Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?

Religions > Atheism > Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 12

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	30 Jun 2004 07:33:31 AM
Object:	Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?

What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	03 Jul 2004 03:49:30 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407021541.72db5e62@posting.google.com>...

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<ch6be0had715obpbfr9kqlt9jrqstbkpjc@4ax.com>...

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:48:20 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

[snip]

Are you going to post any evidence that Darwin made some significant
contribution to the Holocaust,

Probably, after a certain book arrives and I've looked at it.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b089.htm

So how come no Jews have denounced Darwin? The only ones to denounce
Darwin are Christian fascists.
"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into
numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is
the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where
people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes
of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done
by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge,
with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do
when they aspire to the knowledge of gods (374)." - Jacob Bronowski
http://skepdic.com/science.html

or should we take your inability to
respond as a tacit agreement that there is no such connection?

User: "Mitchell Coffey"
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	02 Jul 2004 11:17:55 PM

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:38:18 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<ch6be0had715obpbfr9kqlt9jrqstbkpjc@4ax.com>...

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:48:20 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

[snip]

Are you going to post any evidence that Darwin made some significant
contribution to the Holocaust,

Probably, after a certain book arrives and I've looked at it.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b089.htm

Bad link, but no mind. I take it you've already read whatever this
book may be, otherwise you're admitting that you made that dispicable
implication without knowing any evidence, but will spout whatever may
turn up in that book. No wonder you praised a antisemitic, Holocaust
deyiing site, because they happen to be Creationist.

or should we take your inability to
respond as a tacit agreement that there is no such connection?

Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
_________________________________________
Ray Charles was *my* Commander-in-Chief
.

User: "Karl Johanson"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	09 Jul 2004 12:20:05 PM

"John Thomas Grisham" <jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1e9d6178.0407090659.1253f314@posting.google.com...

David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message

news:<slrnceqr3h.df9.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...

John Thomas Grisham <jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message

news:<b1c67abe.0407071947.152f57d3@posting.google.com>...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate

Creationists"

in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...

murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

If by "Christian", we mean Christ-like, then practically no one except
Mother Teresa would fit that description.

Like denying painkillers to dying people? Cuddling up to the Duvalier
family? Yeah, Christlike.

Christ did have his critics. You might recall, they nailed him to a
cross.

Christ broke a Roman law. The Bible says that he said to obey the leaders of
a country & all who work for them.

His wealthy friend, Lazerus, was even brought back from the dead (talk
about influence peddling). There's all those loaves of bread and
fishes no one can exactly account for. And have you considered the
economic impact of making the blind to see and the lame to walk...
without handicapped beggars, the slaves are going to feel that there's
no one worse off than them and impliment a work slowdown.

Christ said for slaves to obey their masters, the fair ones and the harsh
ones.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	03 Jul 2004 08:28:02 AM

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<fjcce056p0s9nd0mbsa03csgjqc2gunhna@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:38:18 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<ch6be0had715obpbfr9kqlt9jrqstbkpjc@4ax.com>...

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:48:20 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

[snip]

Are you going to post any evidence that Darwin made some significant
contribution to the Holocaust,

Probably, after a certain book arrives and I've looked at it.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b089.htm

Bad link, but no mind.

