusting.
And here's your fallacy: It was not Newton's ideas that caused Wernher Von Braun to design rockets to shoot at Britain -- it was Hitler's ideas! So to say that Hitler wasn't to blame (in part) for Wernher's actions because Newton wasn't to blame for Wernher's actions is completely dishonest or ignorant. Tools have many uses - but Hitler is who had the idea. And a tool is different then an idea of how to use it!
In other words, Darwin created an idea while Newton created a tool.
But regarding Darwin and Hitler, they shared some very common ideas. For example, In his book "Descent man," Darwin tells us that he thought that in a few hundred years the "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."(Chapter VI, about paragraph 18. Just search for 'As we may hope,')
And this is the exact idea that Hitler talks at length about, in his book. Except to Hitler, the Jew was the lowest with the Negro just above the Jew.
Thus it is quite logical and reasonable to suggest that Darwin's idea was adopted by Hitler, and carried to even further extremes. Or perhaps they both had the same idea independently - but it doesn't look like that because Darwin brought the idea up only to a certain level while Hitler applied it as a military policy - but regardless, they both shared a common idea, and that idea is being taught in schools across this country as fact even though it has not been proven positively (or anywheres near) and it is still a dangerous idea. I discuss Sanger as well in this post.
-Jesse
Thanks, Gondring. I replied from my "pings" list and didn't realize that I wasn't posting it to the correct thread.
To everyone: I made a stupid mistake when counting the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf (Murphy) and ended up grouping "revolution" with "evolution". The correct number is 14: 12 "evolution" and 2 "evolutionary." Again, my apologies.
Simply associating someone with something is a distraction. Even if Stalin studied tornados, it doesn't save your house when one hits. Even if Hitler did use Darwinistic ideas, it doesn't lessen their validity.
But it demonstrates that ideas can have consequences, and that if an idea logically allows what Hitler did, we'd better be absolutely sure that the idea is true -- that its story did unquestionably happen.
Morals do not define reality...they operate within it. Hitler's moral or immoral behaviors or rationales or arguments are not tied to the reality.
What reality?
What's your (or any atheist's) best logical argument, based on the true atheist beliefs, that what Hitler did was universally wrong?
In other words, what argument would one pure atheist use to argue to another pure atheist against doing what Hitler did?
The best I have seen so far is "It doesn't seem logical." But that's not really an argument. I'm positing that there is no logical reason for a true pure atheist not to do what Hitler did, should said atheist have such an inclination.
-Jesse
Certainly not the children. 44m+22m = 66 million.
But taking a look at the numbers you give for 1932, "37.8% of the vote or 13.5 million" gives a total vote of 35.7 million voters. The population of Germany at the time was around 66 million. The next year, your numbers, "43.9% or 17.3 million votes", indicate a population of voters of 39.4 million. Each of those numbers do not approach your 66 million "supporters". Yes, Hitler led Germany and many people supported him, but that support was not based upon a Christian outlook and certainly did not number 66 million as you hypothesize.
And Czechoslovakia is not Germany. On top of that I would not call a shotgun wedding a love affair.
Here are a few details on the "support" you mention.
These concessions to the National Socialists were fought by the Legitimists, by most of the Catholics, and especially by the workers who, together, represented a majority of the Austrian population. They pointed out that no concession to the Austrian Nazis could be satisfactory, because the Nazis were out for the liquidation of Austria and her unconditional absorption into Germany. Chancellor Schuschnigg followed the course which had taken him to Berchtesgaden, and refused to cooperate with the working class and its representatives, a gesture which would have strengthened his regime. He agreed to a reconstruction of his Cabinet, and accepted as Minister of the Interior, a member of the National Socialist Party, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, whom he thought to be personally loyal to him but who soon openly favored the fast-growing Nazi influence in Austria. As Minister of the Interior he became head of the entire police forces and responsible for internal security and order. These functions until then had been under the direct supervision of Chancellor Schuschnigg. At the same time, amnesty was granted to leading National Socialists in Austria who had been sentenced for attacks against the existing regime. Thus, under threat of a German ultimatum and conscious that no help would come forth from Italy or from the Western Powers, Austria had to permit German interference in her internal affairs. She hoped to get in exchange an unconditional declaration by Chancellor Hitler, in his forthcoming speech of Feb. 20, that he would respect Austria's independence and integrity.
