Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Darwin and Eugenics - the 20th Century Black Death and the secret shame of the 21st Century

I alluded to the connection between Hitler's policies and his belief in the teachings of Charles Darwin in this post - Darwinism...the noble lie, the big lie or both? You decide!

In fact there is no doubt that Darwinism went hand in hand with the brutal tyrannical regimes  the 20th Century that based their philosophies on atheistic philosophy that led to socialism/communism/fascism.  But before I remind you all of this, I want to remind you of an obvious scientific truth that Darwinists hate to admit:   Presumptions are not science.   I will list three presumptions that are common in Origins Science:

1)  I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.   

2)  I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3)  I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it.

I've got news for you...these are worldviews!   Not one of these views is any more or less scientific than the other.   One massive gigantic big lie is the idea that science belongs to Materialism.   No, that is religion!  Belief in natural causes only is a philosophical or shall we say a religious point of view, just like belief in a Creator God is a religious point of view.    

Everybody has to start at point 1, 2 or 3!

I will not let Darwinists weasel out of this.   You don't get to take your religion and co-opt science away from the rest of us.   You have brainwashed and bullied and BS'd your way into a position of power so that you can censor the information taught to school children and control the content of most television and other media outlets but you CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST OR SHUT UP THE TRUTH.    Truth has this funny way of coming out on top no matter who promotes it and who opposes it.   Truth eventually wins in science.



Darwinists are as a group an odd mix of true believers who will gladly lie to protect their religion and a majority of scientists and academics who have just taken Darwinism as a given without really thinking much about it.   They give lip service to it while they basically ignore it and pursue their academic and operational scientific careers.    Those who decide to oppose the stampeding herd get trampled underfoot.  But I have already written about that, the NCSE as an evil censorship organization and indoctrinated but uneducated doofs like Richard Dawkins spreading manure like it was a banquet (and making a tidy living at it, I might add) while remaining remarkably ignorant at heart.   Here is a great Dawkins quote from a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers - ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’









Yeah, right!  The check is in the mail...I WILL respect you in the morning...I did NOT have sex with that woman...and Richard Dawkins is an expert.  Darwinism is idiotic.   It is not scientific in the least!  After years of hearing the best that Darwinist commenters can come up with I can say that clearly they can be indoctrinated to keep repeating the same canards but they cannot defend them,  they just laugh and call names and barf out more of the same old lies about the fossil record and the rock layers and the makeup of organisms while hiding their eyes concerning life and information and the formation of the Universe.   Darwinists weave together a string of fairy tales and no one who thinks critically should pay the slightest attention to their claims.   I promise you that Darwinism cannot last as the ruling paradigm because it flies in the face of evidence.   Every fossil found with flesh rather than bone, every new complexity found in the structure and behavior of organisms, every new chemical discovery associated with the processes of life debunks Darwinism over and over again.   But that isn't bad enough...


DARWINISM IS A PLAGUE ON HUMANITY


Macroevolution has never been observed and it is not supported by the evidence.   But Darwinism has been a black plague of death on mankind for the last 100 years, leading people like Stalin and Mao and of course Hitler to slaughter millions of innocents and,  in the spirit of Margaret Sanger, government-sponsored baby murdering is legal all around the globe.  

 

Euthanasia and the Nazis: Never Again

With euthanasia back on to the agenda thanks to the pro-death Greens, we need to recall the lessons of history. Without remembering the past we will be doomed to repeat its mistakes. And one of the biggest mistakes in human history was the complicity of the medical community in the Nazi euthanasia programs.
Numerous important books have appeared in the recent past documenting how doctors, scientists and all sort of other respected professionals became heavily involved in the Nazi death machine.  I list below some key books and articles which we all need to be familiar with.

Here I simply wish to highlight in a very brief and outline form, the Nazi euthanasia program. And the first and perhaps most important fact to point out is euthanasia in Germany preceded and led relentlessly to the Final Solution. Both were part of a continuum.

Indeed, we need to trace the ideological roots of Nazism back into history, with the writings of Darwin and his cousin Galton (who coined the term ‘eugenics’) leading the way. But German thinkers closer to the time of the Nazis also played a major role.

Chief among them would be Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding who in 1920 released their influential book, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens (The Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life). The book spoke of the “incurable feebleminded” who should be killed.

State-sponsored euthanasia was called for, with the idea that many humans had to be excluded from those deserving the right to life. Other writings appeared, with much discussion especially in the German medical community. All this helped pave the way for the Nazi programs when they came into power in, As Henry Friedlander says in the opening of his important book, The Origins of Nazi Genocide, “Nazi genocide did not take place in a vacuum. Genocide was only the most radical method of excluding groups of human beings from the German national community. The policy of exclusion followed and drew upon more than fifty years of scientific opposition to the equality of man.”

His massive 400-page volume (300 pages of text with 100 pages of reference material) goes into minute detail about the Nazi euthanasia program, and the complicity of scientists and doctors. He makes it quite clear that there was a very real continuum between the German euthanasia program – aided and abetted by the medical community – and the Final Solution.

He concludes his valuable study with these words: “Auschwitz was only the last, most perfect Nazi killing center. The entire killing enterprise had started in January 1940 with the murder of the most helpless human beings, institutionalized handicapped patients, had expanded in 1941 to include Jews and Gypsies, and had by 1945 cost the lives of at least 6 million men, women, and children.”


Michael Burleigh also has written extensively on these matters. His celebrated 1994 volume, Death and Deliverance, is a very careful and detailed examination of euthanasia in Germany from 1900 to 1945. In 400 pages he makes the general case that “the ‘euthanasia’ programme and the Holocaust are intimately related”.
But more specifically his book “is an attempt to study the relationship between psychiatric reform, eugenics and government cost-cutting policies during the Weimar Republic and Nazi periods”. He documents how such eugenics programs had been widely advanced long before the Nazis came to power.

And he reminds us that Hitler did not accidently stumble upon the euthanasia and eugenics initiatives. Instead, this program “was a carefully planned and covertly executed operation with precisely defined objectives. Those responsible believed in the necessity of what they were doing.”

And just to bring all this up to date, it is of real interest that Burleigh’s final chapter looks at one popular contemporary proponent of euthanasia, Peter Singer. He rightly points out that just as Binding and Hoche sought to relativise morality through a redefinition of the nature of personhood, so too is Singer today.
Robert Jay Lifton, writing in The Nazi Doctors (1986) carefully traces the complicity of the medical community in the Nazi program. He says that at the heart their involvement was “the transformation of the physician – of the medical enterprise itself – from healer to killer”.

He interviewed a number of these medical personnel, as well as some surviving Auschwitz prisoners. Together the information gleaned from these interviews makes for chilling reading. He discovered that for those doctors and other non-medical professionals involved, they formed a vital and necessary step to wholesale genocide.
Without the help of these individuals, and “the destruction of the boundary between healing and killing,” the Nazi death machine would have been less likely to succeed. He argues that sadism and viciousness alone cannot account for what happened – what was needed was a “bureaucracy of killing”.

Some five hundred pages are given over to documenting the Nazi doctors. “In sum,” he says, “we may say that doctors were given much of the responsibility for the murderous ecology of Auschwitz – the choosing of victims, the carrying through of the physical and psychological mechanics of killing, and the balancing of killing and work functions in the camp.”

These and other studies make it quite clear than when medicine moves from its role of healing to a role of killing, such atrocities as what took place 70 years ago are not hard to understand, and are likely to recur. And sadly we have the same temptation today. Doctors are now being asked to add killing to their job description.

As has been said so many times before, we must all learn from the lessons of history, or we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. With so many calls for euthanasia now being made, more than ever we must revisit recent history so that its atrocities can be avoided.

For further reading:
Books
Annas, George and Michael Grodin, eds., The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Baumslag, Naomi, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. Praeger Publishers, 2005.
Brennan, William, Medical Holocaust I: Exterminative Medicine in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America. Nordland, 1980.
Burleigh, Michael, Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany 1900-1945. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Friedlander, Henry, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. The University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
Gallagher, Hugh Gregory, By Trust Betrayed: Patients, Physicians and the License to Kill in the Third Reich. Henry Holt, 1990.
Hoedeman, Paul, Hitler or Hippocrates: Medical Experiments and Euthanasia in the Third Reich. Book Guild, 1991.
Kater, Michael, Doctors under Hitler. The University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
Lifton, Robert Jay, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books, 1986.
Michalczyk, John, ed., Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich. Sheen & Ward, 1994.
Muller-Hill, Benno, Murderous Science. Oxford University Press, 1988.
Pichot, Andre, Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler. Verso, 2009.
Proctor, Robert, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Harvard University Press, 1988.
Sereny, Gitta, Into Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder. McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans. Sentient Publications, 2005.
Weikart, Richard, From Darwin to Hitler. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Weikart, Richard, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Articles
Alexander, Leo, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine, 14 July 1949, pp. 39-47.
Brown, Harold O.J., “Euthanasia: Lessons from Nazism,” Human Life Review, 13, March 1987, pp. 88-99.
Burleigh, Michael, “Euthanasia and the Third Reich,” History Today, February 1990, pp. 11-16.
Neuhaus, Richard John, “The Way They Were, the Way We Are: Bioethics and the Holocaust,” First Things, March 1990, pp. 31-37.
Pellegrino, Edmund, “The Nazi Doctors and Nuremberg: Some Moral Lessons Revisited,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 15 August 1997, Vol. 127 Is. 4, pp. 307-308.