The link worked for me. There is the text:
From Darwin to Hitler
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
Richard Weikart
2004 (Hardback), Palgrave MacMillan, 312 pp.
Item# B089Suggested Donation:
$50 (includes USPS Media Mail shipping to addresses in
US/Canada/Mexico)
$55 (includes surface shipping to all other foreign addresses)
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual
history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism
had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading
Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that
Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment
ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.
Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously
exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence
and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes
that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but
also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination,
all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the
disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian
principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a
provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of
the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in
the twentieth century.
Endorsements:
Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing
detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral
attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which
the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of
public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the
lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates
with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted
suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for
those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of
Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with
a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they
came to power.
-- Dr. Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of
Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen
in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and
highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak,
the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of
numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist
naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and
similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story.
-- Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History at the University of Prince
Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in
Modern America
This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history--a
well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair
judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant
historiography in both German and English."
-- Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton
College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of
Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914
This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one
directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical
discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good
will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily
the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the
progressive banner of biological "health and fitness." The book
should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians
but among ethicists and scientists too.
--Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon
College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern
German University (forthcoming)
The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught
as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed.
Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively
explains.
--Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of
California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the
Balance
If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and
tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear
and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German
thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in
order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler's
Germany were not reactionary; they were very much "cutting edge" and
in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart's
implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian
naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead
to similar practices.
--Nancy Pearcey, co-author of The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We
Live
Richard Weikart's masterful work offers a compelling case that the
eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that
have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural
elite's enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life,
morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with
careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered
by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human
institutions: "ideas have consequences."
--Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of
Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies,
Baylor University
About the Author
Richard Weikart is an associate professor of modern European history
at California State University, Stanislaus. He has lived in Germany
over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship. He has
published two previous books, including Socialist Darwinism: Evolution
in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (1999), as well as
articles in German Studies Review, Journal of the History of Ideas,
Isis, European Legacy, and History of European Ideas.
Table of Contents
Illustrations
Preface
Introduction
1. Laying New Foundations for Ethics
1 The Origin of Ethics and the Rise of Moral Relativism
2 Evolutionary Progress as the Highest Good
3 Organizing Evolutionary Ethics
2. Devaluing Human Life
4 The Value of Life and the Value of Death
5 The Specter of Inferiority: Devaluing the Disabled and
"Unproductive"
6 The Science of Racial Inequality
3. Eliminating the "Inferior Ones"
7 Controlling Reproduction: Overturning Traditional Sexual Morality
8 Killing the "Unfit"
9 War and Peace
10 Racial Struggle and Extermination
4. Impacts
11 Hitler's Ethics
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index

I take it you've already read whatever this
book may be,

I haven't yet. I did, though, read the text above, and the chapter
"Adolf Hitler: Neo-Darwinism and Genocide" in Koster's book, the
table of contents of which appears at the end of
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
Ideas have consequences.

otherwise you're admitting that you made that dispicable
implication without knowing any evidence, but will spout whatever may
turn up in that book. No wonder you praised a antisemitic, Holocaust
deyiing site, because they happen to be Creationist.

[MC]"you praised a" Remind me, when did I do that? I suspect that
you're confusing me with another person.

or should we take your inability to
respond as a tacit agreement that there is no such connection?

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	04 Jul 2004 02:04:24 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93@posting.google.com...

-- [snip]

From Darwin to Hitler
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
Richard Weikart
2004 (Hardback), Palgrave MacMillan, 312 pp.

Item# B089Suggested Donation:
$50 (includes USPS Media Mail shipping to addresses in
US/Canada/Mexico)
$55 (includes surface shipping to all other foreign addresses)

In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual
history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism
had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading
Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that
Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment
ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.
Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously
exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence
and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes
that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but
also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination,
all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the
disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian
principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a
provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of
the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in
the twentieth century.

In your original post, you asked what contribution to the Holocaust were
made by four specific people: Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Nietzche (the
last not, generally, being considered a major theorist on either the
pathways or mechanisms of descent with modification). Here, though, your
source is discussing "Darwinism," and "many leading Darwinian biologists and
social thinkers."
Now, the point has already been raised (surprising seldom in this thread,
though) that the social consequences of a scientific theory are not what
makes it a correct or incorrect theory. You have not, so far as I can tell,
addressed this point: if Darwin *did* contribute to the Holocaust, would
that make common descent or natural selection false?
But, as the FAQ on Darwin's precursors, and the independent discovery of
common descent by natural selection by Wallace, rather strongly imply,
"Darwinism" would have existed had Darwin never been born, or had he gone
into the ministry and never written on science. Or you might consider, more
strongly than you seem to have done, Wilkin's point that the features of
"Darwinian" thought usually identified as "Social Darwinist" were all, in
fact, shared by many thinkers of Darwin's time and before, and not dependent
on him, personally.
In short, you can't seem to decide if you're condemning the idiosyncratic
ideas of a small number of individuals, or tendencies in culture,
philosophy, and science that were broad-based and whose roots were already
in place by the time Darwin was born.