The new German diplomacy under Von Ribbentrop had scored its first success, employing the methods of military pressure and threat of action if demands were not accepted. Although Chancellor Schuschnigg agreed to only a small part of the original German demands, nevertheless, this first concession opened the way to further interference in Austria's affairs. Whereas Schuschnigg intended his concessions as a definite settlement which might lead to appeasement and to cooperation, the Germans regarded them only as the first stage on the road which was fast to be followed by further demands. The new Minister, Seyss-Inquart, left Vienna immediately after his appointment and went to Berlin to consult with the official German authorities. The German press clamored for the complete coordination of Austria with Nazi Germany.
| Inaction of Western Democracies. |
Under these circumstances it became clear that the decisive moment in the struggle for the independence of Austria was approaching. Much depended upon the attitude of the Western democracies. Although in France some of the leading publicists warned of the imminent dangers, the British and the French Governments remained inactive and pursued a policy of facile optimism. In the light of further events, the words of some of the French publicists seem almost prophetic. Wladimir D'Ormesson asked on Feb. 17: 'Are things evolving as though the Western powers didn't exist? Do they admit the policy of ultimatums? Does a European balance of power still exist? It does not suffice that Great Britain and France stand together: they must also have a firm line of policy.' And Bure wrote on the same day: 'Let us not confuse cold-bloodedness with lack of decision. The peoples of Central Europe will look in the future to Berlin instead of to London and Paris. The day is not far-distant when Hitler will invite the French and British Governments to Berchtesgaden, to accept the new European order created by the will of the Führer.' The annexation of Austria by military force, which was to follow within a month after the interview at Berchtesgaden, created not only the first great success of the new aggressive diplomacy of Von Ribbentrop in cooperation with the German army, it also definitely opened the road which was to lead to the Pact of Munich.
| The Sovereignty of Austria. |
The independence of Austria had been solemnly assured in a joint declaration of Great Britain, France and Italy, issued on Feb. 17, 1934, and repeated on Sept. 27 of the same year. On April 14, 1935, the conference of the three Powers at Stresa reaffirmed their determination to maintain the integrity of Austria. The proposed conference on Austria and on the affairs of Central Europe which was to be convened at Rome in May 1935, was never realized because of the diverging interests of the Great Powers and the countries of the Little Entente. Chancellor Hitler tried to allay any apprehension by solemnly declaring, on May 21, 1935, that 'Germany has neither the intention nor the will to interfere with the internal affairs of Austria, nor to annex Austria or achieve union with her.' In the same declaration Hitler promised to respect the demilitarization of the Rhineland and to fulfill the Pact of Locarno for which he had high words of praise.
Less than a year later, on March 7, 1936, he broke the Pact of Locarno, remilitarized the Rhineland, and, under these changed circumstances, Austria was forced to agree to a bilateral pact with Germany which was achieved on July 11, 1936. Its first article declared that the German Government recognized, in the sense of the words of the Führer of May 21, 1935, the full sovereignty of Austria. In the second article, both governments declared that they regarded the internal policy exclusively as a question of each country upon which the other countries should exercise no direct or indirect influence. The next day, on July 12, Italy definitely turned away from London and Paris and the Locarno Pact. The visit of Count Ciano, in October 1936, to Berlin and Berchtesgaden marked the beginning of the close German-Italian cooperation, for which Mussolini introduced the name of the Rome-Berlin axis. With this changed Italian attitude, Austria lost the important backing of Italy against German penetration. The modus vivendi created by the bilateral pact of July 11, 1936, was frequently disturbed by the fact that against the wording of the Locarno Pact the German Government supported again and again the Austrian National Socialists in their actions against the constituted Austrian Government. In February 1938 the German Government believed the hour had come to interfere openly in the internal affairs of Austria.