~



Darwin and Hitler...





"Evolution has produced classes of people who are in various stages of development from ape to man?

Darwin believed it.  From the Descent of Man (1874) :  "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Darwin believed it.  Galton believed it.  Hitler believed it. They must therefore take their place in the roll call of the most evil men in human history.   Do not be easily led into following in their footsteps!

Eugenics … death of the defenceless

The legacy of Darwin’s cousin Galton

Few ideas have done more harm to the human race in the last 120 years than those of Sir Francis Galton. He founded the evolutionary pseudo-science of eugenics. Today, ethnic cleansing, the use of abortion to eliminate ‘defective’ unborn babies, infanticide, euthanasia, and the harvesting of unborn babies for research purposes all have a common foundation in the survival-of-the-fittest theory of eugenics. So who was Galton, what is eugenics, and how has it harmed humanity?

Francis Galton

Photos Darwin by TFE Graphics, Hitler and Galton by Wikipedia.org
Backdrop: two first cousins: charles Darwin (left) and 
Francis Galton; Foreground: Adolf Hitler
Francis Galton (featured on right in photo montage, right) was born into a Quaker family in Birmingham, England, in 1822. A grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his mother’s side and so a cousin of Charles Darwin (pictured above left), he shared the Darwinian agnosticism and antagonism to Christianity for most of his adult life.

As a child, he had learned the alphabet by 18 months, was reading by age 2½, memorizing poetry by five, and discussing the Iliad at six.1 In 1840, he began studies at Cambridge University in medicine and then in mathematics, but, due to a nervous breakdown, succeeded in gaining only a modest B.A. degree, in January 1844.2 When his father died that same year, he inherited such a fortune that he never again needed to work for a living.

This gave the wealthy young Galton free time not only for ‘amusement’, but also to dabble in a number of fields, including exploration of large areas of South West Africa, his reports of which gained him membership of the Royal Geographic Society in 1853, and three years later of the Royal Society. In that year, Galton married Louisa Butler, whose father had been Headmaster at Harrow School.

As an amateur scientist of boundless curiosity and energy, he went on to write some 14 books and over 200 papers.3 His inventions included the ‘silent’ dog whistle, a teletype printer; and various instruments and techniques for measuring human intelligence and body parts; and he invented the weather map and discovered the existence of anticyclones.

Interaction with Charles Darwin

The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 was undoubtedly a turning point in Galton’s life. In 1869 he wrote to Darwin, ‘[T]he appearance of your Origin of Species formed a real crisis in my life; your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition [i.e. religious arguments based on design] as if it had been a nightmare and was the first to give me freedom of thought.’4

From Nott, J.C. and Gliddon, G.R., Indigenous Races of the Earth, J.B. Libbincott, Philadelphia, USA, 1868.
Alleged evolution 
from blacks to whites
Pseudoscientific illustration of alleged evolution of human ‘races’.
An allegedly ‘scientific’ illustration from 1868 showing that blacks were less evolved than whites by suggesting similarities with a chimpanzee.
Even the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould commented that the chimpanzee skull is falsely enlarged and the ‘negro’ jaw falsely extended to suggest that ‘negros’ rank even lower than apes. This demonstration was not from racist or ‘fringe’ literature but from one of the leading scientific textbooks of its time. Today’s militant evolutionists like to conveniently evade the social implications of their ideas, but history demonstrates otherwise.
Galton ‘was among the first to recognize the implications for mankind of Darwin’s theory of evolution.’5 He believed that talent, character, intellect, etc. were all inherited from one’s ancestors, as was also any lack of these qualities. Thus the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances, but were paupers because they were biologically inferior. This was contrary to the prevailing scientific view that all such qualities were due to environment, i.e. how and where a person was brought up.6 Galton believed that humans, like animals, could and should be selectively bred. In 1883, he coined the term ‘eugenics’ [Greek: εύ (eu) meaning ‘well’ and γένος (genos) meaning ‘kind’ or ‘offspring’] for the study of ways of improving the physical and mental characteristics of the human race.

Galton’s views left no room for the existence of a human soul, the grace of God in the human heart, human freedom to choose to be different, or even for the dignity of the individual. In his first published article on this subject, in 1865,7 ‘He denied … that man’s rational faculties are a gift to him from God; he denied that mankind has been cursed with sinfulness since the day of Adam and Eve’; and he viewed religious sentiments as ‘nothing more than evolutionary devices to insure the survival of the human species.’8

Concerning the sense of original sin, he wrote that ‘[this] would show, according to my theory, not that man was fallen from a high estate, but that he was rapidly rising from a low one … and that after myriads of years of barbarism, our race has but very recently grown to be civilized and religious.’9

In Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton enlarged on all these ideas and proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. When Charles Darwin read this book, he wrote to Galton, ‘You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work … .’5 Galton’s ideas undoubtedly helped him extend his evolution theory to man. Darwin did not mention Galton in his Origin, but referred to him no less than 11 times in his Descent of Man (1871).

Three International Eugenics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921 and 1932, with eugenics activists attending from Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Mauritius, Kenya and South Africa. Notables who supported the ideas pre–World War II included Winston Churchill, economist John Maynard Keynes, science fiction writer H.G. Wells10 and US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Galton received the Huxley Medal from the Anthropological Institute in 1901, the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society in 1902, the Darwin–Wallace Medal from the Linnaean Society in 1908, and honorary degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities; he was knighted in 1909. Despite these ‘honours’, in life Galton was not his own best advocate for his theories. He had many long-lasting bouts of illness, and notwithstanding his and his wife’s good intellectual pedigrees, they produced no children of their own to carry on his name and heritage. After his death in 1911, his will provided for the funding of a Chair of Eugenics and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory at the University of London.

Eugenics in action

Image Wikipedia.org
Eugenics congress logo
Eugenics congress logo.
Click here for larger view

The concept of improving the physical and mental characteristics of the human race may seem admirable at first glance. However, historically the method of achieving it has involved not just increasing the birthrate of the ‘fit’ by selected parenthood (‘positive eugenics’), but also reducing the birthrate of those people thought to impair such improvement, the ‘unfit’ (‘negative eugenics’).11

For example, by 1913, one-third (and from the 1920s on, more than half)12 of the US States had laws allowing for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be ‘unfit’. This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims, including criminals, the mentally retarded, drug addicts, paupers, the blind, the deaf, and people with epilepsy, TB or syphilis. Over 8,000 procedures were done at the one city of Lynchburg, Virginia,13 and isolated instances continued into the 1970s.14,15

About 60,000 Swedish citizens were similarly treated between 1935 and 1976, and there were similar practices in Norway and Canada.16

In Germany in 1933, Hitler’s government ordered the compulsory sterilization of all German citizens with ‘undesirable’ handicaps, not just those held in custody or in institutions. This was to prevent ‘contamination’ of Hitler’s ‘superior German race’ through intermarriage.

Then from 1938 to 1945, this surgical treatment of such ‘useless eaters’ was superseded by a more comprehensive solution—the eager genocide, by Hitler’s Nazis, of over 11 million people considered to be subhuman or unworthy of life, as is authenticated and documented by the Nuremberg Trials records. Those killed included Jews, evangelical Christians,17 blacks, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, amputees and mental patients.

This was nothing other than rampant Darwinism—the elimination of millions of human beings branded ‘unfit/inferior’ by, and for the benefit of, those who regarded themselves as being ‘fit/superior’.
The core idea of Darwinism is selection.18 The Nazis believed that they must direct the process of selection to advance the German race.19 Galton’s naïve vision of a ‘eugenics utopia’ had mutated into the Nazi nightmare of murderous ethnic cleansing.

Sadly, ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler’s regime. David Duke, America’s infamous anti-black and anti-Jew racist, developed his views from reading the eugenicist writings of Galton, H.G. Wells, Sir Arthur Keith and others, as well as the early writings of modern sociobiologists such as Harvard’s E.O. Wilson.20

Eugenics in the 21st century.

Following World War II, eugenics became a ‘dirty word’. Eugenicists now called themselves ‘population scientists’, ‘human geneticists’, ‘family politicians’, etc. Journals were renamed. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics, and Eugenics Quarterly became the Journal of Social Biology.21 However today, some 60 years after the Holocaust, the murderous concept that Galton’s eugenics spawned is once again alive and flourishing, and wearing a lab-coat of medical respectability.

Doctors now routinely destroy humans, who were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, as well as in fetal/embryonic stem-cell research.