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	05 Jul 2004 06:29:02 AM

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<10egld42b1vupe7@corp.supernews.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93@posting.google.com...

Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel could be described as "Darwinian
biologists," while Nietzsche could be described as a "social thinker."

Now, the point has already been raised (surprising seldom in this thread,
though) that the social consequences of a scientific theory are not what
makes it a correct or incorrect theory. You have not, so far as I can tell,
addressed this point: if Darwin *did* contribute to the Holocaust,

Which he did.

would
that make common descent or natural selection false?

No.
[SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory"
The theory of natural selection has been falsified. Ref:
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291601.455e9ae%40posting.google.com

But, as the FAQ on Darwin's precursors, and the independent discovery of
common descent by natural selection by Wallace, rather strongly imply,
"Darwinism" would have existed had Darwin never been born, or had he gone
into the ministry and never written on science. Or you might consider, more
strongly than you seem to have done, Wilkin's point that the features of
"Darwinian" thought usually identified as "Social Darwinist" were all, in
fact, shared by many thinkers of Darwin's time and before, and not dependent
on him, personally.

In short, you can't seem to decide if you're condemning the idiosyncratic
ideas of a small number of individuals, or tendencies in culture,
philosophy, and science that were broad-based and whose roots were already
in place by the time Darwin was born.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	05 Jul 2004 08:44:55 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407050332.5d5fee21@posting.google.com...

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message

news:<10egld42b1vupe7@corp.supernews.com>...

-- [snip]

your

source is discussing "Darwinism," and "many leading Darwinian biologists

and

social thinkers."

Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel could be described as "Darwinian
biologists," while Nietzsche could be described as a "social thinker."

Ah. I would have assumed that your source meant for "Darwinian" to modify
"social thinkers" as well as "biologists," but you seem not to understand
that text in this way.

Now, the point has already been raised (surprising seldom in this

thread,

though) that the social consequences of a scientific theory are not what
makes it a correct or incorrect theory. You have not, so far as I can

tell,

addressed this point: if Darwin *did* contribute to the Holocaust,

Which he did.

Ah. Well, of course, your very confident assertion settles the matter for
me. The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi
ideology counts for nothing against the facts that [a] the Nazis from time
to time interspersed Darwinian phrases among the Christian, nationalist, and
socialist phrases in their diatribes, and [b] the fact that you've found a
book that manages to blame the Holocaust on "Darwinism."

would
that make common descent or natural selection false?

No.

[SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory"
The theory of natural selection has been falsified. Ref:
Synthetic Euphoria URLs

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291601.455e9ae%40posting.google.com

I found, here, a long list of URLs to earlier posts of yours, no doubt
regaling the reader with assorted mined quotes. Nothing really seemed, on
the basis of your descriptions of these quote-mining expeditions, to be
worth actually reading. I do not consider natural selection to be falsified
because you could dredge up a quote or ten by Eldredge on the need to revise
the modern synthesis to include puntuated equilibrium, or because you
consider this person or that to "doubt" the modern synthesis.

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	06 Jul 2004 07:00:32 AM

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<10ein2amn821h12@corp.supernews.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407050332.5d5fee21@posting.google.com...
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<10egld42b1vupe7@corp.supernews.com>...

Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel could be described as "Darwinian
biologists," while Nietzsche could be described as a "social thinker."

Ah. I would have assumed that your source meant for "Darwinian" to modify
"social thinkers" as well as "biologists," but you seem not to understand
that text in this way.

The ARN text I presented
<http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b089.htm>
doesn't mention Huxley, Haeckel, or Nietzsche.

Which he did.

Ah. Well, of course, your very confident assertion settles the matter for
me.

That was easy. Well, perhaps too easy.