| Schuschnigg's Speech in Parliament. |
The speech of Chancellor Hitler on Feb. 20, 1938, avoided any clear reference to the sovereignty of Austria. On the contrary, the words used revealed clearly the decision of the German Government not to be satisfied with the concessions made so far by Chancellor Schuschnigg, but to insist on the 'protection' of the Germans in Austria. Hitler's speech was answered by Chancellor Schuschnigg in a great speech which he delivered before the Austrian Parliament on Feb. 24. In this speech he declared that the Austrian Government would preserve, with all its power, the integrity of Austria and the traditions of her civilization. He stressed that there was no question of going beyond the concessions which he had already made. Proudly he could point to the great economic progress accomplished by Austria during the past five years. Exports had risen from 818 million schillings in 1933 to 1230 million schillings in 1937. Production had shown an all-round increase. Taking the production of the year 1929 as 100, the production of 1933 had amounted to 62, the production of 1937, to 104. The production of pig-iron had risen from 88,000 tons in 1933 to 389,000 in the year 1937, the production of steel in the same period, from 226,000 tons to 650,000 tons. A similar rise could be noticed in the production of celluloid, paper, and cotton yarn. The production of oil increased from 855 metric tons in 1933 to 33,000 metric tons in 1937. An intensification of agriculture increased the production of wheat by 170 per cent, of potatoes by 430 per cent, of sugar by about 1100 per cent. The increased tourist traffic brought large revenues to the hotel industry and to the railways. The number of unemployed had been reduced to 232,000, without resorting to heavy armaments as other countries had done. The standard of living had been raised throughout Austria, roads, and large housing schemes were under construction. The Austrian budget, which was regularly published and publicly controlled, was completely balanced. Foreign debt had been reduced during the past five years by more than half. Gold reserves of the Austrian National Bank had been considerably increased. The severe restrictions upon exchange had been very much relaxed, so that Austria could claim the most liberal financial administration in Central Europe.
At the same time Chancellor Schuschnigg also stressed his willingness to cooperate with the workers. Everybody without exception in Austria, he stressed, was equal before the law, all classes were to cooperate, there was to be no privileged party. The speech of Chancellor Schuschnigg made a great impression, both in Austria and abroad. It strengthened the will of the majority of the Austrian people to fight for the independence and integrity of their country.
| Austrian Nazi Demonstrations. |
The Austrian National Socialists were incensed at the speech. They were mostly active not in Vienna, where they probably represented only a small minority, but in the two provinces of Styria and Carinthia where they formed a majority of the middle-class population. Graz, the capital of Styria, became the headquarters of an open revolt against the Viennese regime. Graz had always been the most important seat of Pan-Germanic agitation in the Habsburg Monarchy. Under the influence of Seyss-Inquart, the Austrian Government did not take any decisive measures against the National Socialist youth in the provinces who were even allowed to use the Hitler salute and to wear the Swastika. On the other hand, the negotiations between the workers and the Government proceeded only very slowly. The workers were ready to defend the Government against any National Socialist revolt, but they demanded certain concessions on the part of the Government. These concessions would have legalized the Social Democratic activities in a way similar to those granted to the National Socialists, but the Government was reluctant to concede them.
| Nation-wide Plebiscite Proclaimed. |
Thus time was lost. The National Socialists within the Government made energetic action on the part of the police against Nazi demonstrations impossible; the pressure from Germany increased, and, at the beginning of March, Dr. Schuschnigg found himself in a difficult position. Under these circumstances Chancellor Schuschnigg proclaimed, in the Tyrol, his native province, a nation-wide plebiscite for Sunday, March 13, to decide whether Austria wished to remain an independent state. Every Austrian citizen above 24 years of age had the right to participate in the plebiscite. The age of 24 was fixed in accordance with the Austrian Constitution. The short time of four days between the announcement of the plebiscite and the plebiscite itself was to exclude protracted violent propaganda which might have led to many clashes.