A. Abortion

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, ‘women are increasingly eliminating their unborn children because of non life-threatening deformities such as deformed feet or cleft lips and palates’, and ‘more Down’s Syndrome babies are now killed than are allowed to be born.’22 Dr Jacqueline Laing of London’s Metropolitan University commented, ‘These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity.’ ‘This is straightforward eugenics,’ said UK’s Life Trustee, Nuala Scarisbrick. ‘The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.’22
Globally, there are an estimated 50 million abortions each year. That’s one abortion for every three live births, so any child in the womb, on average, worldwide, has a one in four chance of being deliberately killed.23

B. Infanticide

China is famous for its coercive one-child-per-family policy. In practice, most families want a boy, so if a girl is born, she can be at risk. Sometimes the same grisly principle is followed, but before birth. In India, it’s common to find out the sex of the baby, and a vast majority of abortions are of girl babies. It makes the feminist support of abortion distressingly ironic.
And disabled babies are at risk as well. ‘Ethicist’ Peter Singer has advocated legalization of infanticide to a certain age. He writes: ‘[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.’24

C. Euthanasia

In May 2001, Holland became the first country to legalize euthanasia, with the law coming into effect from January 2002. Euthanasia was tolerated in Belgium until May 2002, when it was legalized. It is tolerated in Switzerland, Norway and Columbia.23

Eugenics and the Scopes Monkey Trial1

Photo Bryan College
Pic 
Description
Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan

The textbook from which Scopes taught evolution, A Civic Biology by George Hunter,2 and its companion lab book3 were blatantly eugenic and offensively racist. Hunter divided humanity into five races and ranked them according to how high each had reached on the evolutionary scale, from ‘the Ethiopian or negro type’ to ‘the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America’.4 A Civic Biology asserted that crime and immorality are inherited and run in families, and said that ‘these families have become parasitic on society. … If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.’4

Inherently Wind (DVD)This is the book that Darwinists of the day insisted that Scopes had a right to teach!

All this is documented by Dr David Menton in the DVD Inherently Wind: a Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial (right).

References and notes

  1. The 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee, USA, of high-school teacher John T. Scopes, charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution.
  2. Hunter, G., A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, American Book Co., New York, USA, pp. 195–196, 1914.
  3. Hunter, G., Laboratory Problems in Civic Biology, American Book Co., New York, USA, 1916.
  4. Ref. 2, pp. 261–265.

First Nuremberg trialJudgment at Nuremberg

Perhaps the most frequently asked question concerning the eugenics-inspired genocide of the Holocaust is: ‘How could it have happened?’ In the 1961 MGM film Judgment at Nuremberg, about the trial of four Nazi war criminals, judges who had enforced Nazi decrees,1 one of the defendants (Judge Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster) cries out to Chief Judge Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy): ‘Those people—those millions of people—I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it!’ Haywood’s response was eloquent: ‘It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.’

Likewise today, eugenic killing of innocent preborn babies because they are thought to be less than perfect began the first time a doctor consented to kill a handicapped child in the womb. The rest is history.
  1. Based on the third Nuremberg Trial (1947), also called the ‘Judges’ Trial’ because it tried Nazi judges and prosecutors for imposing the Nazi ‘racial purity’ programme through the eugenic and racial laws. There were a total of 13 Nuremberg Trials.

    The photograph (above right) comes from the first Nuremberg Trial (1945–6), the most famous and significant of them because it tried the main German leaders.

  2. Front row (left-to-right): Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel;
    Back row: Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel. (Courtesy Wikipedia)"
~

Charles Darwin’s Eroding Credibility

By Wayne Jackson


During his lifetime (1809-1882), Charles Darwin received many accolades from his scientific contemporaries. What many do not realize, however, is that Darwin was criticized by numerous prominent scientists of his day, and that criticism lingers today — even among some evolutionists.

It is readily acknowledged by historians that for many years the British naturalist was not accepted for induction into the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. For example, in 1872 an attempt was made to get Darwin voted into the Zoological Section of the Academy, but only fifteen out of forty-eight members voted for him. A prominent member of the Academy explained the decision:
“What has closed the door of the academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame — the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man — is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body which respects itself cannot encourage” (Ruth Moore, Charles Darwin, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p. 196).
Six years later, the tide of opinion had turned, and Darwin was elected into the Botanical Section of the Academy. He confessed great surprise, since his initial fame had been made in zoology, not botany. He wrote his friend Asa Gray: “It is rather a good joke that I should be elected to the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one.”

The Academy’s resistance revealed that Darwin’s supposed triumph was neither immediate nor universal. What was true then is equally true today. Many scientists have disputed various elements of Darwin’s theory, and even the man’s integrity.

For example, W.R. Thompson, Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, in his “Introduction” to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, wrote that “the modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible are, in the nature of things, unverifiable.” Thompson went on to note that the “success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Dutton: Everyman’s Library, 1956, p. xxii).

One evolutionist at Oxford University conceded that “Darwin was slippery, ? [using] a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity” (C.D. Darlington, Darwin’s Place in History, London: Basil Blackwell, 1959, p. 60).

Again, Darlington wrote that Darwin:

bq. “. . . was able to put his ideas across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue” (“The Origin of Darwinism,” Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p. 66).
More recently, two of Great Britain’s prominent scientists declared:
“The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner” (Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 97).
William Paley, the British philosopher/theologian, argued for the existence of God on the basis of the design that is so apparent in the universe.

It is unfortunate that over the years there has been such a hysterical stampede to accept the philosophy of Charles Darwin, simply on the superficial basis of the reputation of the man. Most people have never even carefully examined the theory, thus discovering how void of evidence it is.

~

credit 

Unfortunate is not strong enough!  Darwinism is a completely preposterous presupposition that has led to nothing but wasted time and resources and the tragic deaths of  well over one hundred million people during the 20th Century...and his influence as expressed via Eugenics has led to euthanasia and abortion, procedures in which the strong murder the weak and defenseless because some amateur naturalist wrote a book that has been pretty much completely falsified.   But Darwinism lives on, since it is so slippery that it can be explained away from every challenge by the simple fact that it has not a shred of evidence available to it so that it can be pinned down and finally and forever falsified!

You who promote Darwinism are shaking your fists at the Creator God who made you.   I will remind you of Daniel Chapter Five...I have spent several years giving you evidence for the concept that God indeed created all things.   You have had the opportunity to see that the preponderance of evidence cries out for a Designer who made all things, all life and produced the intelligence and the design we see everywhere and you have had a chance to reconsider and give thanks and glory to the Great God who created this magnificent Universe and seeks to redeem both mankind and the creation itself... Like the King of Babylon, Belshazzar, who saw a disembodied hand write words on the wall before his very eyes and in the presence of over a thousand witnesses during a banquet in which Belshazzar dishonored the vessels stolen from the Temple of God. 

Daniel 5:23-30 "Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways. Therefore he sent the hand that wrote the inscription. 

“This is the inscription that was written:

   MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN

 “Here is what these words mean: 

  Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. 

 Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. 

 Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” 

Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.  That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain,  and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.


You have heard the phrase "I see the writing on the wall?"   This chapter of Daniel is where it comes from and it is written to you as well.   God and Truth are not erased by opinion polls or idiotic court decisions or the opinions of atheistic narcissists.   I have shown you the truth and the world has seen how Darwinism has led to the most beastly and evil of actions - murder, mutilation, torture, genocide, infanticide.   How can you in good conscience dare to say that Darwinism has not been an evil influence on mankind and was part and parcel of the Nazi Holocaust?   Only if you have no moral code can you do so.   How can you say that Darwinism explains the world around you?   Only if you hide your eyes, close your mouth and cover your ears to the evidence of information and design...


88 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Nice rant and copypasta, Radar. But y'know, there's one thing missing from it: any evidence that Charles Darwin himself would have been anything but horrified by the eugenics movement and its results.

Anonymous said...

And still no answer as to what this has to do with anything today.

This from a guy who whines about how "Darwinists" are "afraid" of debating creationists. Keep running, Radar.

Anonymous said...

"1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.

2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it.

I've got news for you...these are worldviews!"


A. Surely it's not hard to see that both (1) and (3) are not scientific. And since you've clearly subscribed to (1), you're engaging in mere pseudo-science on this blog. You're obviously blind to that, but that's your problem, nobody else's.

B. Just because science has not found any evidence of said supernatural force doesn't mean that they a priori ruled it out. And no, the mere existence of complexity or natural laws or what-have-you is not automatic evidence of God.

THat's where your argument falls apart.

highboy said...

"any evidence that Charles Darwin himself would have been anything but horrified by the eugenics movement and its results."

If anyone made the claim that Darwin himself felt that way about eugenics I guess that would be a relevant comment. Either way, your persistent argument that Darwin would be somehow against eugenics doesn't invalidate the verifiable point that genocide in a naturalistic framework IS natural selection, because its nature selecting a species for extinction.

highboy said...