The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi
ideology counts for nothing against the facts that [a] the Nazis from time
to time interspersed Darwinian phrases among the Christian, nationalist, and
socialist phrases in their diatribes, and [b] the fact that you've found a
book that manages to blame the Holocaust on "Darwinism."

[SJ]"everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi ideology"
Does this [SJ]"everything" include Darwin's _Descent of Man_?
Do you think Nazi ideology would have approved of Charles Darwin's
view that:
[CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the Caucasian"--
[CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the
world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or Australian," as in
Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]"man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"?
Darwin, Charles. 1871. _The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to Sex_ (1981 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1871
edition), volume one, Chapter VI "Affinities and Genealogy,"
subsection "On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man," the last 3
paragraphs of the subsection, on 200-201:
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may
have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he
probably inhabited a hot country; and this would have been
favourable for a frugiferous [fruit eating] diet, on which,
judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing
how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarhine
stock; but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as
the Eocene period; for the higher apes had diverged from
the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period, as
shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also
quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high
or low in the scale, may under favourable circumstances be
modified: we know, however, that some have retained the
same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what
we see going on under domestication, we learn that within
the same period some of the co-descendants of the same
species may be not at all changed, some a little, and some
greatly changed. Thus it may have been with man, who has
undergone a great amount of modification in certain
characters in comparison with the higher apes.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his
nearest allies [i.e. "the gorilla and chimpanzee"-199],
which cannot be bridged over by any extinct
or living species, has often been advanced as a grave
objection to the belief that man is descended from some
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much
weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe
in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly
occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and
defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the
orang and its nearest allies-- between the Tarsius and the
other Lemuridie-- between the elephant and in a more
striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or
Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend
merely on the number of related forms which have become
extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured
by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost
certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,^16 will no doubt
be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state,
as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low
as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or
Australian and the gorilla.
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to
connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay
much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. Lyell's
discussion,^17 in which he shews that in all the vertebrate
classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an
extremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be
forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to
afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like
creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

would
that make common descent or natural selection false?

No.

[SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory"
The theory of natural selection has been falsified. Ref:
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291601.455e9ae%40posting.google.com

Ah, well. For me, it is the journey and not so much the destination
that makes for enjoyment.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

I do not consider natural selection to be falsified
because you could dredge up a quote or ten by Eldredge on the need to revise
the modern synthesis to include puntuated equilibrium, or because you
consider this person or that to "doubt" the modern synthesis.

Are you aware of any lines of evidence _for_ Darwin's theory of
natural selection that you find particularly persuasive? If so, would
you mind briefly describing 3 of those better lines of evidence?
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?	06 Jul 2004 10:31:41 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be@posting.google.com...

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message

news:<10ein2amn821h12@corp.supernews.com>...

-- [snip]

The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts

Nazi

ideology counts for nothing against the facts that [a] the Nazis from

time

to time interspersed Darwinian phrases among the Christian, nationalist,

and

socialist phrases in their diatribes, and [b] the fact that you've found

book that manages to blame the Holocaust on "Darwinism."