| Hitler's New Ultimatum. |
The National Socialists reacted violently to the news of the plebiscite. On March 11, the German radio and press spread the news of Communist demonstrations and disorders in Austria. In the afternoon of the same day, a representative of the German Government arrived by airplane in Vienna and brought an ultimatum which demanded a postponement of the plebiscite, the resignation of the Cabinet of Schuschnigg and the formation of a new Cabinet under Seyss-Inquart. This ultimatum was turned down by the Austrian President, Miklas. Immediately afterwards the ultimatum was repeated with the threat, that, should it not be agreed to by evening, 200,000 German troops would march into Austria. On the same evening Chancellor Schuschnigg declared in a radio address that President Miklas and he had decided to give way before the threat of force. Schuschnigg resigned and his concluding words were 'God save Austria.'
| Occupation of Austria; Hitler's Entry into Vienna. |
A few hours later Austria had ceased to exist; German airplanes, tanks and troops had crossed the frontiers. The move had been well prepared. Within a few hours Austria was not only occupied by German troops, but all the functions of the Police and Administration were taken over by German officials of which each one seemed to have his exact duty well defined in advance. The Government constituted by Seyss-Inquart after the resignation of Schuschnigg is reported to have called the German troops to Austria. On March 13, the day which had been fixed for the plebiscite on Austria's independence, German troops and German officials were completely in control of Austria, and the country, where nobody but the Nazis dared to show themselves in the street, offered a totally coordinated picture. Chancellor Hitler had followed his troops, and triumphantly entered his native town at the border of Bavaria and Upper Austria, then Linz, the capital of Upper Austria, where he had gone to high school; and, on March 14, reached Vienna, the city where he had spent the years of his youth.
| Plebiscite for the Anschluss. |
On April 10, 1938, a plebiscite was held in the Nazified Austria which gave an overwhelming majority for the Anschluss. As the union of Austria with Germany was in any case an accomplished fact which the result of the plebiscite could in no way change, most people bowed before the fact and the success of an active policy. The immense propaganda machine of the German Reich filled all the air and all the printing presses of Austria, for several weeks, with its impressive and unceasingly-repeated assertions. The Austrian Government was dissolved, Austria became an integral part of the German Reich. All the marks of its traditional unity and civilization were erased. The German Reich not only became Great Germany, it acquired a large expansion of its army and its resources, it occupied the most important strategic position on the Danube from where, for many centuries, Central Europe had been dominated politically, economically, and culturally. The three great and very efficient Austrian armament factories now began to work for German rearmament. The possession of Austria completed the encirclement of Czechoslovakia rendering its situation most precarious.
Hitler's ideas were more in line with "selective breeding" than "natural selection"...and although Darwin wrote about it ("Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication"), he merely described something that had been invented independently in many places around the world, ranging up to 10ka.
In fact, Hitler's program was in direct contradiction to Darwinian evolution via natural selection, as it was designed to promote recessive alleles, based solely on human decision, not upon any natural fit with the natural environment.
In other words, it is quite clear that Hitler's views were in direct contrast to Darwin's.
Pull the other one. That is the most fantastic stretching of data that I have observed in a long time. Selective breeding is breeding the "best" with the "best". It is not eliminating the "unfit", as Hitler's ovens were intended.
Now you're just misquoting me :-)
I said ignorant or dishonest. There are two reasons people say a lie - one is because they are dishonest and intentionally lie knowing that it is a lie, and the other is that they believe a lie but think it's the truth, in which case they do say a lie but they don't intend to and don't know that it's a lie.
Thus, I have no way of knowing whether you realized that you were equating a tool with an idea or were clueless. I was saying either your statement was dishonest or ignorant but that I didn't know which - one OR the other.
In other words, it is quite clear that Hitler's views were in direct contrast to Darwin's.
I disagree: Darwin said basically "Here's how the fittest became to be" and Hitler then added on "Lets make it even better and help it!".
-Jesse
And so...when Liberation-Theology Marxists draw on Jesus' ideas the way Hitler (supposedly) drew upon Darwin's, we either (a) discredit Darwin and Jesus, or (b) realize that the (mis)usage of ideas doesn't have anything to do with their validity. Which do you suggest? I propose the latter.
What's your (or any atheist's) best logical argument, based on the true atheist beliefs, that what Hitler did was universally wrong?