I also still find it baffling that Dawkins is considered such a great thinker among skeptics. The guy's debates are a joke and some of his arguments against the existence of God are some of the most juvenile I've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

"I also still find it baffling that Dawkins is considered such a great thinker among skeptics. The guy's debates are a joke and some of his arguments against the existence of God are some of the most juvenile I've ever seen."

It's an easy bet then that you've never read any of his books on evolutionary biology. Why would you critique something you've never even read? Seems a bit foolish, no?

Anonymous said...

"Either way, your persistent argument that Darwin would be somehow against eugenics doesn't invalidate the verifiable point that genocide in a naturalistic framework IS natural selection, because its nature selecting a species for extinction."

No, it's clearly artificial selection. Would you argue that an Aryan had biological traits that were superior to a Jew as regards survival and/or reproduction? The mass murder of the Jews was done as a conscious decision that was not the result of one group of organisms having superior traits to another, as described in the theory of evolution.

You're arguing that this selection would be "natural" because the organisms carrying it out were the product of natural selection themselves, but you have not buttressed your claim that conscious decisions are not possible for a creature that is the product of natural selection.

It would greatly benefit both you and Radar if you actually started reading up on science with a non-closed mind at some point. You're operating in an intellectual vacuum even though a lot of this intellectual work has already been done in some form over the decades and centuries. Now you're stuck re-inventing the wheel and coming up with some rather immature variations of the definitions of, say, "information" and "naturalism", solely for the purpose of winning an argument.

Since you're obviously not terribly familiar with the theory of evolution (it seems you've obtained your information from creationist propaganda sites), you end up making pretty elementary mistakes, which makes your arguments, such as they are, not terribly compelling.

Anonymous said...

"You who promote Darwinism are shaking your fists at the Creator God who made you."

You really don't understand that atheists don't believe in God, do you? There's no anger involved, no resentment, no rebellion.

Tell me, are you angry at the Greek pantheon? Do you have any feelings about them? Or do you consider them a bunch of old myths? Do you think those gods never existed?

That's pretty much how an atheist feels about your god.

Does that make it any clearer to you?

"I will remind you of Daniel Chapter Five...I have spent several years giving you evidence for the concept that God indeed created all things."

With no shortage of distortions and fallacies, from what I've seen. Can you see how this (a) may not serve to communicate your point very effectively, and (b) can actually be counter-productive?

Even something as basic as admitting faults when you make them would earn you some respect. For example, Jon Woolf caught you in a clear example of quote mining, which you may be aware is a dishonest tactic. It's entirely possible that you just fell victim to someone else's dishonesty, but your response was simply to ignore the issue instead of admitting your fault or retracting the claim. Not a terribly Christian decision, Radar.

highboy said...

"It's an easy bet then that you've never read any of his books on evolutionary biology. Why would you critique something you've never even read? Seems a bit foolish, no?"

If evolutionary biology had anything to do with the existence of God whatsoever that would be a relevant observation. But since it doesn't.....

"No, it's clearly artificial selection"

no such thing in a naturalistic framework. If one species is able to exterminate another species than that species HAS superior traits. Case closed. A conscious decision is not exempt from natural selection and nowhere in Darwin's works does it state that natural selection can only occur without a conscious decision. Morality doesn't even enter the discussion.

Anonymous said...

You must keep in mind, Anonymous, highboy, aside from just being a very very angry person, is either a straight up sociopath or possibly (hopefully) he just likes to argue from the viewpoint of one. Either way, he simply can't or wont understand morality without his precious "sky daddy". He is, admittedly, the kind of guy that would murder his children if "god" told him to. Which is a VERY frightening thought, if you think about it. In the end, hb, like many Christian extremists, stays as far away as possible from anything that might have him question his beliefs. And this includes reading on evolution, young earth and natural/artificial selection, among MANY other topics I'm sure. And considering his apparent sociopathic tendencies, that may not be a bad thing.

- Canucklehead

highboy said...

"like many Christian extremists, stays as far away as possible from anything that might have him question his beliefs. And this includes reading on evolution, young earth and natural/artificial selection, among MANY other topics I'm sure. And considering his apparent sociopathic tendencies, that may not be a bad thing."

That's hilarious from a guy not intelligent enough to defend his own position so he cheers from the sidelines while those more competent and less adolescent do the work for him. Either way, nothing I said was refutable, which is why you haven't bothered to try, not to mention NOTHING we're discussing would have me question my beliefs. Evolution, old and young earth, none of that contradicts anything I believe. So once again, you've done nothing but display your insignificance.

radar said...

Darwin was quoted - In Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton enlarged on all these ideas and proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. When Charles Darwin read this book, he wrote to Galton, ‘You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work … .’5

Galton’s ideas undoubtedly helped him extend his evolution theory to man. Darwin did not mention Galton in his Origin, but referred to him no less than 11 times in his Descent of Man (1871).


So a kid throws a rock at a window and is horrified that the window and the framework around it collapse with a huge noise? Do we not still blame the kid? And if hundreds and thousands of other kids are inspired to throw rocks, has he not caused collateral damage?

Darwin was an elitist and a racist and it doesn't matter whether he was also a murderous sociopath because murderous sociopaths took his evil hypothesis and used it as a reason to kill innocents and this continues on today. Furthermore this attitude fostered the easy attitude towards baby murdering, and thus over 130,000 babies are murdered every day all over the world! So modern abortion is the new holocaust and just because it is legal will not make it right.

At Nuremburg, that excuse did not save anyone from their deserved fate. After death the trial of unbelievers at the throne of God will not be able to use that excuse either. That the public in general has been brainwashed to believe Darwinism explains why we allow abortion today. Thus I say that Darwinism is not simply wrong, it is evil.

radar said...

"A. Surely it's not hard to see that both (1) and (3) are not scientific. And since you've clearly subscribed to (1), you're engaging in mere pseudo-science on this blog. You're obviously blind to that, but that's your problem, nobody else's."

You are either totally brainwashed or you are an idiot. That statement is logically flawed to the breaking point!

Anonymous said...

"If evolutionary biology had anything to do with the existence of God whatsoever that would be a relevant observation. But since it doesn't....."

You wondered why "Dawkins is considered such a great thinker among skeptics". Why would his writings on science be irrelevant?

Anonymous said...

"no such thing in a naturalistic framework. If one species is able to exterminate another species than that species HAS superior traits. Case closed."

Do read up on natural selection. Seriously. It won't hurt you.

Nazis didn't kill Jews using superior biological traits, but by mechanical means for which the shoe could as easily have been on the other foot (i.e. Jews using weapons, gas chambers etc. to kill Aryans). A group temporarily having superior military or other advantages is well outside what Darwin was describing.

"A conscious decision is not exempt from natural selection"

The Nazis in essence made a conscious decision to exterminate Jews. The Nazis are not around any more (well, not for the most part, but they were defeated).

You still don't seem to understand the difference between artificial and natural selection. All I can do is encourage you to do some reading with an open mind instead of being in full defensive mode all the time.

"and nowhere in Darwin's works does it state that natural selection can only occur without a conscious decision."

Far as I recall, he didn't pause to point that out, but all the natural selection he describes does take place without conscious decisions to exterminate other species.

"Morality doesn't even enter the discussion."

Hm. Which population of organism is more likely to survive: one that acts in a way that we consider moral, or one that doesn't?

Anonymous said...

"A. Surely it's not hard to see that both (1) and (3) are not scientific. And since you've clearly subscribed to (1), you're engaging in mere pseudo-science on this blog. You're obviously blind to that, but that's your problem, nobody else's."

"You are either totally brainwashed or you are an idiot. That statement is logically flawed to the breaking point!"

Well first of all, thanks for so clearly demonstrating my point. Hard to see how you could have done that more effectively.

Feel like pointing out where you perceive the logic flaw?

Science does not presume the existence or non-existence of God. That was option (2).

The other two are NOT scientific. A scientist must work from the evidence, not a religious prerequisite. And that's clearly where you're at. You have the end-point in mind, not an open-minded exploration of the world around you.

Thanks for calling me brainwashed and/or an idiot, BTW. So you really can't think of a way to refute such a simple point?

Is it really that scare to consider the possibility that there is no God? Or to consider that it is the purview of science to proceed from a neutral position on that subject?

It seems you're spending a lot of time and energy insisting on an a priori assumption of God's existence, and the extent to which you will abandon basic intellectual honesty and use demonization, fallacies, etc. indicates something like, hm, fear? Desperation, something along those lines.

Anonymous said...

"Darwin was an elitist and a racist and it doesn't matter whether he was also a murderous sociopath because murderous sociopaths took his evil hypothesis and used it as a reason to kill innocents and this continues on today"

The analogy continues. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was a murderous sociopath, because murderous sociopaths in his name did kill untold innocents (inquisition, crusades etc.).

One can also argue that this continues today, with Catholic opposition to condoms.

Would you blame Jesus? I wouldn't.

But why this obsession of yours with Darwin as if he were the Antichrist? Truly bizarre.

highboy said...