Actually, I rather thought the European Jews *were* part of "the civilized
races of mankind." I'm pretty sure Charles Darwin thought so as well. Now,
the Nazis were pretty brutal towards the few Blacks within their Reich, but
they didn't bother trying to hunt down and exterminate "the savage races."
They confined their depredations entirely towards civilized Europeans. In
the case of Poland, notoriously, Hitler advocated *decivilizing* the Poles,
eliminating all higher education for them and reducing them to peasants and
manual laborers. So it's less than clear that Nazis *would* have approved
of the view you attribute to Darwin.
I am familiar with the quote, of course; I discussed it in another post in
this thread. It was decent of you to present the context, but did you
*read* the remarks preceeding Darwin's statement? He is not discussing race
relations, politics, or eugenics; he is discussing the lack of intermediates
between humans and (other) African apes. As he points out, his theory
permits, and even suggests, that these ape-men would have survived for a
time after part of their species had evolved into modern men. If apes still
survive, and indeed monkeys (the group between humans and which apes provide
intermediates) still survive, why don't ape-men still survive?
Darwin might not have thought the matter of why ape-men were not extant, if
he'd had better fossil evidence that at least at one time they'd existed.
But he didn't have the australopiths or early _Homo_ fossils to point to.
So, he points out that the great apes themselves are endangered (and why do
so many of quote mines of this passage omit the reference to the extinction
of great apes?), and likely (over the next few centuries) to be extinct. He
also points to things that were going on even as he wrote: the Indian wars
by which "the Caucasian" was displacing the native Americans, the expansion
of white settlement and displacement of the aborigines in Australia, and so
forth.
Darwin was not commending this action (at least, if you assume he was, you
have to equally assume he recommended exterminating the great apes -- and
why not the monkeys while one was at it?). Nor was he connecting it to the
advance of humanity to a more civilized state than 19th century white
Europeans. He is simply assuming that two separate processes that had been
taking place all his life -- the expansion of white Europeans to the
detriment of various native peoples, and the advance of science, technology,
and literacy -- would probably continue into the future. It was a fact
that, in the late 19th century, the most technologically and scientifically
advanced cultures were Caucasian, and in the late 19th century, it was
politically correct to notice this.
Anyway, note, from the context, that Darwin is simply hunting for an
explanation of why the gap between man and gorilla is so empty -- why
ape-men are extinct. His explanation is that more evolved humans treated
them the same way that modern humans treated their
less-technologically-advanced fellow modern humans. The ape-men had no
chance to be assimilated by their conquerors, or to adopt their technology;
they weren't modern humans and didn't have the brainpower. Thus a gap
exists, today, between humans and (other) apes, which is likely to get
broader.
Now, the casual assumption that less-technologically advanced human cultures
are themselves intermediates between humans and gorillas is embarrassing.
It may even reflect the particular mechanisms for evolution Darwin held at
this time -- not natural selection itself, but the inheritance of aquired
traits. If one thinks that one's culture can affect which random
alterations in inheritable traits one aquires, there's less reason to
distinguish between culture and biology. It is still, I think, worth noting
not merely that Darwin's creationist and evolutionist but
anti-natural-selection contemporaries generally shared these racial and
cultural assumptions, and often made far more of them than Darwin did.
Note, also, that many modern creationists (yes, I recall that you aren't a
creationist -- can the same be said for your sources?) make much of the gap
between modern humans and modern apes provided by literacy. YECs are fond
of inferring that the extent of humanities time on Earth can be inferred
from the extent of written history -- _Tornado in a Junkyard_ assumes that
since any normal modern human can learn to read, any normal modern human
could invent a written language if needed. This has, it seems to me,
implications for preliterate societies as invidious as anything Darwin might
have said.

-- [snip]

Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

I do not consider natural selection to be falsified
because you could dredge up a quote or ten by Eldredge on the need to

revise

the modern synthesis to include puntuated equilibrium, or because you
consider this person or that to "doubt" the modern synthesis.

Are you aware of any lines of evidence _for_ Darwin's theory of
natural selection that you find particularly persuasive? If so, would
you mind briefly describing 3 of those better lines of evidence?

Well, the mechanism exists. We know, from observations of species from _E.
coli_ to peppered moths to Galapagos finches, that inheritable individual
variations can, in understandable ways, affect the likelihood of an organism
having many descendants, and the frequency of various traits in later
generations. Just being known to exist and to have observable
characteristics is a definite advantage of natural selection over various
unspecified mysterious agents acting in unspecified ways on evolution.

-- Steven J.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Was Hitler a Christian?	07 Jul 2004 10:43:02 PM

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back to Bull
Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

If I understand your question, you're asking how I came to
define Hitler as an "avowed Christian"? That's a fairly easy
one; someone is an "avowed [insert group]" if that person
states clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a member of
that group.

So if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the group known as "atheists," then that person is an
atheist?
And if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the Central Intelligence Agency, then that person is an
employee of the CIA?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

So if anyone says that he or she does "the work of the Lord," then
that person is a Christian?
Even if that person at the same time goes about taking innocent human
life on a massive scale, frequently in extremely cruel and vicious
ways?
[BC]"Hitler was quite clear in his statements"
What are some of the statements you have in mind?
Did Hitler always tell the truth?
Did Hitler ever make statements that he knew to be incorrect and that
he hoped would get others to accept a proposed course of action of
his?