I can't speak for others. I can speak to you from my perspective, where I believe much of our "moral grounding" comes from biology ("the altruism gene" is only part of it), as well as culture (Western culture's grounding in Christianity has a lot to do with it). I believe that while there's inborn selfishness, there's also a social imperative inborn in humans. And whether Christianity is right or wrong is immaterial to the fact (IMO) that it's an excellent moral foundation, in general--that is, my beliefs are similar to Thomas Jefferson's on the topic.
I'm positing that there is no logical reason for a true pure atheist not to do what Hitler did, should said atheist have such an inclination.
I don't know that an atheist should conjure some supernatural overarching morality to suggest "evil" acts should not be done. Likely it's a social morality...a morality born from our nature as social creatures called humans. In fact, though, even "Because it displeases God" isn't an inherent morality...that is, the religious reason is no more admirable, as it's merely an acquiescence to a higher power rather than acquiescence to our human nature.
I believe that Social Contracts and all would come into play, but I must apologize for not having the proper philosophy vocabulary if this explanation has not made sense.
Be well...
Gondring
Yikes! So you did!
My apologies! In fact, I was going to suggest that perhaps "or" would have been appropriate...when now I see that I just misread your wording.
I used to use SID as my acronym for the possibilities...
I disagree: Darwin said basically "Here's how the fittest became to be" and Hitler then added on "Lets make it even better and help it!".
Please explain how this is different from Selective Breeding, in your opinion.
And that misreading is more evidence that I must get to bed. Have a good night.
Let me explain with an example. As a young child, I received as a gift probably from my grandmother, a lego set. My dad probably showed me how to build simple little things, but as I became familiar with how legos worked I said to myself "Hey I can build greater things even." And I did - I actually wore out my legos so many of them would not stick together, building all sorts of contraptions.
So I'm not saying that Darwin advocated what Hitler did, but rather provided the idealogical building blocks and example of "how it works." Darwin did, however, expect exactly what Hitler did. In his book "Descent man," Darwin tells us that he thought that in a few hundred years the "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."(Chapter VI, about paragraph 18. Just search for 'As we may hope,')
And Hitler tried just exactly that - "Tigers will always be Tigers" he said - but he definitely wanted to exterminate what he Darwin termed the savage races. I have a vague memory of reading in one of Darwin's books that even he himself couldn't bare to think of the violence that would ensue if everybody believed his theory, but I couldn't find it in a quick search so I'll keep trying and let you know if I find it.
But we do know that Darwin would not have been surprised, nor probably too upset, if, the Caucasian or Hitler would exterminate all the lower races so that the nearest living species to the Caucasian "as we may hope" would be an ape.
But even using just the one above fully referenced quote of Darwin, there is no question that even he knew what the implications were. -Jesse
I'm with you - realize it when there's been a mis usage of ideas or phrases. (In Hitler's case, he used a lot of scriptural phrases but completely ignored the scriptural ideas.)
But you see, I'm not convinced that Hitler was misusing Darwin's ideas. Darwin himself believed that according to his theory, the Caucasian would exterminate the "savage races" so that the gap would span between, as Darwin may hope, the Caucasian and the baboon. And Hitler wrote at length about how the tiger was always a tiger and he described non aryans as mongrels and 'monsters that are a mixture of man and ape' - his desire to widen up the gap was exactly what Darwin predicted. (Mein Kampf Search for 'tiger', 'mongrels' or 'monsters' to read about it, let me know if you want more specific quotes.)
As to Christianity, may I say that when a person believes in Jesus and commits to follow him, Christianity can then be far more then just a "Nobel lie" as some have described it (That is to say, a good foundation for society and nothing more.)
As to atheism, it looks to me like we probably agree that a true atheist, had he found himself in Hitler's position, would have had no logical reason to not do what Hitler did; nor would said atheists's friends have any logical argument based on the atheism which they both shared to try and convince said atheist to not do what Hitler did. And this is why I'm saying that atheism and darwinism are a dangerous combination - darwinism provides an idealogical framework that helps provide "evidence" that there is no God, (or more specifically, how it could have happened without God) while also providing an ideology of how more advanced species came to be and how one would go about building an even better one if they wanted. Then when we bring into the picture atheism, which is bolstered by Darwin's idea, we now have a combination which provides a method for creating a super race (which any smart fellow is going to want to do once he understands) and a belief system (atheism) which logically permits the carrying out of what we in civilized countries would consider an atrocity. In a hundred generations from now, as America's Christian tradition of thought is slowly lost and atheism takes over, I would not be at all surprised if some smart leader will come along and want to increase the average IQ and he'll have no logical reason to not eradicate all low IQ people.