"You wondered why "Dawkins is considered such a great thinker among skeptics". Why would his writings on science be irrelevant?"

His writings on science are irrelevant to his philosophical arguments against the existence of God, yes.

"Nazis didn't kill Jews using superior biological traits, but by mechanical means for which the shoe could as easily have been on the other foot (i.e. Jews using weapons, gas chambers etc. to kill Aryans). A group temporarily having superior military or other advantages is well outside what Darwin was describing."

Who created the mechanical means genius? A human species. The traits used to create these mechanical means? All biological.

"but all the natural selection he describes does take place without conscious decisions to exterminate other species."

oh, so the idea that once consciousness enters the equation its no longer natural selection is a theory you made up on your own? Oh by the way, conscious decision making, this isn't a trait that has been evolved biologically? LOL.

"Which population of organism is more likely to survive: one that acts in a way that we consider moral, or one that doesn't?"

So every animal in the animal kingdom is on the verge of extinction? LOL.

Anonymous said...

And one more thing: nobody has hi-jacked science. Classic sign of crackpot theories: it must be some kind of huge brainwashing conspiracy! Ask yourself: would that strike you as likely if you heard it about some other theory, say The Landing On The Moon Was Faked? Do you think there's a global conspiracy keeping that one afloat?

Just because the results aren't what your narrow reading of scripture would permit doesn't mean there's a global conspiracy of millions of people trying to hide the truth.

Nor is morality the property of Christians. Another subject you might want to read up on.

And do you still not care to comment on being caught in quote mining? Embarrassed? Or do you think it's the right thing to do?

Anonymous said...

"His writings on science are irrelevant to his philosophical arguments against the existence of God, yes."

You're changing the subject. Look at what you asked originally.

And exactly what beef do you have with his philosophical arguments against the existence of God? Would you consider yourself objective enough to judge them without blinders? You're even confused about naturalism.

"Who created the mechanical means genius? A human species. The traits used to create these mechanical means? All biological. "

And these were biological traits the Nazis had, but the Jews didn't? (Wonder what Albert Einstein would have to say about that.)

You're either evading or missing the point. Seriously, are you thinking this through? Did the Jews naturally evolve since 1945 so that they now have the biological traits that permit them to now have nukes? And the Arab nations surrounding them somehow lack the biological traits to build nukes? Is that really what you want to argue?

"oh, so the idea that once consciousness enters the equation its no longer natural selection is a theory you made up on your own?"

No. The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is pretty clear and should be easy enough for you to look up.

"Oh by the way, conscious decision making, this isn't a trait that has been evolved biologically? LOL."

It has evolved biologically, but you're still comparing the temporary political and societal fortunes of a population group (not even a biological one - what exactly would you say is the biological distinction between, say, Rudolf Hess and Dietrich Bonhoeffer?) over a generation or two and pretending these have something to do with the biological theory of evolution.

"So every animal in the animal kingdom is on the verge of extinction? LOL."

You think every animal in the animal kingdom acts immorally? Quite a statement.

But when you look at human populations, which populations do you think are more likely to survive, the ones you consider moral or immoral?

radar said...

It would appear that wisdom would leave this post up one more day without putting another atop it so we draw enough comments to produce a part two.

Like Pat Benatar would say, "Hit me with your best shot - fire away!"

Seriously, Jon Woolf has long forgotten that derision is not an argument. I am going to review and reply to logical comments that touch on the subject matter. Complaining about the linked reproduction of material or so-called "quote mining" is of no interest to me and does not comprise an argument.

If you want to state that something is right or wrong you will need to provide the authority by which you make that claim. Highboy and I have the Judeo-Christian standard which is foundational to the Christian faith. Are you also standing on that or do you point to another standard and be specific.

highboy said...

"And exactly what beef do you have with his philosophical arguments against the existence of God? Would you consider yourself objective enough to judge them without blinders? You're even confused about naturalism."

You can keep saying I'm confused about naturalism but until you actually demonstrate how, you realise its pretty much moot yes? As for Dawkins, his arguments against God are childish and adolescent, which I already pointed out. Example: "If God is the creator of all, who created God?" Really?

"And these were biological traits the Nazis had, but the Jews didn't? (Wonder what Albert Einstein would have to say about that.)"

According to natural selection and naturalism, nature took its course.

"Did the Jews naturally evolve since 1945 so that they now have the biological traits that permit them to now have nukes? And the Arab nations surrounding them somehow lack the biological traits to build nukes? Is that really what you want to argue?"

*buzzer* Wrong, try again. You stated that it was mechanical means and a conscious decision that allowed the extermination of 6 million Jews. But the biological traits used to make mechanical means to do so are biological. You cannot refute this. Likewise, the ability to consciously decide to do something or not to do something is biological. All fall within a naturalistic framework, within the natural order. There is nothing "artificial" in anything we do, because all falls under the natural order. If we are all biological evolved creatures within the natural order, then the selecting done during the Holocaust was a natural action.

"You think every animal in the animal kingdom acts immorally? Quite a statement."

I didn't make it but nice evasion of the question.

"But when you look at human populations, which populations do you think are more likely to survive, the ones you consider moral or immoral?"

Well, I consider the Nazis immoral yet it was the Jews that were almost exterminated. See "morality" doesn't automatically equate with "survival". Your argument fails. Not to mention why are you only singling out humans? We're just another biological creature, same as every other animal. More complex? Sure. But that complexity doesn't make us any more/less natural than any other species, and any action we take is still a matter of natural selection. If one species of animal kills off another, we deem it natural selection. Humanity is no different simply because it makes a conscious decision. No where in the theory of natural selection is any distinction drawn between the two.

Anonymous said...

Well, I consider the Nazis immoral yet it was the Jews that were almost exterminated.

Keyword: almost. Who eventually got a country while the others lost theirs?

---anonymous 2---

Jon Woolf said...

[shrug] OK, Radar. If that's the way you want to play...

From The Descent of Man, Chapter 5:

"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase."

and

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

(Emphasis added)

You can read both passages in full context via the Gutenberg Project's web version of The Descent of Man.

Much of Chapter 5 is rather painful for the modern reader, since it reflects the racism and class prejudice that were common in Victorian England. However, no objective reader could doubt that Darwin thought morality was a Good Thing, that he thought natural selection alone would drive the human race toward improvement, and that he would have been adamantly opposed to both eugenics and 'social darwinism' had he lived long enough to see either take shape.

Anonymous said...

"Seriously, Jon Woolf has long forgotten that derision is not an argument."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Mr. Woolf has presented you with a truck load of scientific questions and issues, and you don't even seem to realize it. Amazing.

Exactly how many arguments do you actually engage with, instead of offering mere derision? Mr. "Darwinists-are-afraid-of-debate"... just how often have you tried to wiggle out of an argument with some vague complaints about rabbit trails?

Mr. Woolf has given you TONS of arguments that you've run away from while spewing, guess what?... derisive comments. Which as you rightly point out, is not an argument.

Please explain this:

anonymous, you are making such ridiculous statements that you approach the brainless boobness stage. You just make statements with no evidence and pretend that you have some authority. You are simply a troll.

... which amusingly enough was immediately followed by a complete lie (incidentally... also not an argument).

So what was your argument exactly? Derision and a lie?

Hope you're not proud of that one.

"I am going to review and reply to logical comments that touch on the subject matter."

That would be new territory for you, no? Amazing that you can accuse Dawkins even though he just follows those exact standards.

Anonymous said...

"Complaining about the linked reproduction of material or so-called "quote mining" is of no interest to me and does not comprise an argument."

Pasting entire articles at length is perhaps not unethical, but certainly lazy, and just a bit weird when your own comments make it clear you don't have the intellectual acumen to comprehend their meaning... but that aside, the bigger problem is that you don't grasp how completely dishonest quote-mining is.

And what's this about complaining that commenters are anonymous instead of using their proper names?You mean proper names like "Radar" and "highboy", which I'm sure must be exactly what it says on your baptismal certificate?

As for quote-mining. Wow. You don't understand that quote-mining is tantamount to lying? You're joking, right?

Taking a sentence out of context when it is clear that the remaining context completely changes the meaning, and then using that combined with the authority of the person to pretend they said something opposite to their own beliefs...

... you don't understand the dishonesty of that?

Are you kidding me?

Radar, as I understand it from your blog, you have children. Who are adult. What do they make of this?

Can you tell me what they think on the specific subject of quote-mining? Take a look at the link above. Would they say that that is right or wrong?

What exactly are you teaching them about the Ninth Commandment, you Christian you?

What exactly does all your pontificating about absolute morality amount to if you can't even get that one right? Seems like you're abdicating that issue off the bat.

I'm confident in predicting that you'll absolutely evade this question, and I dare you to prove me wrong.

highboy said...

"Keyword: almost. Who eventually got a country while the others lost theirs?"

Ha! Touche'.

Anonymous said...

"If you want to state that something is right or wrong you will need to provide the authority by which you make that claim."