Anything else?

Yes.
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	08 Jul 2004 10:41:33 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407071947.152f57d3@posting.google.com...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

-- [snip]

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

I am willing to stipulate, for the sake of argument if nothing else, that
Hitler's Christianity was a perversion of that faith, and that the founders,
early theologians, and true followers of Christianity are not responsible
for Hitler's actions. I ask only that you concede -- as you seem ready to
do -- that Hitler occasionally used Christian phrases in justifying his
actions, and *claimed* to be a Christian doing the work of the Lord.
Now, I have argued elsewhere in this thread that Darwin's ideas were utterly
incompatible with the policies of Hitler and the Nazis. I assume you have
read these posts, and, having made no effort at rebuttal or even denial,
concede the point. By your own principles -- that Hitler's actions were not
based on Christianity merely because some of his positions grew out of a
perverted understanding of Christianity -- I would think you must concede
that Darwin likewise bears no responsibility for the Holocaust *even if some
Nazis claimed to be following Darwinian principles*.
You cannot consistently hold that it is relevant that "Darwinian" ideas
played *some* role in giving rise to the Nazis' values and thought, but that
it is not at all relevant that Christianity played *some* role in doing so.
If you hold that since the Nazis' take on Christianity was so distorted as
to no longer be Christian, and mere historical connections do not establish
the sort of causality with which you are concerned, then you must answer the
question with which you started this thread, "none."

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.
.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	10 Jul 2004 03:34:34 AM

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 03:41:33 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:

Some cinnamon? Makes yer porridge taste nice, laddy.

I ask only that you concede -- as you seem ready to
do -- that Hitler occasionally used Christian phrases in justifying his
actions, and *claimed* to be a Christian doing the work of the Lord.

I notice your president Bush doing exactly the same. Is he not a
christian?
.

User: "Ed Rhodes"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:50:27 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407071947.152f57d3@posting.google.com...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...

murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back

to Bull

Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:21:21 PM

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:
....

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.
--
John S. Wilkins

web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.

User: "Gary Bohn"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 10:36:33 PM

(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gipike.19o64ztvoja8hN%

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

I like the twisted spelling better.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy.
Greg Bear
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	18 Aug 2004 08:00:19 AM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:36:33 +0000 in episode
<Xns9548DDC865C94GaryBohn@130.133.1.4> we saw our hero Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>:

johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gipike.19o64ztvoja8hN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

I like the twisted spelling better.

But "Tauquomoda" kinda reads like something you'd buy at Taco Bell...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Alan Morgan"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	18 Aug 2004 01:48:59 PM

In article <Gr6dnd2r27kfyL7cRVn-uA@megapath.net>,
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:36:33 +0000 in episode
<Xns9548DDC865C94GaryBohn@130.133.1.4> we saw our hero Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>:

johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gipike.19o64ztvoja8hN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

I like the twisted spelling better.

But "Tauquomoda" kinda reads like something you'd buy at Taco Bell...

I didn't expect the Mexican Inquisition.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.

User: "Fatman"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	20 Aug 2004 07:43:57 AM

(Alan Morgan) wrote in
news:cg0909$1i5$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU:

But "Tauquomoda" kinda reads like something you'd buy at Taco Bell...

I didn't expect the Mexican Inquisition.

Alan

<<<<<<Busting down the door>>>>>>
"Nobobdy expects the Mexican Inquisition!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And now for something completely different........
Fatman
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	20 Aug 2004 10:16:47 AM

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:43:57 +0000 in episode
<Xns954B50AB434D5meprivacynet@130.133.1.4> we saw our hero Fatman
<me@privacy.net>:

amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in
news:cg0909$1i5$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU:

But "Tauquomoda" kinda reads like something you'd buy at Taco Bell...

I didn't expect the Mexican Inquisition.

