Posted on 08/22/2010 7:10:42 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Last night, Glenn Beck blended his anti-progressive polemics with anti-evolution dogma, attacking Charles Darwin as "the father of modern day racism" who "plant[ed] the seed that leads to progressivism, eugenics." He expanded on this critique on the radio this morning, saying that Darwin wrote about "the savages" and announcing: "I understand why Darwin has to be taught in schools now. You have to teach evolution, because if you don't teach evolution, progressivism falls apart." According to Beck and his cohorts, a direct line can be drawn between Darwin, eugenics, and Hitler: "Charles Darwin is the father of the Holocaust."
(Excerpt) Read more at proglib.newsvine.com ...
Then they can stew in reality and get burnt even more. The last time this happened was when he was talking about how the nazis learned propaganda from american progressives. Naturally the left went nuts so Beck brought out the quote from the guy's own autobiography.
Classic.
I find it amusing how the left never figures out that their lies can't defeat the truth. They just keep trying over and over and over again.
Beck really nows how to get under the lefts skin, and he irritates the hell out of them. They can’t take a single chink in the armmor of their Utopian dreams of a eugenically pure Utopia. Soon Beck will have them eating somnolent green! What a kick!
Astoundingly stupid.
He's got a point. The French Revolution, first.
Well done, Glenn Beck, well done indeed ...
Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.
Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ( "quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.
My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.
Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.
The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics".
Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:
From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:
Chapter 3
The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942
....It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people....
... "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
...I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.
12.
....No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany.... ...Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions....
It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.
Chapter 4
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).
14.
It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose i
s finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."
...If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this:
the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.
All of that, of course, deals only with the question of ethics and the logical consequences of evolutionism. The fact that evolution is junk science argues against it as well.
Wow, stupid and ignorant at the same time. Eugenics go all the way back to the Marovingian kings in France, not to mention the French and US slave trade. And on top of it Darwinism actually refutes eugenics in it’s support for natural selection.
And, no, I don’t think beck is stupid.
“Charles Darwin is the father of the Holocaust.”
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Love is blind.
God is love.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
Wait a second ... too many premises. Nevermind!
I think you’re caviler in your characterization of evolutionists as non-creationists. Many of us firmly believe in evolution as the mechanism of creation, not as being opposed to it. Remember, when the bible was written it was written in language people could understand when they received it.
My thoughts on the matter:
If we are all just evolved animals, human life is devalued, and you eventually come to the conclusion that maybe some groups of people are more evolved than others.
Which is exactly the beliefs that drove the nazi’s actions.
I cringed when I heard Glenn say this. He is dead wrong.
Darwin was an ardent abolitionist who wrote of his intense opposition to slavery. The suggestion that he planted the seed of eugenics is likewise baloney; he openly opposed that as well.
That some people twist and distort Darwin's writings to support their repugnant ideas has no bearing on the character of the man himself. Many scientific ideas have been and will always be abused.
“Darwinism actually refutes eugenics in it’s support for natural selection”
Actually it doesn’t. It gives a wonderful cover to the social engineers and advocates of eugenics. If natural selection will eventually select out the weak and for the better, it’s an extremely short step to think you are performing the work that nature would be doing soon anyway.
Can you point to a word in Darwin’s writing warning against eugenics, ie,,,”man made evolution”?
God does not use broken tools.
The phrase, "survival of the fittest", is actually not found in Darwin's writings. It is, however, found in Galton's.
Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings -- a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.
Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory, and warned his readers against imminent evolutionary backsliding. “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Insert a few terms like “Aryan” or “Jew” and that could be in any Nazi screed.
If the left went nuts about that, then the left hasn’t studied history.
I dont have the time or patience to pore over his writings to find the specific passages, but the answer is yes. I can recall reading in his work that it is society's obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
But to some extent, this is beside the point. Whether jerks misused Darwin's work to justify their evil has no bearing on whether the concept of evolution is true.
While Rush is living rent-free in their penthouse,
Glenn, appears to occupy the whole top floor.
Good point. In fact, Darwin was known to despise the expression "survival of the fittest." He resisted it at first but eventually accepted that it had caught on too much to undo.
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.