[Star Traveler]

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.

[goodusername]

“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.”

-THAT’s what you meant by “finding better ways of doing things”? You gave no indication of that. I thought you meant it in the sense that someone buys a car to have a better way of getting around. So what has any of that got to do with Darwin or Darwinism?

“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. “

—Darwin and evolution give no indication at all of what is “better”, whatever that means. Darwinism says that due to differential reproductive success and random mutations in a population that certain characteristics of a population will change over time as it adapts to its environment. That’s no more an indication that we should “eliminate” anyone than Newton’s theory is an indication that I should knock my monitor to the floor because that’s somehow “better”.

“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.”

— In what way is it different? You never actually explain.

“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...”

—Completely ad-hoc and completely wrong. Eugenics was very unpopular until around 1920 when it suddenly flourished. What happened? Mendelism became popular. So if you’re looking for someone to blame, don’t forget him.
Throughout history, if a source of a disease was found, we’d try to stop it. If someone has a plague, his travel is restricted, or even quarantined. We do not allow him to spread the plague. With the discovery that many diseases are spread through genes, it seemed a logical step to stop the spread of the genes, and thus the disease. Darwinism was completely unnecessary for why and when eugenics became popular.
In fact many Darwinists were against eugenics, while many non-Darwinists were pro-eugenics. Early mendelians were among the biggest proponents of eugenics, and yet were typically not Darwinists.
Charles Davenport, for instance, is often cited as the most important advocate of eugenics, and his arguments were based on Mendelism: “Formerly, when we believed that factors blend, a characteristic in the germ plasm of a single individual among thousands seemed not worth considering: it would soon be lost in the melting pot. But now we know that unit characters do not blend; that after a score of generations the given characteristic may still appear, unaffected by repeated unions…. So the individual, as the bearer of a potentially immortal germ plasm with innumerable traits, becomes of the greatest interest.”
Many church leaders and leading Creationists were also enthusiastic supportors of eugenics. For instance, a couple of the founders of the Creation Research Society were eugenicists, such as Tinkle and Marsh.
When Hitler argued for eugenics, he also didn’t cite Darwinism - but he did cite Sparta.

“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.”

—Who said anything about “evil means or procedures”? You’re being extremely vague and keep changing your arguments - it makes it very difficult to follow what you’re trying to say.

“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.”

— It looks like you are engaging in some really bizarre off-the-wall equivocation. The equivalent of using Newton’s theory for “why things fall” to explain the “fall of Rome”. Perhaps another reason why I’m having trouble following your posts.
Darwinism is not a theory about “things”. It’s a theory about how populations change due to the differential reproduction of members of those populations. I would have thought that when I mentioned that Darwin argued that there is no natural tendency to “progression” that I (and Darwin) were talking about biology, and not culture or technology or anything else. Just as Newton wasn’t talking about the rise and fall of civilizations.

Did you read Weikart’s book? Just curious, cause I went into the convo having thought that you read the book. If you did read it, is this the kind of stuff he actually talks about? I would have expected that a book called “From Darwin to Hitler” talked about Darwin and Hitler. :-)