Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
Do you have a point?
actually unless humans are special (set apart from nature), it would just be another environmental condition. just as much a part of natural selection as if a lion selects for the fastest to breed by eliminating the slow.
then what made them special and set apart from nature?
"Do you have a point?"
The point is, you are overeager to diminish the contribution of your "team" whenever it serves your purpose, as in this instance. It's an altogether human, emotional response.
You can arbitrarly draw a line between artificial and natural, but Darwin's line was simple and objective. Selection involving human intervention and selection not involving human intervention.
Human intervention was not Darwin's or Galton's invention. Selective breeding was not Darwin's of Galton's invention. Blood purity was not something dreamed up by science. It is as least as old as the geneologies in the Bible, including the ancestry of Jesus -- from royalty.
Killing Jews was not something dreamed up by Darwin or Galton. Darwin was not the inventor of the German passion play, which stirred up hatred of jews. I've never even seen a reference to Gypsies by Darwin.
Scientists seldom aspire to political power. Not many have ever held high public office or even led a major corporation.
I suspect more clergymen than biology teachers have been convicted of diddling children. I suspect organized religion has been responsible for more genocides than have biology teachers. Certainly the ones in the Bible seem to have been inspired by religion.
And in addition to all this, you have the rather mundane fact that Hitler didn't rise to power on a platform of science, nor did he print "Darwin is With Us" on belt buckles. Rather he stood with clergymen on platforms decorated with crosses.
Being special does not require being set apart from nature.
Sorry, but my "team" such as it is, describes how things work. Human beings, being what they are, with take noble instruments like guns, and misuse them. They will also take noble intellectual endevors like chemistry and make poison gas.
Only a whiny liberal snot blames the instrument.
Is it your premise that genocide, ethnic cleansing, and perhaps even specific attempts to eradicate Jews, all post-date Darwin and are the product of ideas that "have a straight line to" or are "drawn directly from" Darwin?
ok then can be special and natural, just like a venus flower basket, special and natural still any action is still part of natural selection.
never said anything about an who invention human driven natural selection...only said, any action by human even genocide or eugenics is natural selection, (unless you can site more than an opinion(even darwins opinion) of HOW,WHY, they shouldn't be included just as much natural) if humans are nothing more than another product of natural selection and random mutations then any actions they contuct are just as much a part of the natural selection process.
"Sorry, but my "team" such as it is, describes how things work."
You seem to be at pains to avoid any discussion of applied science, even to the point of denying the existence of such.
I'm dealing strictly with the topic of the thread, which pertains only to Nazi Germany.
Well, other than the "applied science" of railroads, automatic weapons, and gas chambers, what was substantively different about the Nazi war on Jews and the Roman war on Jews?
Perhaps you can't read or choose not to. I referred to chemistry and to the production of poison gas. I referred to guns and to the possibility of their misuse.
In my experienc it is liberals who confuse the gun with the cause of killing and science with its misuse. Until I came across these blame the gun threads I was unaware that conservatives were blame shifters.
"In my experienc it is liberals who confuse the gun with the cause of killing and science with its misuse."
It appears that your defensiveness is a bit behind the curve.
"It was scientific and medical methods, scientific and medical speech that were used in carrying out these crimes in the name of science. Even today, we prefer to perceive the Nazi era as a period of 'pseudo-science.' But this is dangerous, as it would relieve scientists from any responsibility for the crimes committed. 'Criminal acts of this kind are an inexcusable shame, not only for those who prepared them, but also for all those who tolerated them, in fact for the life sciences themselves, in the name of which they were committed."
- Hubert Markl, president of The Max Planck Society.
http://www.mpg.de/english/portal/index.html
A detailed article reporting efforts by The Max Planck Society to come to terms with its own Nazi past can be found at:
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/n10/full/embor304.html
They do.
Nor do these statements:
< snip >
And there is this summary of his belief:
"That there is one God, who made all things.
"That he governs the world by his providence.
"That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving.
"But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.
"That the soul is immortal.
"And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice either here or hereafter."
All accepted truths in the Deist philosophy.
I don't think you have the slightest clue what is encompassed by 18th century Deism; so you're trying to conflate a belief in God into some type of Christianity. Sorry, it won't fit.
Franklin knew exactly what he meant by 'Deist'. I wonder why you don't take him at his word.
OK. Let's for argument sake assume that the Nazis found justification in Darwin's ToE, despite being able to trace what we now label as eugenics to the Spartans.
What conclusions do you come to about Evolution based on the Nazi use of eugenics?
NNWWSNM placemark
What exactly is defensive about asking you to behave like a conservative and less like a liberal?
You're a real piece of work, js1138. It's quite clear that your perception of just what constitutes being a "conservative" differs substantially from mine. You seem to have no issue with tarring religion in general, and Christianity in particular, having done so on this very thread. How many people would associate such behavior with "conservative" political belief? Very few. Sweeping anti-religious bigotry, with a special level of bile directed at Christianity, is the hallmark of a leftwing atheist, in my experience, as is a misplaced faith in scientific infallibility.
touche bump
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.