You want to claim moral superiority while spreading lies?

You want to proclaim absolute morality while condoning dishonesty?

And you have no idea how absurd that is?

It appears you're married to, as Canucklehead put it, the "sky-daddy". But again, as with YEC, you're not thinking it through, or even considering which is the cart and which is the horse.

"Highboy and I have the Judeo-Christian standard which is foundational to the Christian faith."

While I'm sure you'd like to see yourself as morally superior or at least adequate, please explain how you justify the plain lie of quote-mining with the commandment that states that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Seems hypocritical to me, but perhaps you have a vastly sophisticated answer to this. But something tells me you'll just run away again. Funny that.

Perhaps you know there's a perfectly simple and Christian way out of this: admit your sin, ask for forgiveness and move on.

But regrettably you suffer from at least one of the 7 Deadly Sins - PRIDE - which is stopping you from doing this.

"Are you also standing on that or do you point to another standard and be specific."

Please explain why Christians today (and human society in general) don't follow the Bible to the letter. Therein lies your answer.

If you need additional hints: read up on Christian humanism. I know it may seem like gobbledygook to you, but maybe it's not too late to teach an old dog new tricks.

Anonymous said...

"Ha! Touche'."

And the death-knell to your absurd claim re. this being natural selection in action.

Hope you enjoyed playing, dude.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

Not to mention why are you only singling out humans? We're just another biological creature, same as every other animal. More complex? Sure. But that complexity doesn't make us any more/less natural than any other species, and any action we take is still a matter of natural selection. If one species of animal kills off another, we deem it natural selection. Humanity is no different simply because it makes a conscious decision. No where in the theory of natural selection is any distinction drawn between the two.

Your understanding of natural selection and artificial selection is so far off from general usage of those terms. While I see your point(don't necessarily agree with you), when there is some sort of common understanding of a term's meaning, that is what that term means. If you are ever using the term natural selection, you should let the person you are talking to know that you have completely redefined natural selection to include what they most likely consider artificial selection (well, if they've done any reading on evolution, biology,...).


lava

highboy said...

"And the death-knell to your absurd claim re. this being natural selection in action.

Hope you enjoyed playing, dude."

Yeah the killing of the 6,000,000 Jews isn't a mark of Nazi dominance, even for a brief period of time, because Israel has its own country. LOL. Methinks you misunderstood my humor. Fact is, history is replete with immoral civilizations exercising dominance for long periods of time. Just because they eventually peter out is not even close to evidence that morality=greater chance of survival. Its simply laughable.

"Your understanding of natural selection and artificial selection is so far off from general usage of those terms. While I see your point(don't necessarily agree with you), when there is some sort of common understanding of a term's meaning, that is what that term means. If you are ever using the term natural selection, you should let the person you are talking to know that you have completely redefined natural selection to include what they most likely consider artificial selection (well, if they've done any reading on evolution, biology,...)."

Yes, I'm familiar with the tactic of using word salad to try and disprove someone else's valid point, but at the end of the day, you can disagree all you want but I'm simply using the naturalist point of view. If different species killing off other species that have inferior biological traits is natural selection, if one animal killing another is survival of the fittest and simply nature taking its course, than there is nothing artificial about this same concept among humans, which in the naturalist worldview is just another biological species. Nothing in Darwinism distinguishes between conscious decision making among this selection and pure basic instinct. We can't look at animal behavior as nature taking its course and then act like the same behavior amongst humans has a moral sense of "ought" to it for no other reason than our complexity. If a lion kills another lion, nature took its course. If a human kills another human, as far as naturalism goes, its nature taking its course. Our complexity doesn't change that. The complexity doesn't obligate, it merely gives us superior biological traits. There is no right or wrong in it. It just is. Same with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah the killing of the 6,000,000 Jews isn't a mark of Nazi dominance, even for a brief period of time, because Israel has its own country"

Not a mark of Nazis having superior biological traits. Are you determined to misunderstand and misrepresent?

Anonymous said...

"you can disagree all you want but I'm simply using the naturalist point of view."

No, you're using a misrepresentation/distortion of naturalism. That's why I'm genuinely surprised you sat through what, 2 years of theology classes. Something must have gone wrong there. What school was this?

"If a human kills another human, as far as naturalism goes, its nature taking its course."

Was the temporary fortune of the Nazis in terms of political strength and military power linked to a biological trait? If not, then any attempt to link it to Darwin's theory of evolution is misguided.

highboy said...

"Was the temporary fortune of the Nazis in terms of political strength and military power linked to a biological trait? If not, then any attempt to link it to Darwin's theory of evolution is misguided."

there is no trait that a biological creature can use that isn't biological, be it mental or physical.

"No, you're using a misrepresentation/distortion of naturalism. "

says the one who can't demonstrate the claim. I've already demonstrated the validity of my point and all you can do repeatedly is claim I'm misrepresenting both the naturalist worldview and natural selection. If you can't demonstrate how, you're pissing in the wind. So here's your chance slick: what trait could a human species possess to impose their will on another human species that is NOT biological?

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

there is no trait that a biological creature can use that isn't biological, be it mental or physical.

So that means that when people do 'good' things, like for instance the relief efforts for the Asia Tsunami & the Haiti earthquake victims, or the rescue of the Chilean miners, or any other act of charity, be it big or small, is based on purely biological traits?

But that complexity doesn't make us any more/less natural than any other species, and any action we take is still a matter of natural selection.

So all the actions described above are a matter of natural selection?

---anonymous 2---

highboy said...

"So that means that when people do 'good' things, like for instance the relief efforts for the Asia Tsunami & the Haiti earthquake victims, or the rescue of the Chilean miners, or any other act of charity, be it big or small, is based on purely biological traits?"

what trait can a human possess that isn't biological?

Anonymous said...

Does that mean your answer to my question is 'yes'? All acts of human charity, self-sacrifice, bravery, courage, as well as love and friendship are purely biological traits?

---anonymous 2---

Anonymous said...

"Was the temporary fortune of the Nazis in terms of political strength and military power linked to a biological trait? If not, then any attempt to link it to Darwin's theory of evolution is misguided."

"there is no trait that a biological creature can use that isn't biological, be it mental or physical."

You're sidestepping the question, intentionally or otherwise.

"No, you're using a misrepresentation/distortion of naturalism. "

"says the one who can't demonstrate the claim."

The claim that you're using a misrepresentation/distortion of naturalism? It's similar to the one Radar's peddling when he pretends that everything that isn't made of molecules (e.g. abstract concepts) is supernatural.

It's a false dichotomy, pure and simple.

"I've already demonstrated the validity of my point"

Where? You've only made a point, you haven't demonstrated its validity - because you ignore the obvious complaint that you're misrepresenting naturalism.

"So here's your chance slick: what trait could a human species possess to impose their will on another human species that is NOT biological?"

Read the question again and stop evading: was the temporary fortune of the Nazis in terms of political strength and military power linked to a biological trait?

highboy said...

"Where? You've only made a point, you haven't demonstrated its validity - because you ignore the obvious complaint that you're misrepresenting naturalism."

Because you've ignored the request for proof that I'm misrepresenting naturalism, which you've done again.

"You're sidestepping the question, intentionally or otherwise."

No I didn't, at least if you know how to read. The answer to the question is yes, according to natural selection. According to natural selection, survival and dominance as a favored race is based on superior traits, so according to the theory, it would be linked biologically.

So let's get to the part where YOU stop evading and answer the question: what traits can a human possess to impose its will on another race that is NOT biological?

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

Since you're talking about answering a question: what's your answer to MY question: are all acts of human charity, self-sacrifice, bravery, courage, as well as love and friendship and all other human actions which we consider 'good' purely biological traits?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

above comment posted by ---anonymous 2---

highboy said...

"Since you're talking about answering a question: what's your answer to MY question: "

Wow, are you people seriously this childish? What part of "there is no human trait that isn't biological" are people not getting? Or is the constant repeating of a question I've already answered just delaying while you figure out how to respond to mine? The answer is yes. Its biological. So any more evasions? Or can someone actually explain to me what trait a human can possess that isn't there biologically?

Anonymous said...

Whoa! Take it easy there! I just asked a question; you could've simply answered with 'yes' in the first place, no?

Anyway, since you stated that these acts are purely biological traits, how does this fit in with your earlier statement that any action we take is an matter of natural selection?

highboy said...

"Anyway, since you stated that these acts are purely biological traits, how does this fit in with your earlier statement that any action we take is an matter of natural selection?"

Um, natural selection and biology are pretty much attached to the hip there fella.

Anonymous said...

OK, but how does that work exactly?

You state that all human traits are biological and that all human acts are a matter of natural selection; how exactly does natural selection work when someone for instance helps an old lady cross the street, or donates a kidney, or does volunteer work for Amnesty International or the Red Cross?

Just trying to understand your position here; no need for stress. ;)

---anonymous 2---

Anonymous said...