By the way, Hitler's idea of widening the gap did not violate the idea that people are social creatures and need to look out for eachother. He was going to protect his own kind, only targeting other races, as if they were some animal, interbreeding with people. He called it "Bastardization." The scary part is his idea probably would have worked if he was able to pull it off. He probably could have created a stronger people by culling the weak and sickly. It works in the barnyard.
Thanks, & take care,
-Jesse
True, but that 79.7 million are just the adults. If you want to include the children, bump the total to 89.9 million.
Source: GERMANY - historical demographical data ... (see bottom of the page under column 'c1939my' meaning 'census of May 1939')
There weren't enough Protestants (Lutherans actually) to come up with a 90% approval margin. And lord knows there weren't enough Catholics to do it.
But there certainly were enough Protestants plus Catholics to yield a 90% margin.
But taking a look at the numbers you give for 1932, "37.8% of the vote or 13.5 million" gives a total vote of 35.7 million voters. The population of Germany at the time was around 66 million. The next year, your numbers, "43.9% or 17.3 million votes", indicate a population of voters of 39.4 million.
Which was 1932 before he'd banned the Communist (KPD) Party.
The 1933 election gave him enough to join with the (mainly Protestant) Nationalists and the Catholic Centre Parties to get the Enabling Act passed. Which in turn allowed him to ban the Social Democrats (SPD).
By July 14, he had banned his former ally, the Nationalists, and all the others.
The Centre Party had dis-banded itself on July 5th, in return for guarantees of Catholic education and youth groups.
Each of those numbers do not approach your 66 million "supporters". Yes, Hitler led Germany and many people supported him, but that support was not based upon a Christian outlook and certainly did not number 66 million as you hypothesize.
Which is why I used the 1939 time point, before the war and after the Saar, Ruhr, Memel, Austria annexations and the Czech partition.
Hitler became even more wildly popular with the partition of Poland and defeat of France, --so my numbers, if anything, are under-stated.
And Czechoslovakia is not Germany.
Three and a half million 'Sudetendeutsche' or Sudeten Germans would disagree ...
In fact, the December 4th, 1938 elections, 97.3% of the adult population voted NSDAP. About a half million Sudeten Germans joined the Nazi Party which was 17.3% of the German population in Sudetenland (the average participation in Nazi Germany was 7.8%).
Making the Sudetenland the most "pro-Nazi" region in the Third Reich.
The pro-Nazi attitude was the reason that Czechoslovakia had the overwhelming majority of Germans expelled after the war. The property of practically all Sudeten Germans was confiscated by Czechoslovakia for war reparations.
Oh, yeah..I’m sure that Hitler had set up conjugal visits to ensure there was no interruption in the passing of genes of the “unfit” and I’m sure that his sterilization programs had nothing to do with preventing the transmission of genes he didn’t want passed on and I’m sure that farmers never prevented the breeding of the “unfit” nor never killed them off.
Sheesh. Do you even understand selective breeding? It refers to more than just a couple of desired partners getting it on.
Okay, so people believed those other races to be inferior based on genetics, rather than what the Bible (or just general hatred) said, eh?
"Now says the grand father . . . 'Cain, I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you.' What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see." --Brigham YoungI think that it's completely naïve to think that people before Darwin had never thought of applying Selective Breeding techniques to humanity or had never contemplated geocide based on some belief of inferiorities. Darwin's ideas said that changes also occur in the absence of genocide.
But again, that's a red herring (one that's getting a bit old and smelly). Hitler could have cited the Bible or Hammurabi or Priestley or anything else, and it wouldn't have changed the immorality of his acts.
So, what's your point? Even if we granted the hypothetical that Hitler got his ideas from Darwin, what's the lesson--that we should halt scientific progress, lest a madman use the ideas?
