Here is an excerpt from an article by an evolutionist of no mean repute:
“Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection (and of the Darwinian theory of evolution) in respect to its suitability as part of Modernism's origination myth, as well as of its ability to explain organic evolution
(August 1999; [updated August 2002] )
S.N. Salthe
“its privileging the centrality of competition.
In an increasingly overcrowded world, it happens that more people are coming to believe in the evolution of organisms, including people, by way of natural selection — which works fundamentally on the principle of competition between types. You and I as individuals cannot compete in this game, but, as tokens of various types (blue eyes / brown eyes; dark skin / light skin — each of us is a nexus of many genetically coded types) our reproductive success contributes to the competition for representation of these types in the population (and of the genes governing them in the gene pool). It is curious that there is an obvious correlation between holding liberal political views and believing in evolution by natural selection — seemingly a flat contradiction! This probably ought to be the most troubling aspect of selection theory for liberals. Darwinian models have supplied motivation for social Darwinists of one kind or another ever since World War I, ranging from the German High Command at the turn of the century to some contemporary sociobiologists. We might note here that many sociobiologists hold that competition between populations (e.g., among humans, warfare) is a reasonable way to sublimate competition between types in a population (see discussion of interspecific competition in the last paragraph of (6), below). Irons’ review of R.D. Alexander's book The Biology of Moral Systems concludes that the fact that it presents such an unpleasant perspective doesn't make it wrong. The answer to this view is to bring up the social construction of knowledge, where we see that what is desired can be constructed as true. Sober and Wilson's recent book, Unto Others, devoted to tracing the evolution of altruism, is nevertheless based on competition, as any Darwinian text must be.
(If one wishes to catch the moral and philosophical flavor of Darwinian implications, the Alexander book cited above, and Monod’s Chance and Necessity are central readings.)
It has often been suggested that such social Darwinian applications are “misuses” of the theory. Well, I think that a theory that has so strong a propensity for this kind of (mis)use could properly be held to be suspect when its adherents are growing apace along with the world population. Or, more innocently, we might ask in just what way a theory that privileges competition as the source of everything is ideologically appropriate to an increasingly overcrowded world. Perhaps it is!”
Who is Goodwin?
I misspelled (but close), it’s Godwin , and here is the wiki definition of Godwin’s law:
Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
The term Godwin’s law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to “lose” the debate.
Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads, wiki talk pages, and Twitter.
In other words, the side that compares the other side to Hitler in an online debate or argument has lost the debate. They have no other weapon than to call or associate the other side with Nazis.
In another thread today, GGG started off with this in the title. He lost the argument before it started.