Since you insist on not reading the question and keep harping one another issue, allow me to make a small amendment so that perhaps you can understand it better:

Was the temporary fortune of the Nazis in terms of political strength and military power linked to a trait?

Anonymous said...

"Because you've ignored the request for proof that I'm misrepresenting naturalism, which you've done again."

You're pretending that volition is not possible under either methodological (scientific) or metaphysical naturalism, which is not what either of them dictate. Volition is not in conflict with either form of naturalism. (You didn't specify which one you had in mind, which amounts to part of your obfuscation on this subject.)

Obviously I can't prove that negative short of having you read everything there is to know about naturalism (not the worst idea in the world - but I can hardly post it in the comments here), so it is up to you to demonstrate how methodological/metaphysical (pick one) naturalism negates volition.

When selection is done as a matter of volition rather than biological traits being selected over time for better survival/reproduction through a process of trial and error, you're not talking about natural selection, but artificial selection. Hence my previous question.

I hate to be disagreeable when you're being so consistently charming, but it appears you're not terribly well-informed on several of the subjects you've chosen to comment about. A little reading outside what appears to be your comfort zone wouldn't go amiss. And I for one would be quite annoyed with that school you went to if I graduated from there and still had such gaps in my knowledge. I suspect it's not your fault and you're simply a victim in this scenario.

highboy said...

"When selection is done as a matter of volition rather than biological traits being selected over time for better survival/reproduction through a process of trial and error, you're not talking about natural selection, but artificial selection."

Which makes no sense in any way whatsoever, as I already pointed out. The "artificial" selection being done is being done by natural means. Period. If its natural, its not artificial. Volition is natural, which is why your accusation that I'm misrepresenting naturalism is so amusing. I'm not arguing that volition and naturalism are exclusive. I'm saying that volition is natural, and as such, selection done as a matter of volition is still natural selection.

Anonymous said...

I'm saying that volition is natural, and as such, selection done as a matter of volition is still natural selection.

So when someone helps an old lady across the street, or donates a kidney, or does volunteer work for Amnesty International or the Red Cross that's also natural selection, since you earlier stated that all human acts are a matter of natural selection? How exactly does that work?

---anonymous 2---

Anonymous said...

Highboy, please define "artificial".

Anonymous said...

Or, better yet, name something artificial.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't be that hard, Highboy...

highboy said...

"Highboy, please define "artificial"."

Not natural? And no, it wasn't hard. Sorry I can't always check every 10 seconds to see if some anonymous poster ever replied.

highboy said...

But thanks again for totally evading my question. But your reluctance pretty much gives me my answer.

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

You didn't answer my question. ;-)

--anonymous 2--

P.S.: talking about artificial; like Anonymous I'm also curious as to what you would call 'artificial', i.e. what's an example of something artificial?

radar said...

Woolf again calls me a liar with no reason nor proof. You are the one who runs away from arguments and responds to questions that touch the very base of problems with scattershot series of unrelated things and then consider that an answer? Oh how I would love to have an open debate with you in real time. You cannot even deal with information so no point denying it. You resort to calling me a liar and that is a lie. You say I am a quote miner but if the quote fits, wear it!

I do not think your baseless accusations convince many people of anything.

radar said...

Also this is not so much about Darwin and very much about Darwinism. Naturalistic atheistic materialistic macroevolution. It is an illogical and ridiculous fairy tale but it has slain millions and so battle the idea I must.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism. Naturalistic atheistic materialistic macroevolution."

Ah, finally Radar comes up with a definition of "Darwinism". Except it makes no sense whatsoever, neither on its own terms nor in the way he uses it - for example, in the post following this one, he asks if "[Naturalistic atheistic materialistic macroevolution] is bad". Well, no, macroevolution isn't bad at all. It's actually pretty dang good, and the reason we're all here.

On its own terms, the definition is nonsensical. There is nothing "atheistic" about macroevolution, no matter how naturalistic or materialistic it is. Just because something doesn't feature God doesn't mean it's atheistic.

Anonymous said...

"Not natural? And no, it wasn't hard. Sorry I can't always check every 10 seconds to see if some anonymous poster ever replied."

I read in an earlier post that you receive e-mail notifications whenever there's a follow-up on a post you comment on. That would mean that you actually don't have to check (every ten seconds or otherwise) - so why would you pretend that now?

Okay, so you're choosing to define artificial as "not natural".

You chose not to answer the second question, so I'll be more specific now: can you name something - anything - that's artificial that is not made of things that are ultimately natural?

"But thanks again for totally evading my question. But your reluctance pretty much gives me my answer."

No reluctance. No evasion. My questions are in service of getting to the answer (as I think anonymous 2 has already figured out and I thought you would have too).

Anonymous said...

"It is an illogical and ridiculous fairy tale but it has slain millions and so battle the idea I must."

1. You're chasing windmills. What has "slain millions" is not Darwin's theory of evolution, but the misguided schemes of twisted minds. I notice you don't blame Jesus or his teachings for the actions of those who twisted the Christian faith into following actions that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts etc., nor would you dismiss Jesus or his teachings as a result of those events.

It's the same with scientific theories. Just because someone draws erroneous conclusions from a scientific theory or uses his or her own conclusions for misguided purposes doesn't mean that that the scientific theory itself is wrong.

2. If the Nazis really based their philosophy on Darwin's theory, then why did they see fit to ban any books on Darwinian evolution? Doesn't make any sense in terms of what you're saying. But it's a fact.

3. You can call evolution a fairy tale all you want, but I have yet to see you - or any creationist - come up with a single actual falsification that isn't based on some massive logical fallacy. And on the flipside, YEC is falsified in multiple ways that creationists always have to hem and haw their way around. Anyone who really subscribes to worldview (2) above would not be swayed into your camp.

Anonymous said...

"Woolf again calls me a liar with no reason nor proof."

He provided the proof right then and there, Radar.

"Oh how I would love to have an open debate with you in real time."

That would be a sight to see indeed. I'd wager Woolf has forgotten more about evolution over a glass of whiskey than you've ever managed to get into your head in a lifetime.

"You cannot even deal with information so no point denying it."

Is this about your fantasy argument that information is supernatural? You're way out there on that one - you might even want to check in with some people on your own side, perhaps they can set you straight on this. Information is not supernatural.

Your lack of open-minded inquisition has saddled you with the need to dismiss other philosophies a priori instead of rationally comprehending them and then placing them in your worldview accordingly.

Perhaps that is part of your problem. Your worldview, like your understanding of science and politics, suffers from an unfortunate mental habit of picking a conclusion and only then looking at all the facts, with no flexibility from that point on. As can be seen on this blog, it leads to an endless parade of misunderstandings, distortions and re-definitions of commonly understood terms.

"You resort to calling me a liar and that is a lie. You say I am a quote miner but if the quote fits, wear it!"

Still don't get what quote mining is and why it's wrong? Seriously? Amazing. Your overbearing pride (one of the deadly sins, as it happens) does you no favors here.

"I do not think your baseless accusations convince many people of anything."

Projecting much?

Anonymous said...

Banned by the nazis:

"[...]

2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).

[...]"

Anonymous said...

Oh and this one (same link):

"c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

Anonymous said...

Oh no!

FACTS!

Quick, fundamentalist conspiracist freakoids, scatter to the winds!

IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY I TELL YA!!!

Anonymous said...

"How can you in good conscience dare to say that Darwinism has not been an evil influence on mankind and was part and parcel of the Nazi Holocaust?"

Well this is how. Facts.

Thanks for playing, you conspiracy-mongering fundamentalist freak.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, can you name something - anything - that's artificial that is not made of things that are ultimately natural?

Anonymous said...

Highboy, can you understand the concept that even though something consists of natural things or features natural things, the thing itself may not be natural?

The descriptors attached to "selection" in "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are used to describe the way in which the selection takes place, not necessarily the ultimate background of the agents or factors involved.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

I wouldn't bother. Personally, I think Highboy won't be coming back here to answer your question.

Anonymous said...

Rumor has it he receives e-mail updates of these things. Not that I doubt our prediction.

Anonymous said...

As for the facts demonstrating that Nazis were opposed to Darwinist thought and in favor of Christian propaganda, I take it that both Radar and Highboy are ceding the issue?

Pesky facts indeed.

Anonymous said...

"As for the facts demonstrating that Nazis were opposed to Darwinist thought and in favor of Christian propaganda, I take it that both Radar and Highboy are ceding the issue?

Pesky facts indeed."

I stand on the evidence. The Nazi's made an attempt to appear respectable by promoting such nonsense while in reality and practice they not only acted upon Darwinism and Hitler was not only inspired by Darwinism, they threw the Christians that opposed their practices into camps along with the Jews as political prisoners.

Charles Darwin made a few comments to mollify his wife and society about God and the church but he was an atheist. Your "facts" are unsupported propaganda and I stand firmly on what I have written and what many researchers have agreed upon. Darwinism was key to Nazi thinking and practice and they acted upon it. This is explained by Nazi experts at sites in Germany. You are wrong. Period. Take your BS propaganda elsewhere.

radar from gerreoc

Anonymous said...

