” it was a “progression” to the future and a better way of doing things and how the human race was to improve. That’s the philosophy that was engaged in by Hitler”
-You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People weren’t thinking of “better ways of doing things” until he came around? THAT’S a link between Darwin and Hitler?! Umm, I’m pretty sure that such thinking goes to the beginning of humanity. It’s why we don’t still live in caves.
“That’s definitely not the philosophy of the Christian church”
-I don’t think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to “find better ways of doing things” and to improve humanity. Or were the Christian abolitionists not really Christians?
And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists - Christian or not - are against it. So “Christian thought and morality” is not the “only thing holding us back” from such a thing. That’s a groundless and silly argument.
“And what comes out of Darwin’s “thinking” (the philosophy from that) and the evolutionary thought — there can be no morals of the same type as we have in Christian thinking, but rather, the individual must be submerged to the good of the whole and if someone is a drag on society, then it’s better for them to be eliminated (for the good of all, as that’s “progression” doncha know...). Hitler seems very well to exemplify that, for sure...”
—What sort of morals would be lacking without Christianity?
As for the rest of the paragraph - huh?
You mentioned “progression” a couple times, perhaps thinking that’s from Darwin? Actually, one of Darwin’s unique ideas is that life changes, but that there is no “progression”. That’s one of the differences between Darwinism and Lamarckism (and the Catastrophists):
“Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a ‘tendency to progression’”.
Instead, due to mutation and selection, life merely diversifies.
If this is the sort of stuff Weikhart writes about, then it might be back off my “to read” list. heh
You were saying — You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People weren’t thinking of “better ways of doing things” until he came around?
—
I’m sure that people throughout history, in their normal state of fallen humankind were always thinking of ways to have an advantage for themselves over others, and to eliminate what they considered to be a drag on themselves and/or society and to maximize their resources at the expense of others. That is true.
However, when you have that kind of thinking “countered” by the teaching from God (the God who has always existed and who revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, at that certain point in time) — then it mitigates against and argues strongly against these types of people and they have resistance and they have no moral standing or ground to advance their agendas, other than being selfish or despotic or racist or other evil things like that.
But, when there has developed a philosophy that can be appealed to for some “reasoning” and “grounding” to justify these things, that some evil people have always wanted to do throughout history, this gives them that much more “moral impetus” and forcefulness to carry such ideas forward, especially if you “sell it” to the general population with these same ideas and philosophies. It takes away the “grounding” of the proper moral behaviors that we should have in society and instead, gives the opposite “moral standing” (from those philosophies) which work against that which is taught by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
However as far as *better ways*— what is “better” to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution — is not a “better way” to the teachings and moral framework that comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Advancement through evil means is never “progress” from what is taught by God in His authoritative word.
So, while all may be seeking “better” — one kind of “better” is “better for evil”, while the other kind of better is “better for righteous and moral behavior”.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — I don’t think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to “find better ways of doing things” and to improve humanity.
—
As I said, this is *not* the philosophy of the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach any such philosophy that gains and/or progress should be made by evil means or procedures, such as (for one example) by eliminating “useless eaters” from society. It never has been the teaching of the Christian church and I can pretty well guarantee you that it never will (because we’ve got the authoritative Word of God for the “basis” of Christian church teachings).
But, there are all sorts of individuals who wish to ignore Christian teachings and do try to do so, while (at the same time) trying to maintain the “label” of “Christian” upon themselves. While they may succeed in keeping the label of “Christian” upon themselves (in the eyes of others in society), they’ll never actually *change* the teachings of the Christian Church, based on the Word of God, in these morals and/or in achieving any kind of “progress” through evil means.
As I said above, some try to achieve progress through evil means and achieve evil results, while others achieve progress through righteous means and morals that come from the authority of the Word of God and its teachings. And you’ll find that when it comes to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and is an outgrowth of his, the Christian Church’s teachings in its morals and conduct and how it plays out in society is *radically opposed* to that which comes out of those teachings stemming from Darwin and Evolution.
Thus, the “reasoning” and “basis” for improving humanity through evil means is what stemmed from the philosophy and teachings that grew out of Darwin and evolutionary thought. It’s a worldview that is opposed to the worldview that you will find taught by the Christian Church (even while both believe in “progress”).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You said — And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists
—
You’ll find that worldviews that have promoted these evil practices (as Weikart is talking about in his book in regards to Hitler’s regime) have not come about in their final form and full-blown when first introduced. They “grow” like anything else grows and gains a following. Darwin and the “evolutionary model” (of thought, and how things supposedly worked in the world) came out in a world which was totally against what would come to be the eventual outcome of that thought. It couldn’t be promoted or be known (at that time) — in the form that it logically developed into, from its beginnings. These people, in the beginning, were the product of their times, and they would have never allowed themselves to fully pursue the full logic of their positions, even if they were prompted to do so. You see this in plenty of other areas, where the ideas have a *foundation* laid down by a founder, which the “followers” then take up and expand according to the “logic” of the foundation as created by that founder. It’s not something that is not well understood. It happens all the time and it always proceeds from the *foundations* laid down by the principals or the founders, in the beginning. That’s what we have now, the outgrowth of that *foundation* as was laid down by those early proponents of this idea.
The “full flowering” of those ideas are coming to “fruition” today (in our lifetimes) and as we have seen in such regimes as Hitler exemplified.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then — You mentioned “progression” a couple times, perhaps thinking that’s from Darwin?
“Progression” would be getting better or better ways to do things, or improving things. That’s the getting better that you also said was natural for people to do. And I’ve made the comments about that up above.
But, as to whether the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution does teach that things do progress and get better in and of itself, in this kind of “philosophy” or worldview of how things are — you might find those (in that camp) who say that things (perhaps as you say) simply change and that it’s not “better” one way or the other, but simply changes. Thus, in that camp, morals have absolutely no relevance, as what “we” (as a people, today) are simply here, the way we are, with no specific purpose or reason to be better or worse than some other manifestation of “life” that might have appeared, if it wasn’t us that appeared here. There is that thought.
And then there does seem to be a camp, in that philosophy that says that things do, indeed, naturally “progress” to a better state and that we do represent a higher state of affairs in the “progress” in how evolution has naturally given us (in a way) the higher status among living things. But, then again, that was something that happened by chance, too, so it may not actually be better than some other way, either.
That’s not the worldview taught from the Christian Church which stems from the authority of the Word of God, in that there is a specific purpose for mankind and it was created for specific reasons and there is a definite plan for mankind that God has put into place.
The philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolutionary thought would deny this, without a doubt.