Search This Blog

Friday, March 15, 2013

Beating the dead horse of Darwinism - Second half of Ian Juby's Dark Side of Darwin.

An exchange of comments and then the second video farther down the on the page.  While I was not planning on looking at the foundations of Darwinism and Christianity and comparing them, Ian's videos are quite clear representations of the arguments and therefore I chose to present them.  We do still have Buck v. Bell as law in the USA and of course Roe v. Wade is in place, so Eugenics is alive and well in the USA, which means millions of innocent babies are not.  Hmmmmmm.

The first-person account of life for a girl in Nazi Germany and how Hitler declared Sunday "National Youth Day" to take the kids away from parents and church and insure that they would be properly indoctrinated.  Hitler was an Atheopath!

The Nazis were absolutely devoted Darwinists but Germans before Hitler were much the same.

Darwinism and Eugenics - the diseased worldview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Jon W said...
By the exact same logic, one can dismiss the entire religion of Christianity out of hand because of the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and the Catholic Church religious-abuse scandals.

I don't accept that reasoning. Why do you?
radar said...
I expected that one! The Catholic Church at that time was not really Christian at all, they were a set of rulers intent on keeping the people ignorant and paying indulgences while terrorizing those who resisted. They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality. There was one Pope who raped whatever virgins he desired and one who was actually a woman! At that time the Catholic Church was joined at the hip with the royals, just as the Jewish leaders of the time of Christ were leeching off of and afraid to offend Rome. Jesus Christ had harsh words for them and would have lambasted the Spanish Inquisition in no uncertain terms as well. Witch burnings were even less common than Wild West fast-draw gunfights, idiotic superstitious unbiblical behavior! 

Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows in which they display their "power with God" or preaching prosperity via sending THEM money!!! Normal Christians cringe at the Benny Hinns and Robert Tiltons, charlatans who convince people to enrich them, fly in private jets, have millions of dollars and are about as Christian as Lenin or Hitler!

Even Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwinian philosophy would make for terrible government and morality at different times.

Jesus said that the two primary points of Christianity were to:

1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Love God with all that is in you

Darwinism is based on:

1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak

So when we look at the foundational morality of Christianity versus Darwinism, we see opposing positions. The United States was built on Christian principles. Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union were built on Darwinist foundations.

Of course a Darwinist can be a great neighbor and fine fellow and of course a Christian can be a deceptive and selfish person. In both cases they are not acting in accordance with the underlying philosophy of their worldviews. It remains true that the Darwinist worldview is fundamental to Fascism/Socialism/Communism and certainly Machiavellian dictatorship. It remains true that the USA was founded upon Christian principles and we are destroying ourselves by accepting Socialist and Darwinist concepts.
Jon W said...
"They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality."

Exactly. And Stalin, Hitler, and the others you listed were going against the theory of evolution as Darwin stated it.

"Darwinism is based on:

1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak"

Half right. Yes, evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," but what that means depends on how fitness is defined. Darwin himself argued strongly that for a highly social species such as Homo sapiens, cooperation and mutual support is a better path than competition and conflict. In other words, he argued that for humankind, the strong should support and aid the weak, not that the strong should overpower the weak.
radar said...
Darwin was a very depressed individual in his later days. He was conflicted over what the results of his hypotheses would be. It is no surprise that he argued against applying the Darwinist morality to humankind although you know as well as I that he did see the conundrum there.

An English gentleman, Darwin would not be in favor of uncouth behavior because of his training. I have a lot of, I don't know, pity, for the guy. He was raised in a home where so-called Christianity was just a ritual to make them acceptable to society. He lost his favorite daughter and considered God to be unjust. His grandfather was a devoted Atheopath. Darwin would never accept what the moral implications of his works meant.

But his cousin Francis Galton certainly did, as did his contemporaries Karl Marx and Thomas Huxley. Social change in a tyrannical and murderous direction was in part due to Darwin's claims and this cannot be disputed. The very words of Marx, Engels and Hitler confirm it. The Socialist Party still maintains Darwin's evolution is a part of their fundamental philosophy.

What evolution claims to be is survival of the fittest and that mutation drives natural selection to change organisms on an upward path. This is not observed but rather organisms are on a downward path - extinctions, mutations, loss of genetic information. I would also say that Darwinism has led to the downward spiral of human morality in the Western world. Depravity and murdering of babies and a frontal assault on Christianity can be laid at Darwin's feet.
Anonymous said...
"Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows"

Seems to me you missed the essential point of Jon's first post. Should the "so-called preachers" be taken as justification to dismiss the entire Christianity package in its entirety?

I would think not. And I don't think you'd agree with that sentiment either.