Just so you know, I must leave town on business. I don't know when I will be able to reply again, so don't take silence personally. :-)
And where exactly does it state that 79.7 million only includes the adults? In any case the numbers still do not add up to 66 million Christians. Show me the numbers, not the hand-waving. (The enabling act was passed by the Reichstag and not the general populace, so your statement is rather meaningless since a cooperative effort can start with any number. Further all those banned parties count somewhere, and if they are not a substantial amount why are they a danger?)
I'm not sure you understand the words you have used. Killing off your gene-pool is not the aim of selective breeding. Gas chambers are. Here is a definition/description of selective breeding from biology-online.
http://www.biology-online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm
Breeders of animals and plants in today's world are looking to produce organisms that will possess desirable characteristics, such as high crop yields, resistance to disease, high growth rate and many other phenotypical characteristics that will benefit the organism and species in the long term.
This is usually done by crossing two members of the same species which possess dominant alleles for particular genes, such as long life and quick metabolism in one organism crossed with another organism possessing genes for fast growth and high yield. Since both these organisms have dominant genes for these desirable characteristics, when they are crossed they will produce at least some offspring that will show ALL of these desirable characteristics. When such a cross occurs, the offspring is termed a hybrid, produced from two genetically dissimilar parents which usually produces offspring with more desirable qualities. Breeders continuously track which characteristics are possessed by each organism so when the breeding season comes once again, they can selectively breed the organisms to produce more favourable qualities in the offspring.
The offspring will become heterozygous, meaning the allele for each characteristic will possess one dominant and one recessive gene. Most professional breeders have a true breeding cross (ie AAbb with AAbb) so that they will produce a gene bank of these qualities that can be crossed with aaBB to produce heterozygous offspring. This way the dominant features are retained in the first breeding group and can be passed on to offspring in the second instance.
This process of selecting parents is called artificial selection or selective breeding, and poses no threat to nature from man manipulating the the course of nature. It has allowed our species to increase the efficiency of the animals and plants we breed, such as increasing milk yield from cows by continuously breeding selected cows with one another to produce a hybrid.
Okay, so people believed those other races to be inferior based on genetics, rather than what the Bible (or just general hatred) said, eh?
"Now says the grand father . . . 'Cain, I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you.' What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see." --Brigham Young
Just to clarify, Brigham Young was a Mormon and the Mormon philosophy contains core doctrines which are contradictory to the Bible -- and this is one of them. The Account in the Bible of God putting a mark on Cain does NOT say that the mark was being black. This idea is a Mormon idea, or at least it's not a Biblically supported idea. The Mormons have a history of officially supporting racism. Until 1978, they wouldn't even allow black priests. But then there was a lawsuit and a revelation and I guess now they do.
Anyway, Young's idea there is actually contradictory to the Bible -- and I don't at all buy into his idea that the mark of Cain was hereditary black skin.
So, what's your point? Even if we granted the hypothetical that Hitler got his ideas from Darwin, what's the lesson--that we should halt scientific progress, lest a madman use the ideas?
My point is that Darwin's idea - that all came from nothing without God - is, regardless whether it is true, a dangerous idea. But it is being taught as fact. And it has not been demonstrated that it is indeed true - common design could produce many of the same similarities as common descent. And it's not that common design has been proved impossible, but that it is ruled out by a dogma which says that "It all came to be without God." The problem is, until proven impossible, it is still possible that God did create everything - so in other words, a dogma is used to disregard evidence which is possibly true.
So my point is that we're teaching as fact an idea which is not known to be fact, but which is dangerous. If we're going to teach an idea that's dangerous and will provide the logical platform for its believers to commit what we call atrocities, then we'd better be absolutely sure that the idea is true. I say that we should teach what we DO know - that is what we can see and repeat in the lab. Microevolution we can see. Where we came from and how it all began, we do not know. Science really doesn't need to know what happened a billion years ago in order continue to advance. Gravity still works, electricity still flows, etc., regardless of whether we believe that we know where we came from. I'm convinced that the study of where we came from is driven by the moral desire to try and free ourselves from moral limits. (It's sure the way it looks to me -- the people I run into who believe TOE generally don't have a clue as to how it all works, but they take it by faith. To them, it is a faith and a moral platform on which they make their daily choices.)