"Your "facts" are unsupported propaganda"

No, they are the actual documented lists of books banned by Nazis.

Your allegation that they are unsupported is not just unsupported, but false. As Jon Woolf has advised you not too long ago, you really must learn to check sources before you make a fool of yourself.

"I stand on the evidence"

And yet the evidence stands against you.

"The Nazi's made an attempt to appear respectable by promoting such nonsense"

What they promoted was Christian propaganda. What they opposed were Darwinist texts. Documented fact.

"Hitler was not only inspired by Darwinism"

Proof? And why would the Nazis then deem Darwin's texts and anything related to it as "false scientific enlightenment"?

You can't explain it. Fine.

Anonymous said...

"they threw the Christians that opposed their practices into camps along with the Jews as political prisoners."

Indeed they did. Because the persons in question opposed their practices. That doesn't mean they opposed Christianity.

"You are wrong. Period."

Rock-solid reasoning there, huh?

"Take your BS propaganda elsewhere."

Did anyone here see Radar explain how the fact that Nazis banned books on Darwinian evolution while promoting books that promoted Christianity fits into his allegations?

No? Me neither. Just some huffing about "BS propaganda" and fact-free attempts at an Appeal to Authority.

Your earlier claims that "Darwinism has [...] been an evil influence on mankind and was part and parcel of the Nazi Holocaust" is disproven by facts in evidence that you have categorically not been able to explain away.

Ah, those pesky facts. Annoying when they get in the way, isn't it?

And just waving that magic "IT'S PROPAGANDA!" wand doesn't make them go away. Funny that.

Anonymous said...

Me make a fool of MYSELF??!!

You idiots are using what the Nazis said, propaganda, and running with it while I did a series of long articles showing what they actually did and documenting why. The Nazis SAID many things to fool the West and their own people while building up their armies and executing a plan to take over the Western World.

The Nazis SAID they would not invade Poland...or France...or Russia. I suppose you are going to tell me they didn't do that, either? Your ridiculous fifth grade level research against my documented and researched articles? That is ridiculous!!!

Radar to the unschooled mob

Anonymous said...

Come on Radar, we all know who the biggest "idiot" is here (Hint... It's you! Although hb comes in a close second).

I mean, the fact that you think you can hold your own with geologists, palaeontologists, evolutionary biologists etc. just demonstrates how you are THE poster boy for the
Dunning Kruger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

In case you don't follow the link, essentially it means you are too stupid to know just how wrong you are.

And shame on any parent that allows you to pollute the minds of their children. Make no mistake Radar, you are doing these alleged teens you talk to no favors by foisting your narrow minded christian literalism upon them.

So, would you please just get over yourself already. This whole blog is just so pathetic.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and it was interesting to see highboy simply disappear from the discussion once he painted himself into a corner. Also neat to see him try to say that he doesn't know when replies are posed as he ,in fact, has told us how he receives email notification when new comments are made in threads where he has commented. That lying liar.

Anonymous said...

"Me make a fool of MYSELF??!!"

Well yeah, that's been clearly demonstrated, in case you didn't notice. Your inability to come up with any kind of rebuttal while sputtering about propaganda is amusing, but not persuasive.

"I did a series of long articles showing what they actually did and documenting why"

... and somehow in doing all that you managed to skip over the fact that the Nazis banned books on Darwinian evolution, called the theory of evolution a "false scientific enlightenment", and promoted books promoting Christianity.

Interesting.

That just didn't show up on your radar, did it?

Maybe that radar's a little... faulty?

And now you attempt to change the subject and introduce a strawman - the last resort of the fool who's painted himself into a corner.

"Your ridiculous fifth grade level research against my documented and researched articles?"

As demonstrated above... not terribly well documented and researched, since you (or rather the authors that you so gullibly cut-n-pasted from) missed some basic facts that leave your oh-so-beloved narrative in the dust.

BTW, what you call "ridiculous fifth grade level research" happens to be university research, courtesy of the University of Arizona. Can't even get that right.

Again, Radar - maybe it'll sink in one of these days - always check sources, both yours and other people's, or you'll make an utter fool of yourself. Oh wait -

"Me make a fool of MYSELF??!!"

- yeah... too late, huh?

Looking forward to your next fact-free sputter.

Anonymous said...

Dunning-Kruger effect indeed. Nice find.

Anonymous said...

Stop it, people! You'll make Radar cry.

Anonymous said...

Could've sworn he had been crying while writing that most recent comment of his above.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, if Canucklehead disagrees with me that is like a guarantee that I am right.

Again, we see that the Nazis did base their actions on the Darwinist Eugenics philosophy that was being popularized in Western civilization at the turn of that century. If you know your US history (and most of you apparently do NOT) you know that we practiced Eugenics in the USA via sterilization. Hitler and others took it further, straight to genocide.

If you are willing to try to prop up canards about Hitler using the propaganda the Nazis cranked out to fool the world and their unwitting citizenry then I fear you are about as bright as Chamerlain when he kowtowed to Hitler and signed a useless peace document, the Munich Agreement, which gave Hitler the Sudetenland if he would PLEASE just stop there and be a good dictator.

My article makes a good, strong case for the link between Darwin and Eugenics and Hitler and legalized abortion in the USA and around the world today. When men began to believe that life was by chance rather than a gift from God and the purpose is determined by individuals and not by God, when man then makes his own rules and the strong overpower the weak without fear, then you have your Hitlers and Stalins and Maos and your Obamas and your Planned Parenthood Clinics. You have legalized euthanasia.

Did the Nazis have a biological advantage? That is a trick question for a naturalist since they think EVERYTHING is natural so the answer would be yes. They were stronger so they killed whom they wished and took what they wanted until somebody stronger came along to stop them.

radar = espoped

Anonymous said...

... he muttered, completely evading the question posed to him.

Sorry Radar, your pride's writing checks that your facts and intellect can't cash.

"My article makes a good, strong case for the link between Darwin and Eugenics and Hitler and legalized abortion in the USA and around the world today."

Ah, if only it weren't falsified by facts in evidence that you can't address.

You were busted. Move on.

Anonymous said...

"Did the Nazis have a biological advantage? That is a trick question for a naturalist since they think EVERYTHING is natural so the answer would be yes."

No, not a trick question. The Nazis had a temporary political and organizational advantage, not a biological one. They didn't have superior minds to design weapons, nor were their bodies better equipped to fight or to construct weapons.

You misunderstand naturalism completely. A naturalist doesn't deny the existence of artificial things, nor does he deny the existence of abstract concepts. (That is where you are so bizarrely lost on the issue of information...)

What you're presenting is a common logical fallacy (hint, that means you're wrong). You can check out the details here: "Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property."

Anything artificial that you could ever care to name would, when broken down into smaller parts, at some point consist of natural components. That doesn't mean that the larger grouping is not artificial. Actually, taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, nothing artificial could ever exist.

Anonymous said...

I should note that it was legendary Radaractive commenter creeper that first dropped Dunning-Kruger on Radar. The description just fits him so well, I like to point it out as often as possible, especially when he blathers on about subjects he knows nothing about, like evolution, natural selection, the Nazi stance on Darwin, etc., etc., etc.

Oh and Radar, since you say "Did the Nazis have a biological advantage? ... the answer would be yes." does this mean that you are a white supremacist or just a german supremacist? Der Fuhrer would be so proud of you.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Canucklehead, I said a naturalistic atheist would say yes to your question about a biological advantage. Trust me, based on your comments you have no worries about exerting a biological advantage over anything...In the world of the naturalist when it gets right down to it, might makes right.

mullesce - to mull over something without having the background in history, philosophy and science to comment intelligently. Canucklehead and my word verification go together nicely.

Anonymous said...

Thats a pretty sweet "naturalistic atheist" straw man you've got there, bud. That said, I refuse to argue with one of Radar's sock puppets.

Although, does anyone else wonder why our host insists on using his sock puppet to pick on little old "incapable-of-intelligently-commenting" me?

Why don't you answer the two smart comments above mine? You massive coward.

- Canucklehead.

P.S. - Seriously though, anonymous insults in response, Radar? Is this really what you've become?

Anonymous said...

Wow, it's no wonder creationists like Radar are so afraid of facts. All that's propping up their religion are a bunch of strawmen, fallacies and a woeful misunderstanding of science, philosophy and a host of other things.

Dunning-Kruger indeed.

Anonymous said...

"I said a naturalistic atheist would say yes to your question about a biological advantage."

Actually, a naturalistic atheist would point out the blatant flaws in your argument, as any reader can clearly see above.

No need to repeat them. You're unable to address them. 'Nuff said.

The state of creationism is a sad one indeed. No facts, no arguments, just a load of misdirection and bluster. The hypocrisy of people like you gives the Christian religion a bad name.

Anonymous said...

So Radar's run away from this argument so he can badmouth people with different worldviews in his new post. My, what a coward. Must be that superior moral code.