But that is exactly the kind of argument you're presenting in posts like these.
radar said...
No I am NOT making that same argument. Jon is talking about how some Christians (in name only or otherwise) act against their basic foundational belief system. I am not arguing about merely the actions of some individuals. I am pointing out what the fundamental belief system of the two worldviews are and where it leads if obeyed.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I am not arguing about merely the actions of some individuals. I am pointing out what the fundamental belief system of the two worldviews are and where it leads if obeyed."

And as Jon pointed out, you're wrong about that. The theory of evolution doesn't dictate eugenics or lying in textbooks.

radar said...

Sorry, I am right. Since Darwinism is all about the individual fighting for survival first and foremost, then lying and cheating and killing are perfectly fine. Where is the underlying morality of Darwinism? That Darwin did not think society should follow the idea to the logical conclusion is of no consequence. The world has been following it and we are seeing the results.

Eugenics was directly derived from Darwin's ideas, started by his cousin Francis Galton and promoted by Darwinists around the world. You would be amazed at the number of Americans who praised Hitler in the early years of the Hitler regime.

Woodrow Wilson promoted Eugenics and racism based on Darwinism in early 20th Century America. The Eugenics movement changed their names and then low and behold, they are suddenly Planned Parenthood! Margaret Sanger's philosophy and organization changed the name and the group changed tactics. If they could not sterilize people of color or people with certain syndromes, they could go after their offspring. Same philosophy, different approach.

Jon is no authority and my experience has been that whatever he believes about origins or fossil rocks or philosophy will be wrong. He is something of an expert about fantasy novels. Apparently he is a pretty good photographer and is very interested in the fossil rocks. He just can't see the forest for the trees. I could take a group for a field trip down the Colorado River and point out features in the Grand Canyon that are strong evidence for a global flood accompanied by crustal disaster and volcanic activity, a massive runoff and an Ice Age with additional dike-break floods.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, I am right. Since Darwinism is all about the individual fighting for survival first and foremost"

Ah yes, the ever-so confident "Sorry, I am right" followed by such a profound misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not about "the individual fighting for survival first and foremost", it says that a species seeks to survive, spread and reproduce optimally, with varying degrees of success. The more successful such attempts are, the more likely the species is to succeed and propagate.

"then lying and cheating and killing are perfectly fine"

Not fine at all if group cohesion are a factor in survival and reproduction, as happens to be the case for homo sapiens...

"Where is the underlying morality of Darwinism?"

There is no underlying morality to the theory of evolution, any more than there is to the theory of gravity. It is compatible with many philosophies and religions.

"Jon is no authority"

He has consistently proven himself to be more knowledgeable than you on all the subjects he's posted about. Note how he can actually discuss subjects intelligently without resorting to endless cut and paste.

"and my experience has been that whatever he believes about origins or fossil rocks or philosophy will be wrong"

I can't recall you ever proving him wrong on anything. Perhaps you mean that your experience has been that you disagreed with him. But that doesn't mean that he's wrong.

Anonymous said...

I could take a group for a field trip down the Colorado River and point out features in the Grand Canyon that are strong evidence for a global flood accompanied by crustal disaster and volcanic activity, a massive runoff and an Ice Age with additional dike-break floods.

Man, I would pay good money to see that as long as I could bring along an actual geologist who works in the area. That would be some serious entertainment!

radar said...

1) You bring your geologist and I'll bring mine. It would be like playing chess with a fifth grader. Not your fault, really. Schools teach kids to memorize things and spit them back up on tests. Critical thinking is not taught unless a great individual teacher seeks to bring it out of his students.

Then you go to college and most of them are so liberal no one shakes their heads at Che Guevara t-shirts or profs with a picture of Marx or Mao on their wall. Social Darwinism is not only breaking down morality but dumbing-down the population.

Of course you may decide you agree with Jon and that is your right. Perhaps you haven't noticed that he keeps asking the same loaded questions and I make entire posts to cover the subject and yet later on he will come and do the same thing again? I grow weary of "large igneous provinces" which are evidence FOR the flood and his complete inability to even BEGIN to answer my questions. He probably owes me 30 before I answer another one of his.

Jon W said...

Radar, the only attempt you've ever made to answer the Large Igneous Provinces issue was this post:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/08/grab-shotgun-woolf-is-at-door-fire-off.html

in which you demonstrated conclusively that you didn't even understand the question, much less answer it. The issue is not the LIPs themselves; the issue is the presence of numerous fossiliferous strata, including trees and paleosols, in between the lava flows in Large Igneous Provinces. (For those who want to know more about this, the right search term to use is "intertrappean fossils" plus the specific LIP you're interested in -- Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps, etc.) Do you have any idea how long it takes for a layer of soil to form and trees to grow atop freshly hardened lava?

radar said...

Jon,

Actually only the Flood and post-Flood Ice Age provide the scenario by which your precious formations can easily happen.

I will make a blogpost on it to put an end to your continually wrong assertion. But work comes first. I promise it will be this week and I promise any readers that you'll see what I mean when I spell it out.