Just so you know, I must leave town on business. I don't know when I will be able to reply again, so don't take silence personally. :-)
Have a great trip -- or if you're reading this after you get back, Welcome Back! I hope you had a good trip!
-Jesse
Given that:
66% L - Lutherans & other Protestants
33% C - Catholic
1% J - Jews & others.
Solve for C such that:
L + C + J = Ptot = 79.7 million.
and
0.66L + 0.33C + 0.01J >= 0.89Ptot (margin approving the 1934 Fuhrer referendum)
and
0.66L + 0.33C >= 0.98Ptot (margin in favor of the 1938 Austria anschluss)
Nice calculation(although expressed incorrectly and time warp is included), but I fail to see the justification for the number of children who voted.
P.S.: 79.7M * 0.89 = 70.933M
L + C = 70.933M * 0.99
L + C = 70.224M (Too many) Correcting for the actual population around 1934, 66/79.7 = 0.828
L + C = 70.224M * 0.828
L + C = 58.15M (Too few and this includes voting babies)
Just to clarify, Adolf Hitler was a nutcase and the Nazi philosophy contains core doctrines which are contradictory to Darwin's principles (you do realize that Darwin was in specialized studies to enter the Clergy when he got the offer to go on the famed voyage*) -- and this is one of them.
You illustrated the analogy well. Thank you. :-)
My point is that Darwin's idea - that all came from nothing without God - is, regardless whether it is true, a dangerous idea.
First of all, "Darwin's idea" was not "that all came from nothing without God."
And secondly...
So is liberty. So is technological advancement. So is exploration. So is belief and trust in God. So is atheism.
But give me those dangerous ideas over closing our minds and ignoring reality!
And it has not been demonstrated that it is indeed true - common design could produce many of the same similarities as common descent.
Are we to teach the idea that Yahwek is Loki...playing tricks on humans to make them think that his 6000-year-old earth is really billions of years old? I have no problem with you starting a church and claiming that's the fact, because Religion allows for untestable beliefs, faith without evidence. But Science's job is to describe the world in which we live...and my profession as a scientist would be untenable were the world so random as to have been created by a non-mischievous God. I base my predictions and evaluations on an old, changing earth, with evolving creatures...and guess what, my evaluations and predictions are good enough that people pay a decent price for them.
If we're going to teach an idea that's dangerous and will provide the logical platform for its believers to commit what we call atrocities, then we'd better be absolutely sure that the idea is true.
Hmmm...Christianity was a very dangerous dogma...leading to genocide at times. Better not teach it until we are SURE that the idea is true... and there's no way to ever be sure ('til End Times..?).
Science really doesn't need to know what happened a billion years ago in order continue to advance. Gravity still works, electricity still flows, etc., regardless of whether we believe that we know where we came from.
You ride a more efficient bicycle each year, eh? Glad you don't rely on petroleum products.
And I guess your bike is made of wood.
I'm convinced that the study of where we came from is driven by the moral desire to try and free ourselves from moral limits.
Funny...when I was a Christian, I had no less curiosity than now.
It's sure the way it looks to me -- the people I run into who believe TOE generally don't have a clue as to how it all works, but they take it by faith.
heh. And you can't say the same about Christianity?!? (A dear friend told me, soon after meeting, something like, "you're one fo the most Christian people I know--and you're not Christian!" Many "Christians" know little about their professed faith....but that's no evidence against its truth!)
Have a great trip -- or if you're reading this after you get back, Welcome Back! I hope you had a good trip!
Thank you! Exhausting, but fruitful. Glad to be back and I appreciate your well wishes. :-)
You know, I'm amazed we haven't even gotten into Lysenko-Lamarck-Stalin connections!
--Gondring
*"...the pursuit of Natural History, though certainly not professional, is very suitable to a Clergyman." --Josiah Wedgwood, writing to Charles Darwin's father Robert, recommending that he let his son join the Beagle survey.
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.