Alan

<<<<<<Busting down the door>>>>>>

"Nobobdy expects the Mexican Inquisition!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Hey, where'd all the Mariachi come from???
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	18 Aug 2004 04:54:39 PM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:48:59 +0000 in episode
<cg0909$1i5$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> we saw our hero
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan):

In article <Gr6dnd2r27kfyL7cRVn-uA@megapath.net>, Mark K. Bilbo
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:36:33 +0000 in episode
<Xns9548DDC865C94GaryBohn@130.133.1.4> we saw our hero Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>:

johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gipike.19o64ztvoja8hN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

I like the twisted spelling better.

But "Tauquomoda" kinda reads like something you'd buy at Taco Bell...

I didn't expect the Mexican Inquisition.

Alan

Yo quiero heretics?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:32:08 PM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism,

(John Wilkins) defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

As did Gideon, Joshua, King Saul, Moses, God... shall I go on?
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:50:07 PM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:32:08 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism,
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) defied the status quo and
scrawled upon the toilet stall:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism,

(John Wilkins) defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

As did Gideon, Joshua, King Saul, Moses, God... shall I go on?

Pre-emptive rebuttal to one possible rebuttal to the above:
Ooops, no, wait - my bad. All those newborns and toddlers who died weren't
"innocent". Silly me.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:38:19 PM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

Go ahead, twist his words.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	21 Aug 2004 02:32:40 PM

In article <btg5i0p9b9pvn7s6ggp57fa8k98u8vrqkm@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

-
According to my upbringing, a Christian is one who believes in the
divinity of Jesus Christ. The "Apostles' Creed" is the defining
document of Christian belief.
If Hitler believed in the divinity of Christ, he was a Christian.
He was born in a Christian (Catholic) home, raised as a Catholic,
never disclaimed his religion, and was never excommunicated. In
fact, he was admired by most of the Catholic hierarchy in the mid-
and late-1930s.
earle
*
By the way, my personal belief is that the Apostles' Creed is a
bunch of hogwash.
ej
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.

User: "Courageous"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	21 Aug 2004 05:24:04 PM

Minor edit:

He was born in a Christian (Catholic) home, raised as a Catholic,
never disclaimed his religion, (BEGIN INSERTION: actively proclaimed
himself Catholic,) and was never excommunicated. In fact, he was
admired by most of the Catholic hierarchy in the mid-and late-1930s.

C..
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	21 Aug 2004 07:14:00 PM

In article <02jfi0hth0seufkn9f6fpcvvanqdn3qdid@4ax.com>,
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote:

Minor edit:

C..

*
You're right. Thanks,
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	17 Aug 2004 09:45:21 PM

Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

Go ahead, twist his words.

Can't help it. I'm in torquemodo...
--
John S. Wilkins

web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
*You* can torque!
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	18 Aug 2004 09:16:03 AM

John Wilkins wrote:

Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC),

(John Wilkins) wrote:

Ed Rhodes <edward.j.rhodes@verizon.net> wrote:

...

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.

Torquemada.

Go ahead, twist his words.

Can't help it. I'm in torquemodo...

IOW...get torqued......
.

User: "Ed Rhodes"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	19 Aug 2004 05:49:47 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407071947.152f57d3@posting.google.com...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...

murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back

to Bull

Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

Tauquomoda (sp) certainly thought so.
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Was Hitler a Christian?	07 Jul 2004 11:50:39 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407071947.152f57d3@posting.google.com...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...

murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

No. Not without evidence. We have the writings of the man to support the
idea that he was a christian doing the work of the bible, just as Martin
Luthor stated.
If you don't agree with good old MArtin you are dqamned.
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

Anybody that says he is a christian is one as far as I am concerned.
You can't give an example of cruel or vicious that comes close to the
bible's way or what disease does. 1,000,000 kids a year die from malaria
alone and the number would be much greater if it were not for science. Old
maps show the Sacramento valley where I live was one a malaria area.
.

Page 2 of 12

Post reply

Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust?
Einstein Contribute to Holocaust?