Posted on 03/20/2019 9:28:34 AM PDT by fishtank
Darwinism Inspired China’s Communist Holocaust: The Horrors of Communist China’s Holocaust Inspired by Darwinism
March 18, 2019 | Jerry Bergman
by Jerry Bergman PhD
As history separates us from Darwin’s death, the media is more willing to expose the harm of his ideas. This, plus the release of once-sealed records have revealed a great deal about the atrocities of recent history. This is the case of the horrors of Mao Zedong in Communist China.[1] That Darwin was a major influence in communist China should not surprise us. Darwin not only supported the survival-of-the-fittest ideology, but even
divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair color. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.[2]
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
"In the minds of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they all believed that Darwin had “proved” humans were not God’s creation, but instead were animals descended from a “simple” one-celled organism by the survival-of-the-fittest mechanism. The extent that Darwinism was inculcated into the Chinese people is revealed by the fact that Mao was still using the Darwinian idiom “the triumph of the fittest” as late as 1957.[13]"
The validity of Darwinism has nothing to do with its use by totalitarians to justify atrocities.
But there are plenty of people who see Darwinism as an invalid idea — one which has little purpose other than to serve as a tool for totalitarians.
We’ll see how valid or invalid it is at the end of this year at the 2019 Darwin Awards show.
They are benighted people. I'm truly sorry for them.
Exactly!
One could just as easily commit atrocities in the name of "Copernikanism" (also known as the "Heliocentric Model") - that would still not invalidate the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Regards,
I'd argue it's original teaching (yeah, I know, Darwin wasn't the first to believe in natural selection, but he was the first to make it a popular belief) was all about stopping the abolitionist movement that was going on in Europe. So not so much totalitarian (i.e. not just so a few leaders can control the masses). It was all about justifying the average Joe being able to control his fellow man.
Some attempt should be made to differentiate “Social Darwinism” from plain old Darwinism. Social Darwinism was seized upon by the British aristocracy and its intellectual lackeys as a justification for the various tyrannies they unleashed against their 3rd World colonies and was soon taken up by every street corner thug sociopath and narcissistic political enforcer goon on the planet. Under the Social Darwinist “Uber Mensch” doctrine, only the fittest are deserving of survival. In the dog eat dog, law of the jungle world of the 19th century, this doctrine may have had some traction. In the Age of Info, however, ectomorphic muscle mass applied to the urban modern world’s problems are knuckle dragging Neanderthal and a straight up non-survival liability. The Social Darwinists’ bumper sticker “Survival of the Fittest” has been non-voluntarily replaced by something more civilized - “Survival of the Smartest”. Being not so smart, the Social Darwinists of today are on the fast track to oblivion.
Uh, oh. I feel oblivion approaching, as I don’t even know what ectomorphic muscle mass is...
Poor Darwin’s been gone for a long time and still can’t catch a break.
Why doesn’t fishtank’s crew pick on something more modern like comparative genomics?
Wander over to Vox Day's site. You can read about how the chimp genome isn't 98% correlated with the human: a lot of the stretches of the genome were never captured in the first place, so it was "assumed" that the human genome was a good scaffolding as it were to approximate unknown stretches; and there turns out to be significant human DNA presence in the DNA samples of most other critters, because of sloppy lab technique (e.g sneezing holding a sample vial, fingerprints, etc. etc.)
Because (raises eyebrows) Science.
Why?
Why is a Darwinist even on FreeRepublic?
>>Uh, oh. I feel oblivion approaching, as I don’t even know what ectomorphic muscle mass is...
Definitions or all the above are a mouse click away and require almost no muscle mass to access...
Darwin, if you believe these cretins, has been more involved in history than God himself. At least someone is watching the store, I guess.
I know what ectomorphs are, and we don’t HAVE muscle mass.
Darwin didn’t invent macro evolution theory, before him it was used to justify slavery.
What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist?
Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case).
https://biologos.org/articles/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-qa-with-dennis-venema
BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
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.